Tasmania

[The_Reaper]

Gemba are an international company & dont submit rubbish. It at least is a rational review. Saul Eslake too is a professional & not prone to write emotional crap. All I get from Victoria is 'I suspect' or I believe. Thats not a fair basis for discussion or analysis. You just dismiss respectable analysis because it doesnt suit you. You ignore the fact that many clubs currently sell games interstate because thet cant cut it in a national competition. You ignore the fact that Tasmania now has TWO teams sucking on the financial teat down here.
ARGUE THAT

You'll find that most Western Australians are sympathetic to you.

But when WA (probably the biggest football state outside Victoria now) doesn't even have representation on the AFL Commission than what hope does Tas have?

 

[madmug]

You'll find that most Western Australians are sympathetic to you.

But when WA (probably the biggest football state outside Victoria now) doesn't even have representation on the AFL Commission than what hope does Tas have?

Very little as we have seen.
Even Perth with 1.7million people has 2 team for 22 matches a year. Melbourne has 4million & has 9 teams + 1 in Geelong (175k pop) But has to sell games so some clubs can survive. Its a bloody ridiculous situation

 

[Tassieboy]

Where is the $30- 50 million to run a club going to come from.I cant see a population of less than 600,000 being able to support a club to that extent and the State govt wouldnt tip in tens of millions.

The AFL have done their homework and it shows that a Tassie team is not viable.End of story.

And Sydney has 20,000 members. Lol Good luck with West Sydney.

 

[Kwality]

Very little as we have seen.
Even Perth with 1.7million people has 2 team for 22 matches a year. Melbourne has 4million & has 9 teams + 1 in Geelong (175k pop) But has to sell games so some clubs can survive. Its a bloody ridiculous situation

No response from the Vic faithful?

 

[Kwality]

Don't mean to be blunt, but your dreaming if you think those 3 means alone are enough to justify long term sustainability !
1. The AFL is a multi million dollar industry , clubs being propped up currently are done so on the belief that the short term lending will be redeemed with some .
2. 1 sponsor showing interest doesn't equate to a signed deal nor does it justify granting a licence with the knowledge that , that one sponsorship, who will generate a very minor percentage of the $$$$'s required to be sustainable, is on board .
3. I strongly doubt 100% or even 50% of the 'Tassie tax payers ' who are ' propping up Vic clubs ' as you put it would support a Tassie side . I think its fair to say that should there have been enough support from Tasmania's for their own side , then not only would have the TAC cup and VFL affiliates been sustainable, but the licence into the AFL would have been more strongly considered ?

I suspect the cost , to the AFL, to run football in Tasmania , per participant, would be astronomically higher in comparison to other traditional Australian Rules states , SA, WA and VIC, in most part for the lack of interest or availability of sponsor $$$'s .
Out of interest, what would be a rough estimate of what the highest spending club in Tasmania would be spending on player payments ?

Fair go, you are well off the pace & thats being kind, not blunt.
The 3 revenue sources quoted exclude AFL dividends, TV revenue & the grants/gravy train that flow to ALL clubs but you would understand that just as anyone else on this thread does.
Memberships, merchandise etc are the same as are support sponsorships.

I'm not sure why the cost of running footy in Tas generally would increase, but what ever floats your boat.

Truth is Tas contributes to the player pool that puts on the show & subsidises the inability of Vic to pull its weight relying on the subsidy from Tas, NT, WA & SA - but thats irrelevant to the right of Tas to a team & the inescapable reality that there are too many teams in Melbourne.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Fair go, you are well off the pace & thats being kind, not blunt.
The 3 revenue sources quoted exclude AFL dividends, TV revenue & the grants/gravy train that flow to ALL clubs but you would understand that just as anyone else on this thread does.
Memberships, merchandise etc are the same as are support sponsorships.

I'm not sure why the cost of running footy in Tas generally would increase, but what ever floats your boat.

Truth is Tas contributes to the player pool that puts on the show & subsidises the inability of Vic to pull its weight relying on the subsidy from Tas, NT, WA & SA - but thats irrelevant to the right of Tas to a team & the inescapable reality that there are too many teams in Melbourne.

