Tasmania

[madmug]

Because if they removed those clubs they would have less games meaning less tv rights money,

*We would still have the same number of teams.

plus they would lose supporters and anger many more.

*Why?, they would just go back to the VFL where they started anyway.

Plus they have the capacity to expand well beyond what tasmania does. For instance the western suburbs (bulldogs region) is the fastest growing in melbourne.

* Western Bulldogs seem to be slipping behind many other clubs. Home game attendances appear to have gone backwards over the last 10 seasons.

Its not embarrassing or a bad look.

* beg to differ

Noone apart from an angry tasmanian would ever say this is embarrassing for a team to play some home games in tasmania.

* Their seem to be some angry Hawthorn supporters who are not seeing their team as much as they think they should. Most put up with it because of the cash they need.

Even thugly league trolls just shrug and go... so? Tasmania wants footy, teams want money. WOW who woulda thought? no idea how u can say its unproffessional as well, ur just sour obviouslly and its clouding ur judgement.

* suit yourself, I'm not interested in what some imagined thugly league troll would say, whatever that is.

 

[The_Reaper]

U continue to put words into my mouth i never said to suit ur point... im not saying they should be happy with the football that they get, just said purely and simpley they asked for football and they got some football, so how is it an embarrassment? thats what i said so how about u take it for what it is and not change it to suit urself.

Its fairly obvious what tasmanians want, their own team. all ive said is my opinion as to why GWS/GC are far better options than Tasmania, also i've numerously stated i would like to see a tasmanian team in the future. but u think because i've listed points as to why a tasmanian team isnt the best option now i hate tasmania and then u come out and attack me. This is a thread to discuss a tasmanian team, so im sorry for putting my opinion which is different to urs, im clearly borderline obsessed on a team that doesnt even exist. (maybe im just bored coz its off season).

The question isn't whether GWS/GC is a better option.
The real question is whether a Tasmanian team is better than artifically propping up another Melbourne club.

 

[Kwality]

Because if they removed those clubs they would have less games meaning less tv rights money, plus they would lose supporters and anger many more. Plus they have the capacity to expand well beyond what tasmania does. For instance the western suburbs (bulldogs region) is the fastest growing in melbourne so in 10 years they could easily be much much bigger, whilst tasmania is not growing anywhere near as fast.

Its not embarrassing or a bad look. Noone apart from an angry tasmanian would ever say this is embarrassing for a team to play some home games in tasmania. Even thugly league trolls just shrug and go... so? Tasmania wants footy, teams want money. WOW who woulda thought? no idea how u can say its unproffessional as well, ur just sour obviouslly and its clouding ur judgement.

Its supposed to be an elite competition blaze & becauase there are too many teams in Melbourne its just not (compare with American footy).

WA had 8 teams, now 2, SA had 10, now 2 ... only Vic didnt rationalise & its coming home to roost with a steadily reducing standard of player & an inability to give Tassie the team they deserve & have proved can finance.

Remember when a WA based Commissioner didnt toe the Vic line, he got the flick, SO lets not wait for a Vic dominated AFL Commission to make any of the hard decisions.

 

[Verdun]

Because if they removed those clubs they would have less games meaning less tv rights money,

*We would still have the same number of teams.

plus they would lose supporters and anger many more.

*Why?, they would just go back to the VFL where they started anyway.

Plus they have the capacity to expand well beyond what tasmania does. For instance the western suburbs (bulldogs region) is the fastest growing in melbourne.

* Western Bulldogs seem to be slipping behind many other clubs. Home game attendances appear to have gone backwards over the last 10 seasons.

Its not embarrassing or a bad look.

* beg to differ

Noone apart from an angry tasmanian would ever say this is embarrassing for a team to play some home games in tasmania.

* Their seem to be some angry Hawthorn supporters who are not seeing their team as much as they think they should. Most put up with it because of the cash they need.

Even thugly league trolls just shrug and go... so? Tasmania wants footy, teams want money. WOW who woulda thought? no idea how u can say its unproffessional as well, ur just sour obviouslly and its clouding ur judgement.

* suit yourself, I'm not interested in what some imagined thugly league troll would say, whatever that is.

Good post once again madmug; bottom line Tas deserves more - paying money to prop up teams is ridiculous

 

[blaze036]

How is it a good post? I said if we remove clubs we'll get less games (aka less tv rights money) and he says "We would still have the same number of teams"...

