Tasmania Tasmanian AFL Team, could it happen?

[NoobPie]

Not really, only 8 teams receive the prestige and marketing of being finalists.

Yeah it comes down to semantics a bit...you call the first week "wild card playoffs" or something

 

[Kappa]

Yeah it comes down to semantics a bit...you call the first week "wild card playoffs" or something

I think most reasonable people would agree a final 8 in a 20 team comp would be stupid.

The chance of finals would be dead for most teams very early, having a wildcard for 9th/10th gives a LOT more hope and interest in late games.

 

[Gigantor]

The go home factor applies everywhere. However the lifestyle here suits a lot of people. Hobart has a small but vibrant night life, which AFL players would hardly use. Hobart has excellent restaurants, a Casino, which AFL players would hardly use.
Its easy to go bush, & inland or offshore fishing of note.
World class surf, although cold water
Players are an hour from Melbourne.
Also getting an AFL contact is attractive to most.
Its a great place for kids & families.
Homes with a view are relatively cheap. Traffic jams are nothing like bigger cities.
Its an easy place to live.

I don't disagree with any of that, but we are talking about young males aged 18 to 20.

 

[telsor]

Attendance is not the difference when you are losing one or two million a year as some clubs report. That is simply bad management. Because club (A) has 16 support staff does not mean your club needs 16 when you can't afford it.
Your club will still make a profit and you went from top 4 to bottom 4 in one year.
There is numerous reasons like ground deals etc but they should be known before the season starts and the budget adjusted accordingly.
To be honest it's a bloody insult to every football club in Australia, semi pro or amateur if an AFL club can't turn a profit. It is just very poor management. Not every club can be the same and have the same amount of employees, it is a nice utopia but it cannot and never will be possible. All clubs should be told by the AFL to work within their own budget.

I think the issue usually isn't the ability to turn a profit, it's budgetting.

AFL clubs are not for profit entities...Their goal isn't to make profits, it's to spend as much as possible in order to enhance their chances of achieving their objective.

If you expect to receive $40Million in a given year, then you might budget to spend $39.5 Million, the difference being due to allowing for contingencies. If those contingencies are noticeably higher than expected (e.g. Lots of injuries both adding to costs and causing the team to perform worse meaning lower income), then that can lead to the spending exceeding the revenue...AKA a 'loss'.

Also, clubs don't operate on one year at a time...Perhaps they plan to make a loss for a few years as a form of investment (e.g. clubs making 'losses' on building new training facilities).

Mind you, yes, sometimes clubs cannot make a profit...A lot of the costs of running a club aren't optional, and they just don't have the revenue to cover it without being uncompetitive (which would hurt revenues further down the line) Sure, you can hire Fred Blogs from the local suburban side as head coach, with a team of his mates as assistants and as mad fans they'll do it largely for the experience...total cost maybe 20K...but sponsors, players and fans would all desert the club in droves.

The other 'fun' one is people who think that a club that 'only' makes a profit with extra AFL money didn't really make a profit....The club would have known when making their budget that they'd get that money...what do you expect them to do...sit on it? Usually they didn't even have an option... much of that money is directed to specific purposes in order to balance things up (an extra assistant coach, or another sales person handling sponsors) or in other words, they HAD TO spend it.

So most 'losses' aren't really a big deal, and so long as they're not there for the longer term are quite ignorable.

 

[telsor]

I think most reasonable people would agree a final 8 in a 20 team comp would be stupid.

The chance of finals would be dead for most teams very early, having a wildcard for 9th/10th gives a LOT more hope and interest in late games.

So when the VFL had a final 4 from 12 teams, they must have been completely crazy...I wonder how they survived.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the issue usually isn't the ability to turn a profit, it's budgetting.

AFL clubs are not for profit entities...Their goal isn't to make profits, it's to spend as much as possible in order to enhance their chances of achieving their objective.

If you expect to receive $40Million in a given year, then you might budget to spend $39.5 Million, the difference being due to allowing for contingencies. If those contingencies are noticeably higher than expected (e.g. Lots of injuries both adding to costs and causing the team to perform worse meaning lower income), then that can lead to the spending exceeding the revenue...AKA a 'loss'.

