Tasmania Tasmanian AFL Team, could it happen?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could your provide some evidence for this?

Could Frankston make the same claims as you, considering they lost their team? Or do these applications only apply to AFL and not AF as you claim. Should my league feel this when teams shut down?

Considering last time I joined this discussion both of you threw around personal insults, I wouldn't be throwing stones

Apologies if that occurred DemonTim ; if I threw personal insults to you that was weak on my behalf and should not have.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
You can twist this point of view to support any given argument.

I could equally claim, that Tasmania will get more handouts than any other team by virtue of Tasmania contributing less than 2% of Australia's advertising revenue. You can say what you like about the other 18 clubs, but all being positioned in major TV markets, all contribute to the massive TV deal as Fox Footy and Channel 7 have greater penetration in every major city in Australia, with each major market having at least two teams. The 'handouts' largely constitute the differences in revenue gained through a unequal fixture (and the legacy of a unequal fixture, so whilst the Dogs might have multiple prime-time games this season, we've suffered in the ability to build our fanbase and potential for revenue growth through having less of these over the previous generation), but at the end of the day, the 18 clubs in collective contribute to the TV deal.

Tasmania, being considered a regional TV market and offering no value as a market whatsoever to Channel 7, could easily be constituted as a team that, through virtue of not adding to the TV deal, is a team that is living of welfare of the league whilst every single one of the other 18 clubs aren't.

Facilities, support and passion don't equate to the TV viewers having a high disposable income, and getting 20,000 members doesn't equate to the membership revenue that's half of Melbourne's/St Kilda's etc. because the majority of what would otherwise be 11-game members would be 5 or 6 game members. Support and passion of the doesn't equate to the purchasing of corporate boxes, the purchasing of medium-and-smaller level sponsorship deals (for example, to pick a club at random, Essendon has 25 individual 'corporate partners') and the large network of potential coterie group members (which constitute millions of dollars of revenue for the majority of the AFL clubs), because Hobart and Launceston simply doesn't have the same population of large businesses or upper-class or upper-middle-class individuals who will invest in the club in this same area.

I am supportive of an AFL team in Tasmania as the AFL is a non-profit organisation, the Tasmanian people are indeed passionate about football and an AFL team would be fantastic starting point for solving a lot of the issues of youth development of Tasmanian junior players in recent years. But the economic argument - that Tasmania can somehow stand on its feet from a generating revenue point of view, whereas the benchmark is understandably set higher than the lowest Victorian clubs due to legacy reasons, just simply isn't there, so I don't think you're helping the push for a Tasmanian AFL team by bringing the "welfare handouts" and the economic reasoning for one of the existing 18 other clubs into the equation.


Twisting a point of view is not the same as a debate or making a point. Exaggeration, to belittle someones POV, is like the equating the of argument for Tasmania with a country town like Wangaratta or with Frankston, which is after all, just next to StKildas training centre at Seaford.!!! Their is a clear & notable difference. After all Victoria has 10 clubs. Tassie has none.

The point on TV rights income is a furphy. The AFL sell TV entertainment. Cricket Australia do too. The Hobart BBL team plays all the other BBl teams. The game has grown in popularity like crazy & attracted national sponsors because its a whole of Australia TV phenomenon. TV audiences have exploded. People watch more than one team. They watch games. Sure they may follow their own favourite team, but they watch other games as well. Its about eyballs on TV screens. Geez, even Carlton supporters watch Collingwood on TV, & vice versa.

So TV rights isnt because Hawthorn attract more eyeballs than GWS, its because Footy entertainment is on TV & people watch. The adds are for all the people watching games, not for just StKilda or Essendon supporters, its for the viewing audience no matter who they follow. Hawthorn v Brisbane at Uturn stadium will attract viewers. Tassie V Brisbane will too.