And suggested kicking out traditional victorian teams wouldnt anger anyone or lose supporters because "they would just go back to the VFL anyway"

His other points arnt worth talking about

 

[Perry Pie]

There will be no new sides added to the competion for a long long time (if ever). The question is how does Tassie get its footy. At the moment it is one team part time (that has shown reasonable commitment - as long as the money lasts?) and another team that has flogged a couple of games into Hobart for money.

Tassie should have more than this meagre non commitment. The support given to the current teams by the Tasmanians is considerable so a stand alone team is going to be financially viable.

I think the Tasmanians have 2 choices. They could work to develop the two part-time team solution and try to get it up to 12 games in Tassie per year (6 from each club) with long-term commitment from each club in terms of permanent tasmanian establishment (eg the Hawks rename as the Hawthorn and Launceston Football Club). Or, higher risk, they could withdraw the support they give now and place an open relocation offer on the table for any club that wants to take it. (or perhaps support a 2 team merger + new tassie team).

 

[The_Reaper]

How is it a good post? I said if we remove clubs we'll get less games (aka less tv rights money) and he says "We would still have the same number of teams"...

And suggested kicking out traditional victorian teams wouldnt anger anyone or lose supporters because "they would just go back to the VFL anyway"

His other points arnt worth talking about

What is wrong with sending a Victorian club back to the VFL?
If there is 18 teams there would be the same number of games.

 

[Perry Pie]

What is wrong with sending a Victorian club back to the VFL?
If there is 18 teams there would be the same number of games.

Just wind up West Coast instead to make space for Tassie. Or relocate them, to become the Tassie Eagles. If that is no good, just merge with Freo. Perhaps West Coast could play in the WAFL instead so the WAFL could get an even number of teams.

It is very easy to wind up someone elses team. Perhaps some Victorians appreciate this a bit more because we have experienced the loss of two clubs when Fitzroy moved and merged and South Melbourne moved. I know people who stopped following footy when South moved (I am that old) and lost interest when Fitzroy got squashed.

Moving = closure of the club, it is a rubbish option. I believe LOCAL merger to reduce numbers or co-location (eg the North Melbourne and Hobart Football Club) are the realistic options to create the space for Tassie.

 

[The_Reaper]

Just wind up West Coast instead to make space for Tassie. Or relocate them, to become the Tassie Eagles. If that is no good, just merge with Freo. Perhaps West Coast could play in the WAFL instead so the WAFL could get an even number of teams.

It is very easy to wind up someone elses team. Perhaps some Victorians appreciate this a bit more because we have experienced the loss of two clubs when Fitzroy moved and merged and South Melbourne moved. I know people who stopped following footy when South moved (I am that old) and lost interest when Fitzroy got squashed.

Moving = closure of the club, it is a rubbish option. I believe LOCAL merger to reduce numbers or co-location (eg the North Melbourne and Hobart Football Club) are the realistic options to create the space for Tassie.

Victorians didn't have a problem with raping the WAFL, SANFL and Tasmanian football.
Some clubs belong in the state levels.

I support East Fremantle before West Coast.
West Coast is a national league team whilst East Fremantle is a state league team.

 

[Messenger]

What is wrong with sending a Victorian club back to the VFL?
If there is 18 teams there would be the same number of games.

To suggest that a current club stripped of its AFL licence would simply play AFL is ludicrous. They'll die. Not an unwelcome turn of events for many in this thread, to be sure, but let's be honest what were talking about. I watched them shovel dirt on Fitzroy fifteen years ago. It ain't pretty.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Do the growth issues that restrict the long term viability of clubs such as North, Melbourne and the Dogs affect a Tasmanian team in the medium term?

In other words, does the nature of the Tasmanian economy and population growth mean that this club will hit the same wall a decade down the track when all the hoopla dies down and local businesses (and government) find more efficient use of their resources?

 

[madmug]

In other words, does the nature of the Tasmanian economy and population growth mean that this club will hit the same wall a decade down the track when all the hoopla dies down and local businesses (and government) find more efficient use of their resources?

