Tasmania

[blaze036]

They will make more money from their crowds though.

Yes but supporter base its not limited to crowd numbers, more supporters also means more merchandise money more membership money and more money from sponsers

 

[Beesto]

510,000 people and 1 team v 4,000,000 and 10 teams. You do the maths

 

[blaze036]

510,000 people and 1 team v 4,000,000 and 10 teams. You do the maths

Really not that simple at all. By ur logic the swans and GWS will be the two biggest teams right? oh wait

 

[The_Reaper]

Really not that simple at all. By ur logic the swans and GWS will be the two biggest teams right? oh wait

His logic is fine because footy is the most popular sport in both Melbourne and Tasmania.

 

[chesson]

A Tasmanian team could easily get as much sponsorship as Footscray (as the Mars offer showed) and would have a much better stadium deal.

Which is a key that the AFL hold and want to keep. As displayed by North Melbournes healthy crowds returning little for the club.

 

[Beesto]

Really not that simple at all. By ur logic the swans and GWS will be the two biggest teams right? oh wait

You learn nothing.

NSW is nothing like Victoria it is a rugby league state.

You started a thread about something you know-nothing about, thinking rivalry in Tasmanian footy would be great. WRONG

That the population in tassie is reducing WRONG.

That the answer is to take away the only team that has stayed the long haul (hawks) and replace them with another team and that tasmanians would support the new team. WRONG.

That how many people turn up to a game determines if a team is successful. WRONG.

You seriously need to do two things before you post again on this subject.

One hop on a plane, fly to launceston and go to any pub and talk to 5 people about football. Then get on a bus and go down to Hobart and do the same.

I can guarantee you that you will never post the same stuff on this subject again.

You will learn that
1. Tasmanians are more passionate about football than any mainland state.
2. The north south rivalry should not be used by football to divide.
3. There is a large local business community that would support football in a heart beat.
4. That there are more than enough business and football people smarter than you or I to run football and they do not need a football board from Melbourne with no local knowledge to help them.

Then the second thing you need to do is to get on your computer and read about the Green Bay Packers. A football team in the American NFL.
Green Bay is a city of 104,000 people and a wider community of 300,000 people. They are the current superbowl champions and have one more NFL championships than any other team.

Los Angles has a population of 12,000,000 , 100 times larger than Green Bay and no team.

The Packers are owned by the town of Green Bay and supported with a passion. it is a truely Great story.

Under your ideas the most successful NFL team should not exist.

Passion and heart go a long way and are hard to measure. Tasmanians have it in spades.

When you have done these two things come back and give us your theory's again.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

There are two points here that are just wrong.

Firstly for a club it is not the size of the crowd, but the return that they receive. Tasmanian returns are far better than most.

Secondly the ABS latest data shows tasmanias population at 510,160. Melbournes is just under 4,000,000. And you are telling us that 4 mill can support 10 teams and 510k can't support 1.

The simple facts are that 10 teams can't be supported in Melbourne and many of the teams need handouts. Yet you think that if a Tasmanian team cant stand on it's own two feet then we can't have one.

Well then let's just shut the doors at Brisbane, GC, Swans, GWS, Port, Melbourne, Kangaroos, Bulldogs...... have I missed any.

Tasmania deserves a team.
Not a relocated team.
Not half a team.
Not a northern teamand a southern team.
Just 1 team that is their own that they can give their heart and sole to.

Melbournes may be 4 mill but the state of Victoria population is 5.6 mill, and the growth rate %, is over double that of Tasmania's ?
I suspect the reason GWS is more attractive is that there is greater potential for the game to grow by having a side there in comparison to Tassie ?

 

[BarneyBent]

WHY would have to put up with having a weak Victorian club dumped on us that couldnt cut it in the AFL. That team should go back to the VFL surely. We dont want a club that has no history or affiliation with Tasmania.
Once again its all about Victorian teams.
Its supposed to be a national competition. Not a competition for ex Victorian teams that had to move out of Melbourne.
If its good enough for the heartland of Australian rules football in Western Sydney & on the Gold coast eek to have their own teams represent them, then why should Tasmania have to cop some busted arse Victorian club being dumped on us?