The club sponsorship & finances is a different point. Its a legitimate question. I argue people will buy a membership & go to games. A lot will go to local games, & drive to Uturn or Boot park. Sponsorship is from TV exposure, but yes its also from local support. Please tell me what StKilds earn from sponsorships? Not a lot compared to other old VFL clubs.

Ive argued the cleanskin & cheap stadium costs here will mean a club would make better income per seat than anywhere else. The Gument want a club as an adjunct to Tourism & as a social unity factor. The Hurricanes have united people with that franchise. It'll expand next season to Uturn stadium. People know its called Hobart. Thats CA marketing differently to the old state cricket teams. But CTas will maximise the state concept to maximise interest. A Tas AFL team will not have to worry about regional parochialism. It will unite people above that. State teams always have, just like the 'big V' did.

And then you spoil it with the 'Legacy' thing. As if no one elses contribution to AF counts for anything. Thats just parochial arrogance. The sort of small minded thing we get accused of. If you want to know why the push back against the AFL in the northern states is so strong in the media, its that childish state arrogance. It doesn't help. Its either AF, our game, ot its not. AFL & 'legacy' suggest its not.
 
Last edited:

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
Twisting a point of view is not the same as a debate or making a point. Exaggeration, to belittle someones POV, is like the equating the of argument for Tasmania with a country town like Wangaratta or with Frankston, which is after all, just next to StKildas training centre at Seaford.!!! Their is a clear & notable difference. After all Victoria has 10 clubs. Tassie has none.

The point on TV rights income is a furphy. The AFL sell TV entertainment. Cricket Australia do too. The Hobart BBL team plays all the other BBl teams. The game has grown in popularity like crazy & attracted national sponsors because its a whole of Australia TV phenomenon. TV audiences have exploded. People watch more than one team. They watch games. Sure they may follow their own favourite team, but they watch other games as well. Its about eyballs on TV screens. Geez, even Carlton supporters watch Collingwood on TV, & vice versa.

So TV rights isnt because Hawthorn attract more eyeballs than GWS, its because Footy entertainment is on TV & people watch. The adds are for all the people watching games, not for just StKilda or Essendon supporters, its for the viewing audience no matter who they follow. Hawthorn v Brisbane at Uturn stadium will attract viewers. Tassie V Brisbane will too.

The club sponsorship & finances is a different point. Its a legitimate question. I argue people will buy a membership & go to games. A lot will go to local games, & drive to Uturn or Boot park. Sponsorship is from TV exposure, but yes its also from local support. Please tell me what StKilds earn from sponsorships? Not a lot compared to other old VFL clubs.

Ive argued the cleanskin & cheap stadium costs here will mean a club would make better income per seat than anywhere else. The Gument want a club as an adjunct to Tourism & as a social unity factor. The Hurricanes have united people with that franchise. It'll expand next season to Uturn stadium. People know its called Hobart. Thats CA marketing differently to the old state cricket teams. But CTas will maximise the state concept to maximise interest. A Tas AFL team will not have to worry about regional parochialism. It will unite people above that. State teams always have, just like the 'big V' did.

And then you spoil it with the 'Legacy' thing. As if no one elses contribution to AF counts for anything. Thats just parochial arrogance. The sort of small minded thing we get accused of. If you want to know why the push back against the AFL in the northern states is so strong in the media, its that childish state arrogance. It doesn't help. Its either AF, our game, ot its not. AFL & 'legacy' suggest its not.
I didn't equate Tasmania to Frankston. You're either being disingenuous or need to re-read the point being made
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Could your provide some evidence for this?

Could Frankston make the same claims as you, considering they lost their team? Or do these applications only apply to AFL and not AF as you claim. Should my league feel this when teams shut down?

Considering last time I joined this discussion both of you threw around personal insults, I wouldn't be throwing stones

How do I interpret the above comment otherwise then? My point was if Frankston do want to make a claim, then go for it, its up to them. Clearly whatever the arguments are, Frankston is obviously in a far different position than Tasmania.