Where would the necessary ' Memberships, merchandise and support sponsorships ' come from ?
My suggestion was that it costs the AFL more to run footy in Tassie , per participant , than any other traditional state currently, due to the lack of sponsorship .
Further evidence is that the VCFL, which is quite a bit larger than AFL Tassie recieves around $500 k from the AFL , the remainder of the funding required to the organisation is collected from grants/funding or commercial sponsorship, I'd suggest hugely that should the funding to AFL Tassie also be around $500k for in Tassie would not survive ?
Within a recent review it was suggested by an AFL head honcho that Victoria currently has somewhere between 3-4% of AFL resources the lowest of any state , closely followed by SA, despite being the largest AFL state , hardly leeching or receiving anywhere near it's share ?
As for to many teams in Victoria , IMO none of the traditional VFL clubs should be in the AFL , when being formed all VFL should have stayed within the VFL and new clubs should have been formed for the national comp ?
Unfortunately that's not the landscape as doesn't change the fact that IMO Tassie just doesn't have the resources , membership , merchandise or sponsorship potential to sustain a stand alone AFL side ?

 

[Kwality]

Where would the necessary ' Memberships, merchandise and support sponsorships ' come from ?
My suggestion was that it costs the AFL more to run footy in Tassie , per participant , than any other traditional state currently, due to the lack of sponsorship .
Further evidence is that the VCFL, which is quite a bit larger than AFL Tassie recieves around $500 k from the AFL , the remainder of the funding required to the organisation is collected from grants/funding or commercial sponsorship, I'd suggest hugely that should the funding to AFL Tassie also be around $500k for in Tassie would not survive ?
Within a recent review it was suggested by an AFL head honcho that Victoria currently has somewhere between 3-4% of AFL resources the lowest of any state , closely followed by SA, despite being the largest AFL state , hardly leeching or receiving anywhere near it's share ?
As for to many teams in Victoria , IMO none of the traditional VFL clubs should be in the AFL , when being formed all VFL should have stayed within the VFL and new clubs should have been formed for the national comp ?
Unfortunately that's not the landscape as doesn't change the fact that IMO Tassie just doesn't have the resources , membership , merchandise or sponsorship potential to sustain a stand alone AFL side ?

the memberships etc: I lived thru the introduction of the Eagles & all footy fans in WA followed a VFL side. Same happened in SA, same will happen in Tas ... not all but enough to kick on the team from Tas. Dont be fooled by the 'we will never change' stuff that pervades the Victorian view of a new club.

As for AFL propaganda, it is that unless supported by the facts.

I do agree with the way the national comp should have been formed - is there anything more feeble than a Collingwood fan claiming more than 2 x AFL flags or a Carlton fan playing the same tune.

We (the national comp) are better subsidising Tas than so many clubs in Melbourne.

 

[Tassieboy]

Where would the necessary ' Memberships, merchandise and support sponsorships ' come from ?
My suggestion was that it costs the AFL more to run footy in Tassie , per participant , than any other traditional state currently, due to the lack of sponsorship .
Further evidence is that the VCFL, which is quite a bit larger than AFL Tassie recieves around $500 k from the AFL , the remainder of the funding required to the organisation is collected from grants/funding or commercial sponsorship, I'd suggest hugely that should the funding to AFL Tassie also be around $500k for in Tassie would not survive ?
Within a recent review it was suggested by an AFL head honcho that Victoria currently has somewhere between 3-4% of AFL resources the lowest of any state , closely followed by SA, despite being the largest AFL state , hardly leeching or receiving anywhere near it's share ?
As for to many teams in Victoria , IMO none of the traditional VFL clubs should be in the AFL , when being formed all VFL should have stayed within the VFL and new clubs should have been formed for the national comp ?
Unfortunately that's not the landscape as doesn't change the fact that IMO Tassie just doesn't have the resources , membership , merchandise or sponsorship potential to sustain a stand alone AFL side ?