Because it's that or nothing. The potential profits from a Tassie team at the moment can't justify the cost of setting up a new franchise there. The potential profits from a GWS and GC team can.

A Tasmanian team is simply not going to be as profitable as an expansion team, so until all the expansion areas are filled, AFL aren't going to spend any appreciable amount of money on one.

 

[Beesto]

A Tasmanian team is simply not going to be as profitable as an expansion team, so until all the expansion areas are filled, AFL aren't going to spend any appreciable amount of money on one.[/QUOTE]

No argument here. Your logic is sound.

However this thread was set up on the argument that two Melbourne teams (dogs and kangas) would be a great idea and that tassie could not support itself.

The reasons why the afl went into the gold coast and western Sydney are sound and easy to understand.

The argument that tassie can not support a team is not. I also understand that for a Melbourne team to die is not a good thing for the game either.

My reply to the original post is simple.

Tasmania can support a team and they do not deserve relocated teams. At worst leave the hawks there.

Football supporters are a passionate lot. The game is based on it. Tasmanians are a passionate lot and deserve a team.

Will they get one. Unlikely because they will not help the ratings and they currently help prop up melbourne team(s). Also for it to happen a Melbourne team would need to die. AD has his agenda and tassie is not on it.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

510,000 people and 1 team v 4,000,000 and 10 teams. You do the maths

Melbourne's population of 4.077 mill with 10 teams works out at about 407 ,000 , Hobart, Tassies highest populated city has 217,000. IIRC melbourne's growing by approx. 1500 weekly which is higher than the whole state of Tasmania's annual growth !

 

[Beesto]

Melbourne's population of 4.077 mill with 10 teams works out at about 407 ,000 , Hobart, Tassies highest populated city has 217,000. IIRC melbourne's growing by approx. 1500 weekly which is higher than the whole state of Tasmania's annual growth !

As I said there is more to this than base numbers. They currently do not play in Hobart. They play in Launceston, more central and politically correct.

If you want to do this on population then we had better ship a team or two over to Perth. Population 1.6m and the fastest growth rate in Australia.

I do not believe that population should be the basis of team allocation. I have just given the figures to emphasize that the difference between Melbourne and tassie is splitting hairs.

Just go back a page and read the numbers on the green bay packers. They are truly staggering.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

510,000 people and 1 team v 4,000,000 and 10 teams. You do the maths

Melbourne's population of 4.077 mill with 10 teams works out at about 407 ,000 , Hobart, Tassies highest populated city has 217,000. IIRC melbourne's growing by approx. 1500 weekly which is higher than the whole state of Tasmania's annual growth !

As I said there is more to this than base numbers. They currently do not play in Hobart. They play in Launceston, more central and politically correct.

If you want to do this on population then we had better ship a team or two over to Perth. Population 1.6m and the fastest growth rate in Australia.

I do not believe that population should be the basis of team allocation. I have just given the figures to emphasize that the difference between Melbourne and tassie is splitting hairs.

Just go back a page and read the numbers on the green bay packers. They are truly staggering.

In your initial post you quoted Tassie state population figures in comparison to Melbourne alone figures and quoted ' do the maths' , which I have done , when you do actual largest city versus largest city comparison , Melbourne has almost twice the amount of population in Melbourne to what Hobart would have should it have a side , comparing amongst Launceston makes it even worst .
Melbourne alone has increased it's population in the past 5 years by 690 k IIRC, which is currently than what lives in the whole state of Tassie 512k ?
IMO it's not splitting hairs they are very significant figures and no doubt wood come into play when consideration is made for the expansion of a national body !

