Tasmania

[Verdun]

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.

Grow up -the past informs the future - per capita Tasmania had contributed more to the VFL / AFL than any other area

If the AFL invested a little of what it has received in to Tasmania that it has received it would all would benefit.

Your ignorant comments are useless = long term investment in to areas that already contributes pay off. If the AFL contributed per capita what it contributes to other areas to Tas we would be fine.


Where are you from Blaze? - I am sure the AFL subsidises you to the hilt and you see nothing wrong with that..Long term if the AFL takes off from your area what would you say?

Forty years down the track Tas will be punching above its weight the same as it is now. Looking at the cricket now Ponting and Hilf in a team of 11 damn good contribution i reckon, again Blaze i say grow up look outside of your small little area and think about the broader community. Tasmania deserves more investment than it receives.

As a Tasmanian tax payer I pay for AFL teams to come here; do you pay taxes for teams to play in your area or does the team and AFL do so? Tasmanians should be able to watch AFL live without having to sponsor a team through their taxes to do so.

I do not feel lucky that AFL teams come it - it should happen. We have invested players, money, sponsorship and contributed to membership of other teams for years.

Your nieve statement about population is based on ignorance - we contribute more economically more per capita than any other state FACT.


Roy Cazaly
Royce Hart
James Manson
Daryl Baldock
Hayden Kilmartin
Ian Paton
Ian Callinhan
John Devine
Percy Jones
Peter Hudson
etc

take those players and their supporter out and you lose someting you might not understand:

SOUL which goes along with the economics that Tasmania has contributed - read the report that Jimmy Hird commissioned; again i say Blaze look at where you come from and what you have contributed against what the AFL invested.

It would not add up to a half of what Tasmania has to all AFL teams AND will continue to unless the AFL invests 1/200th of what Tasmania currently does.

 

[Verdun]

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.

Yep Hawthorn has replicated it - where?

 

[Messenger]

Yep Hawthorn has replicated it - where?

A clean stadium arrangement. At Aurora Stadium.

 

[Verdun]

A clean stadium arrangement. At Aurora Stadium.

Clean for who?

Exactly my point

Tasmania propping up a Victorian team which i am sure you are proud

 

[Messenger]

Clean for who?

Exactly my point

Tasmania propping up a Victorian team which i am sure you are proud

It's a commercial arrangement, Verdun. An arrangement your state government believes produces a net economic benefit to the state.

 

[Verdun]

It's a commercial arrangement, Verdun. An arrangement your state government believes produces a net economic benefit to the state.

So you agree that we subsidise Hawthorns existence?

Majority of Tasmanians believe we should first be funding support for people with a disability, our hospitals or our own AFL team.

Hawthorn and Tasmanians do not see the Hawks as a Tasmanian team - the 'commercial arrangement' benefits the Hawks more than Tas.

I acknowledge there may be net economic benefit to the sate but there would be a hell of a lot more if we had our own team and we would not be propping up another team = you should be able to make our own money without Tasmania propping you up!

Part of me does not begrudge the Hawks for this but my point is and I realise you do not care; is Tasmania deserves better!!

 

[Old Skool]

So you agree that we subsidise Hawthorns existence?

Majority of Tasmanians believe we should first be funding support for people with a disability, our hospitals or our own AFL team.

Hawthorn and Tasmanians do not see the Hawks as a Tasmanian team - the 'commercial arrangement' benefits the Hawks more than Tas.

I acknowledge there may be net economic benefit to the sate but there would be a hell of a lot more if we had our own team and we would not be propping up another team = you should be able to make our own money without Tasmania propping you up!

Part of me does not begrudge the Hawks for this but my point is and I realise you do not care; is Tasmania deserves better!!

Tasmania needs to get it's own act together before it goes pointing blame elsewhere.

If Tasmanian's can get over the internal squabbling and present as a united front then the day WILL inevitably arrive when they will have their own side. I can't see this happening inside the next decade. This is going to take people power, as the politicians play on the north south divide for their own benefit.