Tassie would get more membership than GWS and GC easily, so that arguement is poor. Are you forgetting Mars was commited to a $4 million three year deal to sponsor a Tassie Team. There was also minor sponsors. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tassie-planets-align/story-e6frf9jf-1111117073738

Sheedy argued for a Tas team instead of GWS team initially, before he became GWS coach.

 

[The_Reaper]

Tassie would get more membership than GWS and GC easily, so that arguement is poor. Are you forgetting Mars was commited to a $4 million three year deal to sponsor a Tassie Team. There was also minor sponsors. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tassie-planets-align/story-e6frf9jf-1111117073738

Sheedy argued for a Tas team instead of GWS team initially, before he became GWS coach.

Not to mention, if a Tasmanian team was given the Tassie zone for a while (similar to Brisbane, Sydney and presumbly Gold Coast, GWS) it would become competitive easily without becoming overly dominant.

A Tassie team would perform on the field.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

the memberships etc: I lived thru the introduction of the Eagles & all footy fans in WA followed a VFL side. Same happened in SA, same will happen in Tas ... not all but enough to kick on the team from Tas. Dont be fooled by the 'we will never change' stuff that pervades the Victorian view of a new club.

As for AFL propaganda, it is that unless supported by the facts.

I do agree with the way the national comp should have been formed - is there anything more feeble than a Collingwood fan claiming more than 2 x AFL flags or a Carlton fan playing the same tune.

We (the national comp) are better subsidising Tas than so many clubs in Melbourne.

FWIW my comments are based on the lack of support given to both the TAC and VFL sides and despite hearing theany varied views of reasons and excuses the support was poor !
I also think it's disappointing that we don't have a club within a state where Australian Rules has a steep history and where Australian Rules was the traditional game , especially when the game has pushed into completely foreign territory .
However don't be fooled by the AFL's PR , their intent is solely commercial $$$'s and placing promotion and growth into high populated areas which doesn't assist Tassie and want within the future !

Tassie would get more membership than GWS and GC easily, so that arguement is poor. Are you forgetting Mars was commited to a $4 million three year deal to sponsor a Tassie Team. There was also minor sponsors. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tassie-planets-align/story-e6frf9jf-1111117073738

Sheedy argued for a Tas team instead of GWS team initially, before he became GWS coach.

4 mill is a piss in the ocean , GWS and GC is solely a commercial decision to have an AFL side in highly populated areas , a high populated area provides greater opportunity for higher growth , higher club membership and sponsorship and therefore providing greater opportunity for club sustainability and growth of the game .

 

[Rob]

Gemba are an international company & dont submit rubbish. It at least is a rational review.

Of course it's rational, but they were paid by a bunch of people to produce a report showing their case that a Tassie AFL team was viable. If it was going to show the opposite no-one would have commissioned it.

Don't take that personally, it happens in business all the time. KPMG, for instance, were commissioned by the tobacco industry to write a report showing how plain packaging would not have any effect on smoking rates. They duly did, and were shitcanned in parliament for soem of their figures. And KPMG are a lot bigger, more international and more reputable than Gemba.

Saul Eslake too is a professional & not prone to write emotional crap.

Doesn't mean he's incapable of bias. You can look at anything a number of different ways.

There's no correct answer for this. An opinion that a Tassie AFL side is viable is no more or less wrong than an opinion that it isn't. What's important is the reasoning.

All I get from Victoria is 'I suspect' or I believe. Thats not a fair basis for discussion or analysis. You just dismiss respectable analysis because it doesnt suit you.

I'm not dismissing it, just downplaying it as the be all and end all. It's not independent opinion. No matter what view you take on the viability of a Tassie team, it's always going to be 'I suspect' or 'I believe' because you can't prove a team that doesn't exist will be viable or not. There's no hard evidence either way.

You ignore the fact that many clubs currently sell games interstate because thet cant cut it in a national competition. You ignore the fact that Tasmania now has TWO teams sucking on the financial teat down here.
ARGUE THAT

I'm not ignoring shit. I'm not even against a Tassie AFL side. But there are certain things that need to be overcome to convince me that it's going to be good for the game and league.