Firstly, what the AFL did to Fitzroy was a disgrace.
What do you think is more viable, 10 clubs in one state. One of which has a nice little niche market all to itself in Geelong & does quite nicely thank you. The others are fighting for market share. Some of those are perennial struggler's, and I mean long term continual strugglers, for decades in fact, rattle the tins & sell games interstate infact!!!!!!!!
Or do you think a Niche market club, like a Geelong, would be in a better or worse position long term? they surely tend to get good community support so have a relatively secure position.
Its different for a large community like Melbourne with many suburban teams, versus a smaller community which focuses its whole attention & support on the only club it has.
Tasmania would replicate a similar position to that of Geelong. IMO

 

[Nick Lions]

The AFL is a not for profit organization is it not? So it's main objective is certainly not to turn a profit.

It would be interesting to look at the AFL's constitution, to see what its stated objectives actually are.

I'm not trying to attack you here or anything but, where did you read that the AFL is a not for profit organisation. I've always been under the impression that it was very much trying to be as profitable as possible. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on the matter. I know that a lot of money is put into grass roots football, general development of the game and keeping it's existing clubs afloat. But if this is the case it seems like a very wealthy not for profit organisation. I would love to see how much money the AFL brings in per annum and how it is distributed.

 

[blaze036]

There will be no new sides added to the competion for a long long time (if ever).

Uhh u do realize australias population is expected to more than double in the next 40 years... U srsly think with an extra 26 million ppl in the country by 2050 the afl wont be thinking of adding more teams?

 

[Nick Lions]

I don't know if the AFL would be to keen to kill of another existing club in Melbourne, not after the backlash from Fitzroy supporters. I know I have previously agreed with a statement that taking a Melbourne side's license is an option. In saying that, there would definitely be backlash and bad publicity for the AFL if this did occur. If you look at the options for relocation, you can basically rule out the big 4 clubs in Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond. All are nearly always profitable. Geelong is very stable being a regional club. This leaves Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Hawthorn Melbourne and St Kilda.

All of these clubs have passionate fans and the ability, with on-field success, to become financially viable, if of course, they are not already. I wouldn't want to be telling them they will suffer the same fate as Fitzroy or the loss of identity altogether

You could argue for relocating a financially unstable team like Brisbane or Sydney to Tasmania sure, but that would jeopardise the AFL's argument for putting new clubs half an hour down the road from these existing clubs.

I don't even understand why I argue the point, the AFL won't even read a football forum in order to get a gauge on people's thought process. It would probably fall on deaf ears anyway. I also don't expect a Tasmanian team to enter the competition for a while now anyway. It's a shame, as I believe it would be such a simple club to market, would turn over a profit and would edge the AFL closer to truly becoming a national league. I just don't understand how the AFL sees putting another club into a state with a pre existing club can possibly grow the game more than expanding into a state with no clubs.

 

[sherb]

I'm not trying to attack you here or anything but, where did you read that the AFL is a not for profit organisation. I've always been under the impression that it was very much trying to be as profitable as possible. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on the matter. I know that a lot of money is put into grass roots football, general development of the game and keeping it's existing clubs afloat. But if this is the case it seems like a very wealthy not for profit organisation. I would love to see how much money the AFL brings in per annum and how it is distributed.

How much money will the AFL make from the replay and where will it go?The amount that will be made is yet to be determined, but it is important to remember the AFL is a not-for-profit community organisation. The grand final replay will provide a huge benefit to the game, because the money raised will help players, clubs and leagues from the elite level through to grassroots footy.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103253/default.aspx

Any profit they make gets ploughed back into the game, rather than being paid to shareholders, etc. Plus they wouldn't pay tax on any profit they make I wouldn't think.

So while I was probably being pedantic in a sense, their focus as an organization is the growth and development of the game of Australian Football, and not profit.

Naturally they are going to want to maximise revenue so they can achieve all their objectives. That's no different to most not-for-profit organizations I would think.

 

[Messenger]

Or do you think a Niche market club, like a Geelong, would be in a better or worse position long term? they surely tend to get good community support so have a relatively secure position.
Its different for a large community like Melbourne with many suburban teams, versus a smaller community which focuses its whole attention & support on the only club it has.
Tasmania would replicate a similar position to that of Geelong. IMO

That's a reasonable comparison but Geelong is probably best case scenario. The thing to remember about Geelong though is that they have had a massive increase in receipts from customers from the year before the run of flags (29m) to this year (45m). Yet they seem to bring in a consistent profit around the 1m mark each year. in 2006 the profit was about 300k.