So you focus on this & not the major point of my post?
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
How do I interpret the above comment otherwise then? My point was if Frankston do want to make a claim, then go for it, its up to them. Clearly whatever the arguments are, Frankston is obviously in a far different position than Tasmania.

So you focus on this & not the major point of my post?
It was a discussion about you complaining about the AF vs AFL. So now you respond, in a manner that is relevant to my point instead of saying I was comparing the twos situation. Frankston just lost their team due to a lack of funding, and a huge debt and was told they wouldn't be bailed out. Players were told on the bus ride to an away game that they wouldn't be paid and wouldn't have a club. I'd think in a conversation about "AF and the AFL caretaking" there would be a large number of examples you'd go to prior to that a state doesn't have a team. Do you consider a Tasmanian team to be a higher priority for the game than every other club that's been stuffed over? If the money (it won't be. Greedy campaigners) that could fund a tassie team was used to fund 100 other local/junior teams about to go bust would you support it?
 
Twisting a point of view is not the same as a debate or making a point. Exaggeration, to belittle someones POV, is like the equating the of argument for Tasmania with a country town like Wangaratta or with Frankston, which is after all, just next to StKildas training centre at Seaford.!!! Their is a clear & notable difference. After all Victoria has 10 clubs. Tassie has none.

The point on TV rights income is a furphy. The AFL sell TV entertainment. Cricket Australia do too. The Hobart BBL team plays all the other BBl teams. The game has grown in popularity like crazy & attracted national sponsors because its a whole of Australia TV phenomenon. TV audiences have exploded. People watch more than one team. They watch games. Sure they may follow their own favourite team, but they watch other games as well. Its about eyballs on TV screens. Geez, even Carlton supporters watch Collingwood on TV, & vice versa.

So TV rights isnt because Hawthorn attract more eyeballs than GWS, its because Footy entertainment is on TV & people watch. The adds are for all the people watching games, not for just StKilda or Essendon supporters, its for the viewing audience no matter who they follow. Hawthorn v Brisbane at Uturn stadium will attract viewers. Tassie V Brisbane will too.

The club sponsorship & finances is a different point. Its a legitimate question. I argue people will buy a membership & go to games. A lot will go to local games, & drive to Uturn or Boot park. Sponsorship is from TV exposure, but yes its also from local support. Please tell me what StKilds earn from sponsorships? Not a lot compared to other old VFL clubs.

Ive argued the cleanskin & cheap stadium costs here will mean a club would make better income per seat than anywhere else. The Gument want a club as an adjunct to Tourism & as a social unity factor. The Hurricanes have united people with that franchise. It'll expand next season to Uturn stadium. People know its called Hobart. Thats CA marketing differently to the old state cricket teams. But CTas will maximise the state concept to maximise interest. A Tas AFL team will not have to worry about regional parochialism. It will unite people above that. State teams always have, just like the 'big V' did.

And then you spoil it with the 'Legacy' thing. As if no one elses contribution to AF counts for anything. Thats just parochial arrogance. The sort of small minded thing we get accused of. If you want to know why the push back against the AFL in the northern states is so strong in the media, its that childish state arrogance. It doesn't help. Its either AF, our game, ot its not. AFL & 'legacy' suggest its not.
I was hardly being parochial. I said I support the principle of a Tas team, in spite of what I believe is unfriendly economics in regards to the Tasmanian bid.

Hobart got a BBL team on the back of the negotiations with the state associations in restructuring the T20 team - an entirely different governance model to the AFL. In any case, the Hurricaines only play four games in Hobart - not sure it's really fully representative of a season-log commitment.

You're not even addressing the point of Channel 7 and Fox wanting penetration into major markets. If you're going to claim that it's a 'furphy' - you can say that about anything, even if it's untrue. Tasmanian's passion for footy is a furphy. The ABS statistics into Tasmania's aging population with lower disposable income is a furphy.