1. An extra team will split AFL funds an extra way without generating much extra revenue for the league, and at a time when many clubs are struggling, how's that going to benefit the current clubs? TV rights won't be worth any more, as Tassie people already watch the game.

2. The petty North-South bullshit. Inevitably the club HAS to be based in either Hobart or Launceston (probably the former), even if it plays home games in both cities. Given that both areas need to get behind it, is there any guarantee that both halves of the state will back it?
We saw it with the Devils - had good support in Hobart, but because it was seen as a Hobart side, people in the North shunned it.

3. Strength of the economy - it's a basketcase, with virtually no population growth (and that's not predicted to change). And it's not just the low population, GSP per capita is easily, easily the lowest in the country (SA is 2nd lowest, about 10% higher than Tassie). The bulk of corporate support for AFL clubs comes from the high end of the SME market. This is where Tassie is battling. Can they sell 100+ corporate boxes at $50k a year? I dunno, but it's an uphill battle. Likewise with premium memberships. How many $400+ pa reserved seats can they sell? A major sponsor won't be a problem, but the levels below that might be. And that's where the bulk of corporate support comes from. You might be able to name every business with a turnover of $100m+ in Tassie, but how many of them will put their money where their mouth is and buy a corporate box? Like asking how long is a piece of string I guess.

My point is that there are valid questions as to the viability, and a commissioned report by the AFL for Tassie group isn't necessarily going to answer them, because it's simply a prediction.

BTW, i'm not suggest a Tassie team would be any less viable than some of the current teams, particularly in Melbourne. But that alone isn't a basis for admission.

 

[madmug]

Of course it's rational, but they were paid by a bunch of people to produce a report showing their case that a Tassie AFL team was viable. If it was going to show the opposite no-one would have commissioned it.

Don't take that personally, it happens in business all the time. KPMG, for instance, were commissioned by the tobacco industry to write a report showing how plain packaging would not have any effect on smoking rates. They duly did, and were shitcanned in parliament for soem of their figures. And KPMG are a lot bigger, more international and more reputable than Gemba.



Doesn't mean he's incapable of bias. You can look at anything a number of different ways.

There's no correct answer for this. An opinion that a Tassie AFL side is viable is no more or less wrong than an opinion that it isn't. What's important is the reasoning.



I'm not dismissing it, just downplaying it as the be all and end all. It's not independent opinion. No matter what view you take on the viability of a Tassie team, it's always going to be 'I suspect' or 'I believe' because you can't prove a team that doesn't exist will be viable or not. There's no hard evidence either way.



I'm not ignoring shit. I'm not even against a Tassie AFL side. But there are certain things that need to be overcome to convince me that it's going to be good for the game and league.

1. An extra team will split AFL funds an extra way without generating much extra revenue for the league, and at a time when many clubs are struggling, how's that going to benefit the current clubs? TV rights won't be worth any more, as Tassie people already watch the game.

2. The petty North-South bullshit. Inevitably the club HAS to be based in either Hobart or Launceston (probably the former), even if it plays home games in both cities. Given that both areas need to get behind it, is there any guarantee that both halves of the state will back it?
We saw it with the Devils - had good support in Hobart, but because it was seen as a Hobart side, people in the North shunned it.

3. Strength of the economy - it's a basketcase, with virtually no population growth (and that's not predicted to change). And it's not just the low population, GSP per capita is easily, easily the lowest in the country (SA is 2nd lowest, about 10% higher than Tassie). The bulk of corporate support for AFL clubs comes from the high end of the SME market. This is where Tassie is battling. Can they sell 100+ corporate boxes at $50k a year? I dunno, but it's an uphill battle. Likewise with premium memberships. How many $400+ pa reserved seats can they sell? A major sponsor won't be a problem, but the levels below that might be. And that's where the bulk of corporate support comes from. You might be able to name every business with a turnover of $100m+ in Tassie, but how many of them will put their money where their mouth is and buy a corporate box? Like asking how long is a piece of string I guess.