I guess the question is how does Geelong look if they hadn't won three flags in five years? The stadium deal is excellent (Hawthorn has replicated it at Aurora) too.

 

[blaze036]

In the long term Geelong has a much bigger potential as well. 40 years down the track its looking like Tasmania is going to be left far behind population wise and economically wise. Not guarenteed just forecast. And the AFL has said many many times how they going after a long term approach which of course is the right approach.

 

[The_Reaper]

In the long term Geelong has a much bigger potential as well. 40 years down the track its looking like Tasmania is going to be left far behind population wise and economically wise. Not guarenteed just forecast. And the AFL has said many many times how they going after a long term approach which of course is the right approach.

So long term what benefit does a team like North Melbourne have over Tasmania?

Western Bulldogs at least have a region they represent, what region of Melbourne does North Melbourne represent?

 

[Messenger]

So long term what benefit does a team like North Melbourne have over Tasmania?

Community goodwill in Victoria.

Western Bulldogs at least have a region they represent, what region of Melbourne does North Melbourne represent?

Not the best argument. I don't know many Pies supporters that live in Collingwood. I grew up in the outer East and my area was infested with Essendon supporters.

 

[Kwality]

Just wind up West Coast instead to make space for Tassie. Or relocate them, to become the Tassie Eagles. If that is no good, just merge with Freo. Perhaps West Coast could play in the WAFL instead so the WAFL could get an even number of teams.

It is very easy to wind up someone elses team. Perhaps some Victorians appreciate this a bit more because we have experienced the loss of two clubs when Fitzroy moved and merged and South Melbourne moved. I know people who stopped following footy when South moved (I am that old) and lost interest when Fitzroy got squashed.

Moving = closure of the club, it is a rubbish option. I believe LOCAL merger to reduce numbers or co-location (eg the North Melbourne and Hobart Football Club) are the realistic options to create the space for Tassie.

More teams, lower standard, what do want Under 16 footy, get real.

WA fans took their medicine last century Pie person, so did SA, but Vic didnt & thats the point. WA went from 8 teams to 2, yet Vic had one team relocate to survive & the other went belly up. Yeah, footy lost a couple of diehard WAFL supporters, so would Vic BUT THE GAME WOULD PROSPER NATIONALLY.

 

[madmug]

Just wind up West Coast instead to make space for Tassie. Or relocate them, to become the Tassie Eagles. If that is no good, just merge with Freo. Perhaps West Coast could play in the WAFL instead so the WAFL could get an even number of teams.

It is very easy to wind up someone elses team. Perhaps some Victorians appreciate this a bit more because we have experienced the loss of two clubs when Fitzroy moved and merged and South Melbourne moved. I know people who stopped following footy when South moved (I am that old) and lost interest when Fitzroy got squashed.

Moving = closure of the club, it is a rubbish option. I believe LOCAL merger to reduce numbers or co-location (eg the North Melbourne and Hobart Football Club) are the realistic options to create the space for Tassie.

You comment on how Fitzroy & South Melbourne affected people by moving/merging & then you want to C0-locate or LOCAL mergers.
What are they? Whats the difference with what happenned to Fitzroy/South.?
We want out own club NOT someone elses. Some clubs just cant cut it at the national level so they should play in the VFL.
Expansion into NSW & Qld is a long term strategic move. Having 10 clubs in Victoria is greedy.

 

[Perry Pie]

You comment on how Fitzroy & South Melbourne affected people by moving/merging & then you want to C0-locate or LOCAL mergers.
What are they? Whats the difference with what happenned to Fitzroy/South.?
We want out own club NOT someone elses. Some clubs just cant cut it at the national level so they should play in the VFL.
Expansion into NSW & Qld is a long term strategic move. Having 10 clubs in Victoria is greedy.

You missunderstood, I should have explained better.

When I talked about local merger I was refering to the option of two Melbourne based clubs merging to become a single club. For example, Fitzroy merged interstate with Brisbane, however there was another offer on the table at the time to merge with locally with North. If that had happened most (my dad for example) would have supported the new club which would have remained locally based. Still not good for the fans of teams involved, but better than moving interstate and losing the club which is what happened to Fitzroy. The nearest example I know of is the Woodville - West Torrens merger in SA, what I dont know is how well that worked out for the fans of the two clubs when it happened.