Also, clubs don't operate on one year at a time...Perhaps they plan to make a loss for a few years as a form of investment (e.g. clubs making 'losses' on building new training facilities).

Mind you, yes, sometimes clubs cannot make a profit...A lot of the costs of running a club aren't optional, and they just don't have the revenue to cover it without being uncompetitive (which would hurt revenues further down the line) Sure, you can hire Fred Blogs from the local suburban side as head coach, with a team of his mates as assistants and as mad fans they'll do it largely for the experience...total cost maybe 20K...but sponsors, players and fans would all desert the club in droves.

The other 'fun' one is people who think that a club that 'only' makes a profit with extra AFL money didn't really make a profit....The club would have known when making their budget that they'd get that money...what do you expect them to do...sit on it? Usually they didn't even have an option... much of that money is directed to specific purposes in order to balance things up (an extra assistant coach, or another sales person handling sponsors) or in other words, they HAD TO spend it.

So most 'losses' aren't really a big deal, and so long as they're not there for the longer term are quite ignorable.

I am sure there is many things I don't know of or think about in an AFL club but there are things set in stone each AFL club do know.
Salary cap
Staff cost
Ground deals

Those 3 things would be I would guess 90% of an AFL clubs costs. They know these at the start, they then know what income they need to make a profit or break even. How they get away with not for profit status is quite remarkable.

My point is when the budget is done if you come up with a shortfall then you adjust where you need to adjust, if that means you have only 8 assistant coaches instead of 10 then that is what should happen.
If AFL clubs invest outside of football into hotels or whatever and then make a loss the AFL should never help them.

Now of course as I said above it would be more complicated than this but my issue is when a club struggles financially they blame ground deals, football costs etc when we all know they are costs they know about up front.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

So when the VFL had a final 4 from 12 teams, they must have been completely crazy...I wonder how they survived.

Yep people have short memories, finals are for the elite not for the sub par teams. I know I have no good feeling if my side just makes the 8. I only feel good if I think they can win it. Unfortunately part of modern society is that everyone should be a winner and trying hard and ending up 8th is somehow regarded as successful now.

 

[Kappa]

So when the VFL had a final 4 from 12 teams, they must have been completely crazy...I wonder how they survived.

So because the VFL did it therefore it's a good idea?

 

[telsor]

I am sure there is many things I don't know of or think about in an AFL club but there are things set in stone each AFL club do know.
Salary cap
Staff cost
Ground deals

Those 3 things would be I would guess 90% of an AFL clubs costs. They know these at the start, they then know what income they need to make a profit or break even. How they get away with not for profit status is quite remarkable.

My point is when the budget is done if you come up with a shortfall then you adjust where you need to adjust, if that means you have only 8 assistant coaches instead of 10 then that is what should happen.
If AFL clubs invest outside of football into hotels or whatever and then make a loss the AFL should never help them.

Now of course as I said above it would be more complicated than this but my issue is when a club struggles financially they blame ground deals, football costs etc when we all know they are costs they know about up front.

But when clubs broadly have similar levels of costs, that one club earns millions less from ground deals, or significantly lower sponsorships (due to not getting on TV) then I'm not sure forcing the club on the bad side of those deals to have fewer assistants (etc) and the resulting lowering of their chances of success is fair. Having the AFL compensate clubs for disadvantages such as these that are outside the clubs control (but within the AFLs) is hardly unreasonable.

 

[telsor]

So because the VFL did it therefore it's a good idea?

Perhaps not, but following a process that worked for a long time doesn't make it a 'stupid' one.

 

[Kappa]

Perhaps not, but following a process that worked for a long time doesn't make it a 'stupid' one.

Because no old processes are stupid or silly?

Any finals system that minimises interest in games late in the season is a stupid system.

I don't really see how what they did in the VFL in 1930 has any relevance

 

[Martyn_30_]

Why aren't Tassie producing any talent? For half a million people there's very little quality coming through recently.

 

[NoobPie]

Because no old processes are stupid or silly?

Any finals system that minimises interest in games late in the season is a stupid system.