 

[Messenger]

So you agree that we subsidise Hawthorns existence?

I don't accept the premise of your argument. If you are inferring Hawthorn is unsustainable without the Tasmania deal today, that is incorrect. Plenty of cash in the bank, low debt. And the profile of the club is sufficiently good that we can attract another high value major sponsor.

Majority of Tasmanians believe we should first be funding support for people with a disability, our hospitals or our own AFL team.

Hawthorn and Tasmanians do not see the Hawks as a Tasmanian team - the 'commercial arrangement' benefits the Hawks more than

Don't disagree with any of that. But your fight is with the people negotiating with your money.

I acknowledge there may be net economic benefit to the sate but there would be a hell of a lot more if we had our own team and we would not be propping up another team = you should be able to make our own money without Tasmania propping you up!

Part of me does not begrudge the Hawks for this but my point is and I realise you do not care; is Tasmania deserves better!!

Again, you're not propping us up. As to the other points:

1. The long term viability of a team in Tasmania is not a fait accompli to my mind. They are certainly more likely to be viable over the short term that some of the Victorian strugglers.

2. I do care. I've worked in the public health system in Hobart and I understand the issues surround access to health care and healthcare professionals down there. I loved living down there and I continue to have a great fondness for the state.

It may week be that the presence of Hawthorn and NMFC is a handbrake on a team being based in Tasmania but I don't think the relationship is parasitic from a financial point of view. Again, the feeling is it is symbiotic. Hawthorn do more than simply fly in and fly out on match day.

The truth ultimately is that the league felt that GWS provided a greater opportunity to grow the game.

 

[madmug]

Tasmania needs to get it's own act together before it goes pointing blame elsewhere.

If Tasmanian's can get over the internal squabbling and present as a united front then the day WILL inevitably arrive when they will have their own side. I can't see this happening inside the next decade. This is going to take people power, as the politicians play on the north south divide for their own benefit.

So our 'squabbling' prevents us from having our own team then? But it doesnt stop us from having to rent games at ridiculous costs then! What a convenient argument. I guess thats it then.

 

[Old Skool]

So our 'squabbling' prevents us from having our own team then? But it doesnt stop us from having to rent games at ridiculous costs then! What a convenient argument. I guess thats it then.

Look mate, get a pen and paper and write this down because it is the best sure fire way for Tasmanians to get their own stand alone side.


...............are you ready?..............


























































Start up a lobby/support group titled "United Tasmanians for a Tasmanian AFL team"

- Promote membership
- Attempt to procure a high profile figure head.
- Get a cheap radio commercial going.
- Get a media spokesperson
- Hand out flyers at Hobart and Launceston matches.
- Make yourselves highly visible. (bumper stickers, T- shirts, wind cheaters etc.)

Get. Off. Your. Collective. Arses. And. Do. Something!

 

[madmug]

I don't accept the premise of your argument. If you are inferring Hawthorn is unsustainable without the Tasmania deal today, that is incorrect. Plenty of cash in the bank, low debt. And the profile of the club is sufficiently good that we can attract another high value major sponsor.



Don't disagree with any of that. But your fight is with the people negotiating with your money.



Again, you're not propping us up. As to the other points:

1. The long term viability of a team in Tasmania is not a fait accompli to my mind. They are certainly more likely to be viable over the short term that some of the Victorian strugglers.

2. I do care. I've worked in the public health system in Hobart and I understand the issues surround access to health care and healthcare professionals down there. I loved living down there and I continue to have a great fondness for the state.

It may week be that the presence of Hawthorn and NMFC is a handbrake on a team being based in Tasmania but I don't think the relationship is parasitic from a financial point of view. Again, the feeling is it is symbiotic. Hawthorn do more than simply fly in and fly out on match day.