My point is that there are valid questions as to the viability, and a commissioned report by the AFL for Tassie group isn't necessarily going to answer them, because it's simply a prediction.

BTW, i'm not suggest a Tassie team would be any less viable than some of the current teams, particularly in Melbourne. But that alone isn't a basis for admission.

Reading this thread it becomes even more obvious that whatever Tassie does, reports, economic advice & opinion etc, some on here have made their minds up. Tassie cant possibly afford or manage a team
Much opinion is not backed up by anything other than a biased/jaundiced view point. Tassie does an application, it must be wrong. We have economists making comment, they must be wrong. We see Victorian teams selling games to make ends meet, so what.
Tassie now has two renta teams, but we cant possibly afford a team. Same old crap.
All I can say is I put the experts case, I show where Victorian teams cant survive without selling games. They beg for better stadium deals & beg for AFL hand outs, but still Tassie cant possibly run a team.
We've attracted sponsors, we now have two renta clubs, we also have two viable stadiums, yet still means nothing to some.
It appears that no matter what Tassie does. or how many teams are stuffed in Melbourne, Tassie wont get a look in.
That just shows that it is all about the VFL. All about Victoria & NOT about a proper national competition. Nor indeed about any proper analysis.
Most of the points you make to question Tassies position, you dont even apply those same criteria or questions to half the stuffed teams in Melbourne!!!!!
How do Tassie overcome your doubts if you ignore all of the above points???

 

[Tassieboy]

The biggest problem is we don't need another team. Wish GWS would go away.

 

[chesson]

Reading this thread it becomes even more obvious that whatever Tassie does, reports, economic advice & opinion etc, some on here have made their minds up. Tassie cant possibly afford or manage a team
Much opinion is not backed up by anything other than a biased/jaundiced view point. Tassie does an application, it must be wrong. We have economists making comment, they must be wrong. We see Victorian teams selling games to make ends meet, so what.
Tassie now has two renta teams, but we cant possibly afford a team. Same old crap.
All I can say is I put the experts case, I show where Victorian teams cant survive without selling games. They beg for better stadium deals & beg for AFL hand outs, but still Tassie cant possibly run a team.
We've attracted sponsors, we now have two renta clubs, we also have two viable stadiums, yet still means nothing to some.
It appears that no matter what Tassie does. or how many teams are stuffed in Melbourne, Tassie wont get a look in.
That just shows that it is all about the VFL. All about Victoria & NOT about a proper national competition. Nor indeed about any proper analysis.
Most of the points you make to question Tassies position, you dont even apply those same criteria or questions to half the stuffed teams in Melbourne!!!!!
How do Tassie overcome your doubts if you ignore all of the above points???

Good post, cover's all arguments.

When you have a CEO with preference for Meatloaf, the priorities are there for all to see.

 

[Rob]

Reading this thread it becomes even more obvious that whatever Tassie does, reports, economic advice & opinion etc, some on here have made their minds up. Tassie cant possibly afford or manage a team
Much opinion is not backed up by anything other than a biased/jaundiced view point. Tassie does an application, it must be wrong. We have economists making comment, they must be wrong. We see Victorian teams selling games to make ends meet, so what.
Tassie now has two renta teams, but we cant possibly afford a team. Same old crap.
All I can say is I put the experts case, I show where Victorian teams cant survive without selling games. They beg for better stadium deals & beg for AFL hand outs, but still Tassie cant possibly run a team.
We've attracted sponsors, we now have two renta clubs, we also have two viable stadiums, yet still means nothing to some.
It appears that no matter what Tassie does. or how many teams are stuffed in Melbourne, Tassie wont get a look in.
That just shows that it is all about the VFL. All about Victoria & NOT about a proper national competition. Nor indeed about any proper analysis.
Most of the points you make to question Tassies position, you dont even apply those same criteria or questions to half the stuffed teams in Melbourne!!!!!
How do Tassie overcome your doubts if you ignore all of the above points???

