- Thread starter
- Banned
- #151
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Tasmania
- Thread starter blaze036
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Are you in favour of annual subsidies for Melbourne clubs?
Bottom line, there are too many teams in Melbourne, show at least 3 the door & give a licence to Tasmania.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Really? I don't see any NT or TAS teams in the AFL.
Strange comments, arrogant attitude in line with demitrioprofitiroleclair.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #156
His got a good point though. Why EXPAND into an area thats already AFL controlled and will only weaken clubs like North Melbourne? We gain Tasmania but lose North Melbourne whats the advantage in that.
Tasmania cant financial support a decent team plus putting a team there wont grow the game and will WEAKEN the current victorian teams.
sherb
Hall of Famer
To give a state's worth of AFL fans their own AFL side, that's why. Why expand into SA & WA then if that's your argument?
Again, putting sides in South Australia and Western Australia didn't "grow the game" either.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #158
Well thats a stupid argument when SA had a rugby team and such to compete with and AFL was barely in SA back during those days it was Victoria only.
Also u expect WA people to support a victorian team? impossible. Not so for a Tasmanian though. PLUS the money was there to support teams and they have a much much much bigger fan base in those places compared to Tasmania its a crap comparison
sherb
Hall of Famer
You were the one who questioned expanding into an AFL controlled area, not me. It's a perfectly legitimate response to that question.
There aren't any teams, but there are plenty of people who pay for club memberships, watch footy on TV, and become footy players.
Tassie and NT may eventually get teams, but it won't be until the AFL have spread as far as they can into the more lucrative areas of the country.
Yes they did, they created the national league in the first place and consequently created that initial interest. Without that the league only had a following in Victoria. I can't talk for SA, but the 2nd team in Perth at least doubled interest in the league and was certainly beneficial for the game. Mind you, teams were brought in for different reasons back then.
The late 80's and early 90's was probably the best opportunity for Tassie to get a spot TBH. If a consortium had of come up with the few million needed for a licence, then i'd imagine they would have been given one.
Its a national league. If you want more TV ratings, more sponsorship from the national companies, too many teams in Melbourne is a poor template.
I understand some support bankrolling non performing clubs rather than taking the game to the people in nurseries like Tas.
sherb
Hall of Famer
No it's not, Tassie's not in it.
The Gospel
Senior List
Mate Victorian clubs have been getting handouts for years. In the last 15 years we have had Bulldogs, Richmond, North Melbourne and Melbourne all struggling for funds at some stage, even having to collect donations from supporters.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #165
Tasmanian doesn't need to be in it for it to be a national league.
Yemen wasnt in the world cup.. guess we cant call it the world cup?
sherb
Hall of Famer
Yes it does.
At the moment it is a mainland Australia league, completely ignoring one of most loyal and ardent Australian Football following areas of the country. And worse still, to rub salt into the wounds, it is more than happy to milk money out of the place to support Melbourne based clubs.
The sad thing is, people like you - who in your case at least I presume don't even live in Tassie - are happy to blindly adopt the AFL corporate stance regarding the place and on top of that post endlessly negative opinions about whether it should have an AFL side or not.
Call it what you want. Not fussed. I'm talking about the AFL.
Why would it be worse - the Tas taxpayers are kicking in $millions already (to the Hawks & North), Mars only signed on to sponsor the Blues after the AFL gave the Tas plan the heave ho, the Tas team would readily get members just as the first teams in SA & WA did.
The subsidies to the Vic clubs that have 100 odd years to get support but cant: why would Tas be worse?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #168
Hmm yea good point.. coz Brisbane's sitation is basically identical to Tasmania's right? right??
sherb
Hall of Famer
I didn't say it was and I wasn't comparing those two situations at all. Which I suspect you know anyway.
I was simply making the point, which you avoided, that the AFL is not necessarily always right. Added to that of course, it only produces information or makes decisions which suit its aims and goals.
Do you think the AFL would make public any information which suggests a Tasmanian side could work, given its current policy down there? Doubt it.