 

[Beesto]

In your initial post you quoted Tassie state population figures in comparison to Melbourne alone figures and quoted ' do the maths' , which I have done , when you do actual largest city versus largest city comparison , Melbourne has almost twice the amount of population in Melbourne to what Hobart would have should it have a side , comparing amongst Launceston makes it even worst .
Melbourne alone has increased it's population in the past 5 years by 690 k IIRC, which is currently than what lives in the whole state of Tassie 512k ?
IMO it's not splitting hairs they are very significant figures and no doubt wood come into play when consideration is made for the expansion of a national body !

Tasmania should be looked at differently. It only takes 2 hours to go across the state.

I keep saying that population should not be the only criteria. If you want to quote just city numbers then lets look at those.

The cats are in trouble. Hobart is 30% bigger than Geelong. The most successful club in the afl in the past 10 years IMO.

And please do not post that I am trying to get rid of Geelong.

I just keep trying to answer The rubbish reasons why it has no team of it's own.

Put yourself in their position for a while. They have had St Kilda, Hawthorn soon als the kangaroos and the original poster here wanted the bulldogs down there as well.

And you want them to buy into supporting a team. The kangaroos are just as likely to be gone from tassie as soon as a better deal comes along.

Yes they will turn up to the footy because they love their afl. They will buy memberships, but most see them as season tickets and a cheaper way of buying tickets.

Our game is tribal, we support teams on that basis. Hawthorn, North Melbourne, St Kilda are all suburbs of Melbourne they have nothing to do with Tasmania.

I keep hearing that tassie isn't big enough, and for every statistic that you use I can find one the other way.

I just wish my team had as much success as Geelong a city of 160,000 people, who by the way deserve to be in the afl as much as anyone. And so do Tasmania if you want an Australian FL.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Tasmania should be looked at differently. It only takes 2 hours to go across the state.

I keep saying that population should not be the only criteria. If you want to quote just city numbers then lets look at those.

The cats are in trouble. Hobart is 30% bigger than Geelong. The most successful club in the afl in the past 10 years IMO.

And please do not post that I am trying to get rid of Geelong.

I just keep trying to answer The rubbish reasons why it has no team of it's own.

Put yourself in their position for a while. They have had St Kilda, Hawthorn soon als the kangaroos and the original poster here wanted the bulldogs down there as well.

And you want them to buy into supporting a team. The kangaroos are just as likely to be gone from tassie as soon as a better deal comes along.

Yes they will turn up to the footy because they love their afl. They will buy memberships, but most see them as season tickets and a cheaper way of buying tickets.

Our game is tribal, we support teams on that basis. Hawthorn, North Melbourne, St Kilda are all suburbs of Melbourne they have nothing to do with Tasmania.

I keep hearing that tassie isn't big enough, and for every statistic that you use I can find one the other way.

I just wish my team had as much success as Geelong a city of 160,000 people, who by the way deserve to be in the afl as much as anyone. And so do Tasmania if you want an Australian FL.

There would be very little difference in the time to get to and from each states capital cities from the various locations of either states, so I don't entertain that for travel time Tasmania should be favoured.
Geelong is a very good case actually , they are a city of around 160 k who this year played 7 home games, the remainder of their home games where played around an hour away in a city 4.07 mil, Launceston has around 100 K and had 4 games played there .
5 games a year in Tassie is about right I'd suspect, the real issue would be where they would play the remainder of their home games.
A stand alone Tassie side playing in Victoria I would suggest would get minimal support, likewise, Sydney, Adelaide . Brisbane or WA, leaving them to play a number of their home games in very foreign territory such as Alice Springs / Darwin which would also be a disaster .

 

[sherrinorburley]

Just go back a page and read the numbers on the green bay packers. They are truly staggering.

The NFL is so well organised, the AFL has tried but failed so far to learn from. Everything from fixtures, TV and player deals.

One similar situation to Tassie is Hawaii have no team. Huge college team that have made the Sugar Bowl. Feed many a NFL team.

 

[Beesto]

Why 5

That is just such a patronizing response. And why on earth would they need to play games interstate.