In the end I make my own opinion based not on others' biased opinions, but on actual facts. Tassie's economy is by far the weakest in the country. Fact. Population virtually stagnant and widely spread. Fact. Already strong TV viewership. Fact.

But TBH, i'm not sure what my opinion really is. I've got doubts based on the things I mentioned in my previous post. And like I said, I don't think Tassie is likely to be any less viable than some existing clubs. But the AFL shouldn't set criteria on the grounds that you prove you're better than the lowest existing club. Clearly, kicking a club out (or at least, removing them from the welfare teat) is a much more borderline decision than admitting a club.

Preferably it would be good to see a relocated club. Keeps a decent Victorian supporter base and over time should pick up the majority of Tasmania. But in the end it's not me that needs to be convinced anyway.

 

[blaze036]

For tassie to have a chance at a team they need to increase population growth and economic strength by a lot over the next years. Still 10-20 years away minimum if at all i would think.

 

[LakePedder]

Good post, cover's all arguments.

When you have a CEO with preference for Meatloaf, the priorities are there for all to see.

Say's it all really. Common sense has not prevailed so far.

 

[blaze036]

Say's it all really. Common sense has not prevailed so far.

Its a case of the heart says yes, but the brain says no.

Obviouslly not tasmanian brains however

No matter what has been said on BF, from an economic point of view Tasmania is not the number 1 option, due to TV rights sponsership opportunitys ect. However most people would love to see a tasmanian team, if nothing else than to finally say we have a truly national competition.

 

[chesson]

Say's it all really. Common sense has not prevailed so far.

Of course we will never have a 'National Competition' without ACT, NT or TAS.

We will continue to keep our teet's accessible for the sake of economics

 

[Milang_Panthers]

If a Tassie team is viable and can survive it would be a great thing for footy i think

 

[speedpeck23]

"Tasmania" will have a team when State of Origin returns. And then so will Victoria,SA,WA,NSW,Qld. In the meantime we have the AFL which is a club based competition, where players from anywhere from around the world are systematically chosen to represent a particular club and in which no state is specifically represented by any club.

 

[Bomberman86]

nothing about it was designed to be an "quick fix" this is a long term solution, as over the next generations the difference in support numbers between the big teams and small teams will grow even bigger this is a way to counteract it, as these two teams are the smallest in victoria and are competing with 8 other teams in the state.

I know it sucks for hawthorn, never said it would be good for them and they would be pissed. Just a thing for the AFL as a whole which probably comes at the expense of hawthorn, maybe they could be compensated by the AFL but they've already got a few thousand members from it and the AFL cant take those away so you wouldnt of wasted your time if asked to leave.

Very unfair of you to say the AFL doesnt care about Tasmania. Your saying that because there still isnt a Tasmanian AFL team? there isnt a team due to its impossible for one economically to be there

In fairness it would actually help Hawthorn long term - you can't mask your obvious problems with short term revenue from Tasmania which is quite clearly not sustainable moving forward (either because a struggling Melbourne club will relocate or a Tassie team is born)

They're running on temporary cash flow at the moment.

 

[mightymouse75]

Sound like paranoid Jeff Kennet talk.

Half a million people to support 1 team in Tasmania.
5 million people in Victoria to support 10 teams=half a million people.
Basic maths.

Yes Victoria is growing quicker but the fact AFL is the only game played in the state and the exitement of there own team would make up for that 2 fold.

If North dont want to relocate to Tassie then let them go bankrupt so the most perochial AFL fans in the world can apply for have there own their license.
If North want a government to subsidise them, dont scam the Tassie tax payers, relocate to centrelink and get on the dole.

 

[sherrinorburley]

Of course we will never have a 'National Competition' without ACT, NT or TAS.

We will continue to keep our teet's accessible for the sake of economics

touché

 

[Bunk Moreland]

There’s no money is Tassie and it’s not growing. The AFL won’t go there.

South Melbourne moved to Sydney due to money. Every team that’s been added since has been done for the purposes of money. Can’t people see the theme?

They’ll play a few games there but that’s to help Victorian clubs, not to help Tassie.

Just deal with it and move on.