It's funny how people constantly criticize the AFL over various issues but then use them as some sort of indisputable reference point when it suits their argument.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
___ccroo___
Senior List
Must say, the comments about GC and GWS being self sufficient are hilarious.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
They were actually.
The 'World Cup' is the World Cup Finals and not the actual cup. Every time that has competed in a world cup qualifier has competed in the world cup
Fair enough, but not every country fields a team for the WC. Somehow I doubt Andorra, the Vatican, etc, field teams.
Also, you can more easily make the argument for the Rugby Union WC, the cricket WC, etc.
That said, Tassie deserve a team, in the sense that it's unfair that such a strong footballing state doesn't have one. But it doesn't make fiscal sense. Until the AFL have well enough staked their claim in NSW and QLD, and Tassie are capable of sustaining a team, then Tassie won't be looked at, and when it is, it will most likely be a relocation of a Vic club, not a new franchise.
Firstly, I want to say that I don't really want anymore than 18 teams in the competition and if any extra teams were to enter the fray, other clubs would have to make way, which I'd rather not see either. However i don't realistically believe any more teams will join the competition in the foreseeable future. More than eighteen teams would mean a complete reshuffle of the competition. I do believe Tasmania and the Northern Territory should have been included in front of GWS and Gold Coast, but what's done is done. The inclusion of these new sides into areas with potential growth just fuels popular belief that the only thing that matters to the AFL is money, ignoring the existing supporter bases in other areas. I will admit, finding accurate, current membership and attendance figures for sporting organisations in Australia is difficult. Clubs don't seem to want people to know the stats. But, from what I can find it seems that in general Australian Rules has the most members per club, with larger Melbourne clubs attracting in the range of 40,000-70,000 members and some interstate clubs like Adelaide and Fremantle attracting in the 40,000-50,000 range also. Clubs such as Sydney and Brisbane have 25,000-30,000 members and the Gold Coast had approx. 14,000 members in it's first season, GWS has 11,000 signed on for the 2012 season. The minimum 2011 membership number for an AFL club was Gold Coast. It is interesting to note the maximum number of members that the Brisbane Lions and Sydney Swans have had is approximately 33,000 and 36,000 members respectively, both at the peak of their achievements. Realistically you could not expect Gold Coast or GWS to exceed these numbers by much, especially given that they are not in the major capital cities of their respective states and have to compete with another team nearby. Given that the rugby league clubs in the area only have similar or less membership numbers to Gold Coast and GWS (Brisbane Broncos - 15,000, Gold Coast Titans - 8,000, Sydney Roosters - 10,000, Parramatta Eels - 11,000) I imagine that the AFL can't assume they will be able to steal masses of members from Rugby League as they simply don't have the numbers to start with. The maximum number of memberships for an NRL club is around 20,000 and minimum is around 6,000. The AFL is competing with 3 other football codes in Brisbane and Sydney and 2 others on the Gold Coast. None in Tasmania or NT. If the AFL has looked at population for it's potential earning, then the Greater Sydney area (including Western Sydney) has around 4.5 million people. Gold Coast only has approximately 600,000. Tasmania has around 500,000 people and the NT has only 230,000 approx. If this is the case Sydney is understandable but giving a license to Gold Coast over Tasmania doesn't really add up. Gold Coast can develop more than Tasmania, no doubt, but not much more, given the land mass of Gold Coast is smaller than Tasmania and given that the maximum memberships will not likely exceed 35,000 why is it so far fetched for a team to survive in Tasmania, a football state with no competition, surely they can round up 35,000 members a year.
The AFL wants to kill off the NRL completely and are trying to take over the market share in NRL cities. Demetriou, Anderson and Co. are money hungry and don't care about the wishes of fans or the fact that the AFL is supposed to be the national game.
The AFL wants to kill off the NRL completely and are trying to take over the market share in NRL cities. Demetriou, Anderson and Co. are money hungry and don't care about the wishes of fans or the fact that the AFL is supposed to be the national game.
Wow didn't realise how much I was ranting.
Demotrio watch's too much World Series, World Champs that is American baseball 