I never said anywhere that people wouldn't go to games, which seems to be a point Cheap stadium costs is minimised when the upkeep and logistics of two home grounds are factored into. Income is certainly going to be reduced given that there'll be a very portion of the typical 11-game member at another club buying a reserved seat etc. becoming only a 6/5-game member (or at the very least, an 11 game member would only reserve a seat for their home city and might buy GA for the other city).

I'm talking about legacy in regards to the AFL being a competition that transformed out of the AFL, so therefore there was transferable management, admin etc. and left over supporters. Starting a new team costs a lot of money, setting up the administrative structures in place, which is the reason why the AFL wanted North to relocate to GC and why new teams in GC and GWS are created in part to take advantage of growth regions (GWS as a region is going to add 1 million new people over the next 20 years, compared to less than 100,000 with Tasmania) as much as it is to convert supporters to the code.

It's got nothing to do with "state arrogance". Like I said, I believe the AFL should put a team in Tasmania as a function of its non-profit mission to be the custodian of the game as a whole of Australian Football, and therefore by extension its place in Tasmania (as such, I actually agree with some of your points in regards to the crumbling state of youth development and management in Tasmania). But I don't think going down the corporate, economic argument route is doing it any favours (like claiming that other clubs receive handouts and that somehow justifies a Tasmania team) because once you go down the economic route doesn't support the Tasmania argument as all for the very membership, sponsorship, coterie, and regional TV market points that I have made.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
It was a discussion about you complaining about the AF vs AFL. So now you respond, in a manner that is relevant to my point instead of saying I was comparing the twos situation. Frankston just lost their team due to a lack of funding, and a huge debt and was told they wouldn't be bailed out. Players were told on the bus ride to an away game that they wouldn't be paid and wouldn't have a club. I'd think in a conversation about "AF and the AFL caretaking" there would be a large number of examples you'd go to prior to that a state doesn't have a team. Do you consider a Tasmanian team to be a higher priority for the game than every other club that's been stuffed over? If the money (it won't be. Greedy campaigners) that could fund a tassie team was used to fund 100 other local/junior teams about to go bust would you support it?

Thats happened here & I didn't see the AFL doing anything.

So if the money spent to support an established AFL club which has almost no hope competing in an overcrowded market, was used to support AF clubs in trouble, would you support that?

I know its not a fair question, but overall AF in Melbourne is supported by having 10 AFL clubs in Melbourne.

Im supporting having a Tasmanian club to help stabilise AF in this state. We have no counter to the loss of the strength of community football. AFL clubs rode the TV explosion. Having an AFL club here will have huge flow on effects to the benefit of AF. Ive mentioned those.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
Thats happened here & I didn't see the AFL doing anything.

So if the money spent to support an established AFL club which has almost no hope competing in an overcrowded market, was used to support AF clubs in trouble, would you support that?

I know its not a fair question, but overall AF in Melbourne is supported by having 10 AFL clubs in Melbourne.

Im supporting having a Tasmanian club to help stabilise AF in this state. We have no counter to the loss of the strength of community football. AFL clubs rode the TV explosion. Having an AFL club here will have huge flow on effects to the benefit of AF. Ive mentioned those.
The AFL would lose money if it cut an established club, even cutting the small clubs would see a large number of fans lose a club and walk away. You're comparing "removing an additional service to spend money elsewhere" to "not creating a new service to spend money elsewhere"

None of that answered what I posted.

First and foremost local and state level footy should be fixed up in tassie (and elsewhere)
 
The AFL would lose money if it cut an established club, even cutting the small clubs would see a large number of fans lose a club and walk away. You're comparing "removing an additional service to spend money elsewhere" to "not creating a new service to spend money elsewhere"

None of that answered what I posted.

First and foremost local and state level footy should be fixed up in tassie (and elsewhere)

Yep agree, could start with stopping sponsoring Hawthorn / North and re directing it to Tas football
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
Yep agree, could start with stopping sponsoring Hawthorn / North and re directing it to Tas football
I think that'd be a good idea. People forget how good local footy actually is for the community
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
I was hardly being parochial. I said I support the principle of a Tas team, in spite of what I believe is unfriendly economics in regards to the Tasmanian bid.