I don't really see how what they did in the VFL in 1930 has any relevance

The final 4 operated until 1971

The difference with today though is that was in the pre-digital revolution, pre-national days where there weren't many other options but to keep watching you team play despite their season being shot

It was not a "stupid" system, though

 

[Colonial]

If the A league go ahead with this, the AFL will look even more like they have neglected what has been a footy state. Also a great opportunity for the A league to say up yours to the AFL.

FFA tried the same with the mariners in a league territory begging for a team. Didnt really work.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Purple Suit]

When we go to 20 teams I want a system were 10th 9th 8th and 7th all play in a wildcard round the weekend before the finals to fight it out for the last 2 "final 8" spots.

It's still only 8 finalists, but it keeps the season more interesting for longer.

That would work, although why not just call it a top 10 finals system & the top 6 have the 1st week off. 7th hosts 10th, 8th hosts 9th and then the current finals system applies. It means you can get rid of the 2nd bye too before the finals as it won't really be an issue.

 

[Purple Suit]

Yep people have short memories, finals are for the elite not for the sub par teams. I know I have no good feeling if my side just makes the 8. I only feel good if I think they can win it. Unfortunately part of modern society is that everyone should be a winner and trying hard and ending up 8th is somehow regarded as successful now.

You mean if they just scrape into 7th?

 

[Verdun]

Why aren't Tassie producing any talent? For half a million people there's very little quality coming through recently.

Is this a serious comment?

 

[Furn2]

These Tassie threads go through the same cycles without the key points ever actually being addressed.

So how about some thinking outside the box.

Could a Tassie team get decent crowds (15-20k) and decent membership (35k+)

If they played every home game on a Monday night ?

 

[telsor]

These Tassie threads go through the same cycles without the key points ever actually being addressed.

So how about some thinking outside the box.

Could a Tassie team get decent crowds (15-20k) and decent membership (35k+)

If they played every home game on a Monday night ?

Whoever plays them, Monday (or Thursday) games are problematic regardless due to the 5 day breaks that tends to require....If Tas played at home every Monday, they could only realistically play their away games on Sundays, and the teams they played would have to play the games either side on Sundays...etc.

I would think any club would be down on their maximum crowds/interest playing Mondays (Thursdays would be a little better, but still not great), so to answer your question, I doubt it.


As for your premise though...Is 15-20K a decent crowd?

 

[GreyCrow]

These Tassie threads go through the same cycles without the key points ever actually being addressed.

So how about some thinking outside the box.

Could a Tassie team get decent crowds (15-20k) and decent membership (35k+)

If they played every home game on a Monday night ?

Travel and scheduling will kill this idea. Monday night game means for example West Coast wont leave Tassie till Tuesday. All day travelling. Even for a Sunday match the next game doesn't leave a great recovery time. The only way to manage it would be to ( possibly) schedule a Melbourne match on the Saturday etc.

 

[GreyCrow]

As for your premise though...Is 15-20K a decent crowd?

GWS think so

 

[telsor]

GWS think so

I think there are different expectations for heartland Vs development areas.


Even GWS only thinks it's acceptable 'for now'.

 

[GreyCrow]

It should be acceptable for Tassie as well. Sydney has had Aussie Rules for 35 years now. Enough time for the game to infiltrate at some level. GWS should be expecting more numbers.

Tassie would work on a 20,000+ figure as a safety net. Membership can be grown. 35,000 should also be achievable.

 

[Furn2]

Whoever plays them, Monday (or Thursday) games are problematic regardless due to the 5 day breaks that tends to require....If Tas played at home every Monday, they could only realistically play their away games on Sundays, and the teams they played would have to play the games either side on Sundays...etc.

I would think any club would be down on their maximum crowds/interest playing Mondays (Thursdays would be a little better, but still not great), so to answer your question, I doubt it.


As for your premise though...Is 15-20K a decent crowd?

It's a decent crowd if you add 11 primetime fta games to the Tv deal.

 

[Furn2]

It should be acceptable for Tassie as well. Sydney has had Aussie Rules for 35 years now. Enough time for the game to infiltrate at some level. GWS should be expecting more numbers.

Tassie would work on a 20,000+ figure as a safety net. Membership can be grown. 35,000 should also be achievable.

All that is achieved now, that's the issue.

What does a Tassie team add overall or potentially to what they do now ?