The truth ultimately is that the league felt that GWS provided a greater opportunity to grow the game.

Again, the argument is not that GWS & GC were preferred to Tasmania. They are part of the long term strategic direction for the professional AFL game. IMO the argument is that if this is a national league then why so many struggling old VFL teams get preference over having one Tasmanian team. The business case for Tasmania stands up. I dont see anything other than unsubstantiated opinion to refute it, certainly no business case for some the current old VFL teams that struggle along year after year.
It simply gets down to the fact that Victoria wants its cake & eat it too. Other states have gone through massive changes for the AFL to exist.
Perhaps others should take some pain to allow the game to be properly national, & more rationally spread.
If you guys liked the old VFL so much then let some of those busted suburban teams go back to it.
To have Tasmania renting 6 games a season is just plain crazy.

 

[madmug]

Look mate, get a pen and paper and write this down because it is the best sure fire way for Tasmanians to get their own stand alone side.


...............are you ready?..............


























































Start up a lobby/support group titled "United Tasmanians for a Tasmanian AFL team"

- Promote membership
- Attempt to procure a high profile figure head.
- Get a cheap radio commercial going.
- Get a media spokesperson
- Hand out flyers at Hobart and Launceston matches.
- Make yourselves highly visible. (bumper stickers, T- shirts, wind cheaters etc.)

Get. Off. Your. Collective. Arses. And. Do. Something!

Thank you,
And my advice for all those struggling teams in Victoria is

Are you ready?
































Rent more games interstate & get more tins to rattle, cause it aint gonna get any easier to survive where you are

 

[blaze036]

Tasmania would struggle even more than bulldogs/north. Tasmanians on average are less rich than victorians meaning less people buy memberships/merchandise and most importantly less sponsership money (from 2nd and 3rd tier sponsers namely).

In the long term u can hardly argue that north and bulldogs will grow significantly bigger than what a tasmanian side could... so the question is why bring in (another?) long term struggler which wont grow the game (as its already an AFL state).

The answer is because Tasmanians want it.. is that good enough? we'll find out in a decade or so i expect. Noone is denying it would be nice to have a tasmanian team, but there is reasons why there isnt one which some people here cant accept and instead turn to insulting victorians.

 

[Verdun]

Tasmania would struggle even more than bulldogs/north. Tasmanians on average are less rich than victorians meaning less people buy memberships/merchandise and most importantly less sponsership money (from 2nd and 3rd tier sponsers namely).

In the long term u can hardly argue that north and bulldogs will grow significantly bigger than what a tasmanian side could... so the question is why bring in (another?) long term struggler which wont grow the game (as its already an AFL state).

The answer is because Tasmanians want it.. is that good enough? we'll find out in a decade or so i expect. Noone is denying it would be nice to have a tasmanian team, but there is reasons why there isnt one which some people here cant accept and instead turn to insulting victorians.

Don't be so prescious - we are not 'insulting' Victorians. There is more in previous posts about Victorians being richer than Tasmanians. I have not entered in to this silly argument.

Again I will say that Tasmania has put forward a viable proposal with membership numbers that is sustainable. With sponsors.

It is interesting that the posters arguing against a team are Hawthorn and North supporters. It is a fact that the Hawks were struggling before they came down here you can deny it but you are ignoring facts. You may be debt free now but you were not before you received millions in sponsorship from Tasmania.

The game as a whole will struggle if you ignore its heartland - one word I will put forward equity.

I do not agree with your premise that it would struggle I argue that it would thrive with the right structure. Tasmania has passion, knowledge and skill which when harnesed would work.

I do not believe that this should exclude GWS and the Gold Coast but the fact is Tasmania has been ignored - this is a simple fact.

 

[Old Skool]

The answer is because Tasmanians want it.. is that good enough?

Absolutely.

AFL football is a non profit sport, and eventually Tasmania will have it's own side. The AFL are prioritising where they don't currently have support.