Hobart got a BBL team on the back of the negotiations with the state associations in restructuring the T20 team - an entirely different governance model to the AFL. In any case, the Hurricaines only play four games in Hobart - not sure it's really fully representative of a season-log commitment.

You're not even addressing the point of Channel 7 and Fox wanting penetration into major markets. If you're going to claim that it's a 'furphy' - you can say that about anything, even if it's untrue. Tasmanian's passion for footy is a furphy. The ABS statistics into Tasmania's aging population with lower disposable income is a furphy.

I never said anywhere that people wouldn't go to games, which seems to be a point Cheap stadium costs is minimised when the upkeep and logistics of two home grounds are factored into. Income is certainly going to be reduced given that there'll be a very portion of the typical 11-game member at another club buying a reserved seat etc. becoming only a 6/5-game member (or at the very least, an 11 game member would only reserve a seat for their home city and might buy GA for the other city).

I'm talking about legacy in regards to the AFL being a competition that transformed out of the AFL, so therefore there was transferable management, admin etc. and left over supporters. Starting a new team costs a lot of money, setting up the administrative structures in place, which is the reason why the AFL wanted North to relocate to GC and why new teams in GC and GWS are created in part to take advantage of growth regions (GWS as a region is going to add 1 million new people over the next 20 years, compared to less than 100,000 with Tasmania) as much as it is to convert supporters to the code.

It's got nothing to do with "state arrogance". Like I said, I believe the AFL should put a team in Tasmania as a function of its non-profit mission to be the custodian of the game as a whole of Australian Football, and therefore by extension its place in Tasmania (as such, I actually agree with some of your points in regards to the crumbling state of youth development and management in Tasmania). But I don't think going down the corporate, economic argument route is doing it any favours (like claiming that other clubs receive handouts and that somehow justifies a Tasmania team) because once you go down the economic route doesn't support the Tasmania argument as all for the very membership, sponsorship, coterie, and regional TV market points that I have made.

I disagree. I very much see the 'welfare' of the AFL to established clubs is proof of the politics of the AFL competition, & as biased against Tasmania. All clubs get about $12million from the AFL. But to see the need to strongly support some established clubs way above that amount, & seeing 2 FIFO clubs here for money, is a very poor look. That, Especially when own AF is effectively dying of neglect & under investment, well what else could I possibly read from that juxtaposition?

What if the GC proves 'yet again' to be a black hole for sports clubs? People dont go to the GC for soccer or basketball or RL nor the AFL. What if the growth in Western Sydney is hardly directed to GWS at all? The hugely ethnic populations are hardly sports orientated. Indeed, if anything, their preference is for soccer. The Sydney media are never going to give the AFL a 'free kick' to help AF in any place north of the border. They see it as Sydney V Melbourne.

It strongly suits both the politics & economics of Tasmanian Guments no matter which major political party, to have a Tas team here. The Vic Gument can hardly look to support a suburban club for whatever reason. Such support puts a Tas team in a very favourable position as a means of social unity & economics from tourism & promoting the state. North Melbourne cant even promote Victoria let alone Tasmania. A Tasmanian team gives Gument a strong reason for looking at the long term benefits that would accrue to Tasmania & more particularly (for people like me ;)) to AF in this place.

Any money invested benefits our economy & flows on to benefit our football.. It stops the continual flow of footy resources off shore & helps rebalance the position of AF here.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
I disagree. I very much see the 'welfare' of the AFL to established clubs is proof of the politics of the AFL competition, & as biased against Tasmania. All clubs get about $12million from the AFL. But to see the need to strongly support some established clubs way above that amount, & seeing 2 FIFO clubs here for money, is a very poor look. That, Especially when own AF is effectively dying of neglect & under investment, well what else could I possibly read from that juxtaposition?