Victorian teams play interstate because the can't make any money at home. North is the obvious example who need 29,000 to break even at etihad. They made just $95k this year from all their games at etihad.

With the govt owning York park in launceston they would make more with one home game of 12,000 people than north made all year at etihad.

If you give tasmanians a team of their own I can guarantee that attendances would jump 30 to 50% on what turns up to watch Victorian teams. You have to give people something they can call their own. And that is not a eastern Melbourne surbaban team.

They could play 6 in launceston and 5 in Hobart and the returns would be way in front of what teams like st Kilda, Melbourne, Richmond, bulldogs, kangaroos get.

 

[sherrinorburley]

Which is a key that the AFL hold and want to keep. As displayed by North Melbournes healthy crowds returning little for the club.

Shit Stadium deal compared to Skilled Stadium deal is 99% of the reason North look elsewhere for revenue.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Why 5

That is just such a patronizing response. And why on earth would they need to play games interstate.

Victorian teams play interstate because the can't make any money at home. North is the obvious example who need 29,000 to break even at etihad. They made just $95k this year from all their games at etihad.

With the govt owning York park in launceston they would make more with one home game of 12,000 people than north made all year at etihad.

If you give tasmanians a team of their own I can guarantee that attendances would jump 30 to 50% on what turns up to watch Victorian teams. You have to give people something they can call their own. And that is not a eastern Melbourne surbaban team.

They could play 6 in launceston and 5 in Hobart and the returns would be way in front of what teams like st Kilda, Melbourne, Richmond, bulldogs, kangaroos get.

5 because I think that is about the limit that could be played in Tassie based on population and to attract enough members they'd need to attract members elsewhere to remain anywhere near profitable !
Difficult to attract 50k plus members when you can only accomodate 20 k at your home game block buster matches ?
You may gain more $$ per game but an additonal 10-15 k per home game 10 home games, $ 150,00 is chicken feed .

 

[Tassieboy]

York Park would seat 30-40,000 if there was a Tas team. A proposed 30k stadium was to be built in Hobart if tas got a team in the late-90s but it went to PA.

If soccer gets into Tasmania first - which I hope it does - interest in an AFL team may decline slightly. There's no doubt than whatever national team comes to a sport-starved state, it will be well attended.

 

[Beesto]

5 because I think that is about the limit that could be played in Tassie based on population and to attract enough members they'd need to attract members elsewhere to remain anywhere near profitable !
Difficult to attract 50k plus members when you can only accomodate 20 k at your home game block buster matches ?
You may gain more $$ per game but an additonal 10-15 k per home game 10 home games, $ 150,00 is chicken feed .

Where do you get your numbers from, do you just make this stuff up.

20,000 in York park returns over $400k. North made $95k from all it's games at etihad for a full year.

A tasmanian team would be ahead of half the Melbourne teams on current stadium deals by millions not thousands. And the deals in Melbourne can't be fixed until the afl take ownership of etihad and I think that is 15 years away.

And then you revert back to the old population. I thought we covered this off.

What is the point of posting when people just make stuff up.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

York Park would seat 30-40,000 if there was a Tas team. A proposed 30k stadium was to be built in Hobart if tas got a team in the late-90s but it went to PA.

If soccer gets into Tasmania first - which I hope it does - interest in an AFL team may decline slightly. There's no doubt than whatever national team comes to a sport-starved state, it will be well attended.

Would that have been around about 1997-1998, when there was also some discussion on a VFT network ?

Where do you get your numbers from, do you just make this stuff up.

20,000 in York park returns over $400k. North made $95k from all it's games at etihad for a full year.

A tasmanian team would be ahead of half the Melbourne teams on current stadium deals by millions not thousands. And the deals in Melbourne can't be fixed until the afl take ownership of etihad and I think that is 15 years away.

And then you revert back to the old population. I thought we covered this off.

What is the point of posting when people just make stuff up.

How many non members would front up to games in Tassie if they had their own side , would the ratio of members and non members not severly effect their gate takings like the profits from gate takings at Etihad, assumably do, North ?