In the meantime Tasmanian's need to support AFL football and present as a united front.

 

[sherb]

Absolutely.

AFL football is a non profit sport, and eventually Tasmania will have it's own side. The AFL are prioritising where they don't currently have support.

In the meantime Tasmanian's need to support AFL football and present as a united front.

That's a lovely sentiment, but you are essentially asking people to go and watch two sides they dont' have the slightest interest in, all in the name of "supporting AFL football".

If you lived in Tassie, how much interest would you have in going to watch Hawthorn vs Adelaide? Or vs Fremantle? Or vs Port Adelaide? You might go along once or twice, but the novelty would wear off quickly enough.

It's going to be a similar situation when/if North plays in Hobart. They won't be playing any sides apart from the interstate clubs I would imagine, so there is hardly much attraction in going along to watch these games.

So for the Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, St Kilda, Richmond, Bulldogs, etc supporters who live there, they are being served up second rate, disinteresting product all in the name of supposedly satisfying Tasmania's need for AFL football.

Yet you are suggesting that the supporters down there attend these games all in the name of long-term gain. Football supporters aren't that bright. If they were, every North supporter living in Melbourne would be packing out North's Melbourne games to ensure the viability of the club there.

 

[Rob]

The biggest problem at the moment for Tassie is lack of a spot. The AFL aren't going to expand to 19 teams and there isn't an obvious 20th team that would be admitted.

If a spot becomes available then it's up to Tassie to ensure they're in the box seat to grab it.

 

[Verdun]

That's a lovely sentiment, but you are essentially asking people to go and watch two sides they dont' have the slightest interest in, all in the name of "supporting AFL football".

If you lived in Tassie, how much interest would you have in going to watch Hawthorn vs Adelaide? Or vs Fremantle? Or vs Port Adelaide? You might go along once or twice, but the novelty would wear off quickly enough.

It's going to be a similar situation when/if North plays in Hobart. They won't be playing any sides apart from the interstate clubs I would imagine, so there is hardly much attraction in going along to watch these games.

So for the Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, St Kilda, Richmond, Bulldogs, etc supporters who live there, they are being served up second rate, disinteresting product all in the name of supposedly satisfying Tasmania's need for AFL football.

Yet you are suggesting that the supporters down there attend these games all in the name of long-term gain. Football supporters aren't that bright. If they were, every North supporter living in Melbourne would be packing out North's Melbourne games to ensure the viability of the club there.

Well said.

Even though we are served up the crumbs Tasmanians love their footy and will still go to these games - the AFL knows this. They have basically said North is stuffed go down to Tassie make some money. Kills two birds with one stone helps North and it looks like the AFL gives a s..t about Tassie which it does not.

Again Tassie deserves better. We understand the priority is elsewhere but there should be more short and medium term priorities in Tasmania. Instead of being fed the crumbs of having games played here no one else will go to but a football starved public.

The corporates for the games here in Hobart are already sold out we do not need to be told to do the right thing we already are - at the moment that is funding the existence of other teams. It would be good to have some recognition from the AFL at least investing more in Tasmania for a start - our money goes out but does not come back.

 

[sherb]

I don't accept the premise of your argument. If you are inferring Hawthorn is unsustainable without the Tasmania deal today, that is incorrect. Plenty of cash in the bank, low debt., And the profile of the club is sufficiently good that we can attract another high value major sponsor.

Again, you're not propping us up. As to the other points:

It may week be that the presence of Hawthorn and NMFC is a handbrake on a team being based in Tasmania but I don't think the relationship is parasitic from a financial point of view. Again, the feeling is it is symbiotic. Hawthorn do more than simply fly in and fly out on match day.
The truth ultimately is that the league felt that GWS provided a greater opportunity to grow the game.

1. You've got cash in the bank/low debt because of the Tasmanian arrangement. I wonder where you'd be now without it?
2. For the money they are being paid, they should do more than fly in and fly out on match day. So that's no big achievement on Hawthorn's part.