What if the GC proves 'yet again' to be a black hole for sports clubs? People dont go to the GC for soccer or basketball or RL nor the AFL. What if the growth in Western Sydney is hardly directed to GWS at all? The hugely ethnic populations are hardly sports orientated. Indeed, if anything, their preference is for soccer. The Sydney media are never going to give the AFL a 'free kick' to help AF in any place north of the border. They see it as Sydney V Melbourne.

It strongly suits both the politics & economics of Tasmanian Guments no matter which major political party, to have a Tas team here. The Vic Gument can hardly look to support a suburban club for whatever reason. Such support puts a Tas team in a very favourable position as a means of social unity & economics from tourism & promoting the state. North Melbourne cant even promote Victoria let alone Tasmania. A Tasmanian team gives Gument a strong reason for looking at the long term benefits that would accrue to Tasmania & more particularly (for people like me ;)) to AF in this place.

Any money invested benefits our economy & flows on to benefit our football.. It stops the continual flow of footy resources off shore & helps rebalance the position of AF here.
Does it though? Clubs are dying all over he country, having AFL clubs hasn't helped them, it's done the opposite. The only thing an AFL club in tassie will do is help people who want to support a tassie AFL club, it's not going to assist lower levels.

Any money invested doesn't necessarily benefit your economy. The club would need to make more than the government is giving them.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Does it though? Clubs are dying all over he country, having AFL clubs hasn't helped them, it's done the opposite. The only thing an AFL club in tassie will do is help people who want to support a tassie AFL club, it's not going to assist lower levels.

Any money invested doesn't necessarily benefit your economy. The club would need to make more than the government is giving them.

The sum total of support for AF will rise, no doubt. The flow on benefits via coaching, fitness & skill acquisition, administation, the player pathway to better inspire ypung players are all a benefit lower leagues & AF in general. I can guarantee that an AFL club is far better than what we have now, it could not make things any worse for us.

I note the number of ex AFL players coaching around the Melbourne leagues. We dont see that here. We use to. We had some you may have heard of, Baldock, Hudson, Bingley, Knight, Devine, Sutton, Davidson, Rhys-Jones, Shaw & many, many others with strong VFL credentials. Our footy has badly stagnated since the mid 1990's because we dont get the professional interaction we use to.

What? Money invested doesn't benefit the economy?. Please show me the economic philosophy that supports that!!!! Of course it does.

Argument that says we wont generate enough to support a club may well be legitimate. Thats a different point. And a legitimate point of discussion. Its easy to see some clubs cant cut it now, Im confident we'd do suitably wellenough to sustain a club in a sound position

I think some of the comment about the economics of it has been shrill & just plain self serving drivel. I'd argue we can & indeed many people do. Economist Saul Eslake is no mug & wouldn't show support if he didn't have good professional reason to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
The sum total of support for AF will rise, no doubt. The flow on benefits via coaching, fitness & skill acquisition, administation, the player pathway to better inspire ypung players are all a benefit lower leagues & AF in general. I can guarantee that an AFL club is far better than what we have now, it could not make things any worse for us.

I note the number of ex AFL players coaching around the Melbourne leagues. We dont see that here. We use to. We had some you may have heard of, Baldock, Hudson, Bingley, Knight, Devine, Sutton, Davidson, Rhys-Jones, Shaw & many, many others with strong VFL credentials. Our footy has badly stagnated since the mid 1990's because we dont get the professional interaction we use to.

What? Money invested doesn't benefit the economy?. Please show me the economic philosophy that supports that!!!! Of course it does.

Argument that says we wont generate enough to support a club may well be legitimate. Thats a different point. And a legitimate point of discussion. Ive shown some clubs cant cut it now, Im confident we'd do ok to sustain a club.