 

[The_Reaper]

Would that have been around about 1997-1998, when there was also some discussion on a VFT network ?



How many non members would front up to games in Tassie if they had their own side , would the ratio of members and non members not severly effect their gate takings like the profits from gate takings at Etihad, assumably do, North ?

Given that West Coast have an almost 1-1 member to crowd ratio and make a profit from games, I assume that Tasmania in the same situation would not have an issue.

 

[chesson]

Touche'

 

[blaze036]

Yes Tasmania does deserve a team we all know it, u dont have to say it 20 times over the pages.

I believe the biggest issue is sponsership. Not only would they be one of the smallest teams, they also come from a weak economic area where most big business dont really care about increasing product brand too. So finding a few good sponsers would be really hard, and those that you do find have every right (and will) give u way less due to the smaller exposure in the Tasmanian market as oppose to a sydney market or victorian market.

Also, lets look into the future, crowd wise. Everyone knows Tasmania's population growth is the weakest out of every state, and it has much higher geographical limitations than any other state, so in the long term Tasmania doesnt have real room to grow supporter wise to get to a decent number when the rest of australia is doubling is size(and supporter base) rendering Tassy unable to compete economically without bail outs (which the AFL obviouslly doesnt want to do).

And as already mentioned, a Tasmanian team wouldnt grow the game, just weaken pre-existing clubs who go there for much needed revenue (sad but true, dont be hating on me)

Being the weakest state economically also means the Tassy state government will seriously struggle to help the team out relative to what every other state government can do (average 7k less income pp than Victorians). And state governements play a huge role, as the NSW/Queensland governments big cast gives to help fund GC/GWS were instrumental in their induction. Not to mention WA and SA government pouring hundreds of mills into new stadiums.

That aside, whilst isn't doesnt make logical/business sense to put a team there, its a case of the head says no but the heart says yes. Hopefully things improve and the comp can increase to 20 teams down the track(or stay at 18 if somone collapses)

 

[The_Reaper]

Yes Tasmania does deserve a team we all know it, u dont have to say it 20 times over the pages.

I believe the biggest issue is sponsership. Not only would they be one of the smallest teams, they also come from a weak economic area where most big business dont really care about increasing product brand too. So finding a few good sponsers would be really hard, and those that you do find have every right (and will) give u way less due to the smaller exposure in the Tasmanian market as oppose to a sydney market or victorian market.

Also, lets look into the future, crowd wise. Everyone knows Tasmania's population growth is the weakest out of every state, and it has much higher geographical limitations than any other state, so in the long term Tasmania doesnt have real room to grow supporter wise to get to a decent number when the rest of australia is doubling is size(and supporter base) rendering Tassy unable to compete economically without bail outs (which the AFL obviouslly doesnt want to do).

And as already mentioned, a Tasmanian team wouldnt grow the game, just weaken pre-existing clubs who go there for much needed revenue (sad but true, dont be hating on me)

Being the weakest state economically also means the Tassy state government will seriously struggle to help the team out relative to what every other state government can do (average 7k less income pp than Victorians). And state governements play a huge role, as the NSW/Queensland governments big cast gives to help fund GC/GWS were instrumental in their induction. Not to mention WA and SA government pouring hundreds of mills into new stadiums.

That aside, whilst isn't doesnt make logical/business sense to put a team there, its a case of the head says no but the heart says yes. Hopefully things improve and the comp can increase to 20 teams down the track(or stay at 18 if somone collapses)

And WA has the highest population growth and the highest avergae income.
So lets have teh AFL as an expanded WAFL with an Adelaide team and the big 4 (to get 14 teams). Collingwood and Essendon can change their jumpers.

Btw
Income tax goes to the federal government and not the state. Also how does Geelong get sponsorship money?
What sponsorship is there in the suburb of North Melbourne (at least the other Melbourne clubs represent an area of Melbourne or have a significant support everywhere)?