Basically Hawthorn and now North are milking money out of a state which should have its own side. Not that I blame the two clubs involved, it's money for jam for them. Turn up, play a few games, do a bit of promotion, and here's a heap of money for it. It really shows how little the AFL thinks of Tasmania though, giving the majority of supporters down there the leftovers to financially bolster a couple of Melbourne based clubs.

 

[Verdun]

1. You've got cash in the bank/low debt because of the Tasmanian arrangement. I wonder where you'd be now without it?
2. For the money they are being paid, they should do more than fly in and fly out on match day. So that's no big achievement on Hawthorn's part.

Basically Hawthorn and now North are milking money out of a state which should have its own side. Not that I blame the two clubs involved, it's money for jam for them. Turn up, play a few games, do a bit of promotion, and here's a heap of money for it. It really shows how little the AFL thinks of Tasmania though, giving the majority of supporters down there the leftovers to financially bolster a couple of Melbourne based clubs.

spot on

 

[Old Skool]

That's a lovely sentiment, but you are essentially asking people to go and watch two sides they dont' have the slightest interest in, all in the name of "supporting AFL football".

If you lived in Tassie, how much interest would you have in going to watch Hawthorn vs Adelaide? Or vs Fremantle? Or vs Port Adelaide?

If they were the only three AFL games in the season then I would go and watch them provided I had no other engagements.

You might go along once or twice, but the novelty would wear off quickly enough.

This depends on the quality of the football.

It's going to be a similar situation when/if North plays in Hobart. They won't be playing any sides apart from the interstate clubs I would imagine, so there is hardly much attraction in going along to watch these games.

We have already signed up 1,000 new Tassie members.

So for the Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, St Kilda, Richmond, Bulldogs, etc supporters who live there, they are being served up second rate, disinteresting product all in the name of supposedly satisfying Tasmania's need for AFL football.

No, they're being served up 1st rate football that doesn't include those teams.

Yet you are suggesting that the supporters down there attend these games all in the name of long-term gain. Football supporters aren't that bright. If they were, every North supporter living in Melbourne would be packing out North's Melbourne games to ensure the viability of the club there.

Our relative attendances are serviceable considering our relative market share.

 

[sherrinorburley]

We have already signed up 1,000 new Tassie members.

That would make 500 in the real world.

 

[sherrinorburley]

Again I will say that Tasmania has put forward a viable proposal with membership numbers that is sustainable. With sponsors.

It is interesting that the posters arguing against a team are Hawthorn and North supporters. It is a fact that the Hawks were struggling before they came down here you can deny it but you are ignoring facts. You may be debt free now but you were not before you received millions in sponsorship from Tasmania.

I do not agree with your premise that it would struggle I argue that it would thrive with the right structure. Tasmania has passion, knowledge and skill which when harnesed would work.

I do not believe that this should exclude GWS and the Gold Coast but the fact is Tasmania has been ignored - this is a simple fact.

Again a good post. Except Tasmania has not been ignored, just cast aside for now. The money is being channeled to GWS & GC. A bigger, obviously ''not for profit'' venture

 

[Verdun]

Again a good post. Except Tasmania has not been ignored, just cast aside for now. The money is being channeled to GWS & GC. A bigger, obviously ''not for profit'' venture

touche'

 

[Messenger]

It is interesting that the posters arguing against a team are Hawthorn and North supporters. It is a fact that the Hawks were struggling before they came down here you can deny it but you are ignoring facts. You may be debt free now but you were not before you received millions in sponsorship from Tasmania.

1. You've got cash in the bank/low debt because of the Tasmanian arrangement. I wonder where you'd be now without it?

We also improved on field and won a flag four years ago. Boosted our Victorian membership substantially. Certainly won't deny the benefits of the arrangement with Tasmania, but let's not pretend its the only reason we are financially strong.