I think some of the comment about the economics of it has been shrill & just plain self serving drivel. I'd argue we can & indeed many people do. Economist Saul Eslake is no mug & wouldn't show support if he didn't have good professional reason to.
Evidence to support this? States with AFL teams are losing clubs, and junior clubs. You're saying an AFL club would drastically improve it with nothing other than you saying it? It seems you think the only solution to solve all problems is "give us an AFL team" at least verdun agrees you don't just throw that in as a solution (even in gc and gws local levels had reasonable structure and participation)

I said "doesn't NECESSARILY benefit". Again, either cut the disingenuous s**t or learn to read. If the government is spending more money on the investment, than it is making back in return, then it is NOT benefitting the Economy. I basically just said that word for word and you respond arguing against something that was in no way said.

I'm starting to see why others have cracked it at you. You're coming off as a child stamping his feet and throwing a tantrum
 

Bootstrap

Team Captain
May 28, 2017
322
769
AFL Club
Geelong
Tasmania should have been the first interstate team to get an AFL team.

Why Hawthorn are down there is beyond me, they have enough supporters on the mainland.

The time has come for Tasmania to have an AFL team, it would create more revenue for the AFL than Gold Coast & GWS put together, so it's a No-brainer.
 

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
2,963
1,827
AFL Club
GWS
Please read what I was responding to and my actual response. What you've said has no relevance. It was a discussion of the afl and their role in AF
You mentioned Frankston - I replied Franston is irrelevant to whether Tasmania gains entry to the AFL. (Tas. is, of course, much bigger than Frankston; & has produced c. 40 players for the VFL from the 60's to 90's -& may again be a recruiting goldmine for the AFL).

The AFL is the self-appointed "keeper of the code" -its responsibilities,officially, are far greater & wider than running the national comp.

Whether, in reality, it is underperforming in promoting & strengthening GR male AF in Vic., WA, SA, & Tas. is another issue. Many people could & do argue strongly that the AFL, since c 1990, has been underperforming badly in its heartland. It is losing significant " marketshare" to soccer, basketball, computer games/ internet " distractions" etc. -which is reflected in much less " football tribalism" now. This loss of marketshare does not appear to be of much concern to the AFL Commission -its AFL executives & big Head Office are being paid record remuneration for working in the " football industry" (sic).

You would be aware the proud VFA has been destroyed, TSL is on its last legs, & the WAFL & SANFL are shrinking rapidly due to the smothering AFL influence.
 
Last edited:

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
You mentioned Frankston - I replied it is irrelevant to whether Tasmania gains entry to the AFL. (Tas. is, of course, much bigger than Frankston; & has produced c. 40 players for the VFL from the 60's to 90's -& may again be a recruiting goldmine for the AFL).

The AFL is the self-appointed "keeper of the code" -its responsibilities,officially, are far greater & wider than running the national comp.

Whether, in reality, it is underperforming in promoting & strengthening GR male AF in Vic., WA, SA, & Tas. is another issue. Many people could & do argue strongly that the AFL, since c 1990, has been underperforming badly in its heartland. It is losing significant " marketshare" to soccer, basketball, computer games etc. -which is reflected in much less " football tribalism" now. This loss of marketshare does not appear to be of much concern to the AFL Commission -its AFL executives & big Head Office are being paid record remuneration for working in the " football industry" (sic).
Again read the post and the preceding post. It was a discussion on management of the game by the AFL at all levels

You've literally just said you read one word, then read the thread title, then responded based on those two things
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Evidence to support this? States with AFL teams are losing clubs, and junior clubs. You're saying an AFL club would drastically improve it with nothing other than you saying it? It seems you think the only solution to solve all problems is "give us an AFL team" at least verdun agrees you don't just throw that in as a solution (even in gc and gws local levels had reasonable structure and participation)

I said "doesn't NECESSARILY benefit". Again, either cut the disingenuous s**t or learn to read. If the government is spending more money on the investment, than it is making back in return, then it is NOT benefitting the Economy. I basically just said that word for word and you respond arguing against something that was in no way said.