When I referred to co-location I was talking about a club having two home bases - one example would be a North Melbourne and Hobart football club. This is changing the "selling games" model (where a club makes token and limited commitment to a second city) and extending it so that the club is genuinely committed to integrating the new city into the club - all the way to including the name of the city into the name of the club. What North are doing now with Tassie is not good enough, they are letting down the Melbourne based fans and are not doing anything significant for anyone in Hobart. Do it properly or dont bother.

As I dont see a 19th or or 20th club entering the AFL for a long time (the suns and GWS will take too much out of the AFL for the next 10 years at least) I believe the only 2 options for Tassie footy are one of the two options I outlined above.

 

[Perry Pie]

More teams, lower standard, what do want Under 16 footy, get real.

WA fans took their medicine last century Pie person, so did SA, but Vic didnt & thats the point. WA went from 8 teams to 2, yet Vic had one team relocate to survive & the other went belly up. Yeah, footy lost a couple of diehard WAFL supporters, so would Vic BUT THE GAME WOULD PROSPER NATIONALLY.

I dont think more teams are an option, certainly not now the AFL is streched with GWS and the Suns.

On the topic of medicine, WA and SA didnt take any medicine in the way you suggest. In both states the medicine was avoided because all the old clubs were kept in situ to wither and die slowly as new clubs were created to join the VFL. Footy in WA and SA didnt loose supporters, they stayed where they were or often moved on to one of the new teams. Melbourne lost two clubs.

 

[madmug]

You missunderstood, I should have explained better.

When I talked about local merger I was refering to the option of two Melbourne based clubs merging to become a single club. For example, Fitzroy merged interstate with Brisbane, however there was another offer on the table at the time to merge with locally with North. If that had happened most (my dad for example) would have supported the new club which would have remained locally based. Still not good for the fans of teams involved, but better than moving interstate and losing the club which is what happened to Fitzroy. The nearest example I know of is the Woodville - West Torrens merger in SA, what I dont know is how well that worked out for the fans of the two clubs when it happened.

When I referred to co-location I was talking about a club having two home bases - one example would be a North Melbourne and Hobart football club. This is changing the "selling games" model (where a club makes token and limited commitment to a second city) and extending it so that the club is genuinely committed to integrating the new city into the club - all the way to including the name of the city into the name of the club. What North are doing now with Tassie is not good enough, they are letting down the Melbourne based fans and are not doing anything significant for anyone in Hobart. Do it properly or dont bother.

As I dont see a 19th or or 20th club entering the AFL for a long time (the suns and GWS will take too much out of the AFL for the next 10 years at least) I believe the only 2 options for Tassie footy are one of the two options I outlined above.

Yes I see now. However I still think this is too complex a 'solution' to the situation. Despite what blaze & others might not want to see & admit is that selling games to Hobart, Launceston, Darwin, Cairns, Canberra, is indicative of too many clubs trying to sell games so they can survive in Melbourne.
The simplest thing is to move clubs back to the VFL, not to kill them off or move them interstate.
Footy is an emotional experience as much a professional sport/ business. I would hate to be in the situation of a Fitzroy for example. But I also hate to see the current state of Tassie footy. We have contributed so much to Australian rules footy over the last 150 years. But Our local footy has been sucked dry by richer 'mainland' clubs. Most of them are richer because they get direct funding from AFL clubs &/or rely on poker machine incomes to buy players. We deserve much more than just paying to support two Victorian rent-a- clubs. With our own team in the AFL, I'm sure our local footy will do better with a closer association to the professional game. Better coaches become available etc.

 

[Super Fly]

Good post you think, I reckon its sad, SAD because there is little to NO understanding of the real world.
I'm all for a Tassie club & it should involve reducing the # of clubs in Melbourne - they are in the so called footy heartland & afdter a 100 years plus cant turn a profit. I dont support relocation, take the franchise off the Melbourne club & give it to the Taswegians.

Yeah just take clubs licenses away after 150 years of existance. Your club joined our league so traditional Victorian clubs deserve as much propping up as most interstate clubs do if its required.

Hey if you don't like it, go back to the WAFL and I am not talking about relocation, I am talking about cancelling West Coast's license and giving it to Albany.