I'm starting to see why others have cracked it at you. You're coming off as a child stamping his feet and throwing a tantrum

You talk about disingenuous!!!!!?????

Please READ what I said.

I DIDN'T say anything of the sort about losing or not losing clubs. You just made it up!!! Why???

I only said we COULDN'T be any worse off. Remember this IS an AR state. An AFL club would greatly redress to dwindling attention AF gets in the community. Inspiring more young kids would benefit AR here a real lot right now. Its a legitimate point dont you think? Whats so provocative about that???

Stop this rubbish about me saying things, this the perfect example of types like YOU playing the man & not the ball. I specifically wanted to discuss & debate the points. You just made a real dumb call & then flew off at me for NO reason.

I just dont get it. Sadly It reflects poorly on you.

I think I deserve an apology.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
You talk about disingenuous!!!!!?????

Please READ what I said.

I DIDN'T say anything of the sort about losing or not losing clubs. You just made it up!!! Why???

I only said we COULDN'T be any worse off. Remember this IS an AR state. An AFL club would greatly redress to dwindling attention AF gets in the community. Inspiring more young kids would benefit AR here a real lot right now. Its a legitimate point dont you think? Whats so provocative about that???

Stop this rubbish about me saying things, this the perfect example of types like YOU playing the man & not the ball. I specifically wanted to discuss & debate the points. You just made a real dumb call & then flew off at me for NO reason.

I just dont get it. Sadly It reflects poorly on you.

I think I deserve an apology.
You said:
The sum total of support for AF will rise, no doubt. The flow on benefits via coaching, fitness & skill acquisition, administation, the player pathway to better inspire ypung players are all a benefit lower leagues & AF in general. I can guarantee that an AFL club is far better than what we have now, it could not make things any worse for us.
In response to:
Does it though? Clubs are dying all over he country, having AFL clubs hasn't helped them, it's done the opposite. The only thing an AFL club in tassie will do is help people who want to support a tassie AFL club, it's not going to assist lower levels.

Any money invested doesn't necessarily benefit your economy. The club would need to make more than the government is giving them.
My literal original point was all about losing/not losing clubs. Now you're asking why that's being mentioned, because we are both discussing it (as I was with others). You've literally joined a discussion, then whinged that you're not part of it and you don't know what's going on.

Third disingenuous post. This is exactly what you did last time I posted about this topic (as you have to others) and then got personal when questioned on it. You don't discuss points, you just repeat your want ad nauseum and crack it when anyone disagrees.

I like how you've backed away very quickly both times I've shown you to be misrepresenting my view.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Hang on, I made a stand alone point about an AFL clubs effect on where our footy here is at right now. Dont give me that crap that you said/ I said earlier. Thats hiding from your implosion.

You blew up over your own made up comment, for NO reason.
 
I disagree. I very much see the 'welfare' of the AFL to established clubs is proof of the politics of the AFL competition, & as biased against Tasmania.
So by the AFL distributing funds to the AFL clubs, of which the AFL clubs generate by playing in a professional competition, distributing some to some clubs more than others to account for differences in the fixture, is somehow "proof" of the "biased" politics of the AFL against Tasmania? Tin foil hat is over that way.

What if the GC proves 'yet again' to be a black hole for sports clubs? People dont go to the GC for soccer or basketball or RL nor the AFL. What if the growth in Western Sydney is hardly directed to GWS at all? The hugely ethnic populations are hardly sports orientated. Indeed, if anything, their preference is for soccer. The Sydney media are never going to give the AFL a 'free kick' to help AF in any place north of the border. They see it as Sydney V Melbourne.
Going back to the Bears days Carrara has hosted over 1.6 million football fans. GC as a team itself has contributed to one million of it.

GWS, with 20,000 members seem to be growing-year-on-year irrespective of the Sydney media.

It strongly suits both the politics & economics of Tasmanian Guments no matter which major political party, to have a Tas team here. The Vic Gument can hardly look to support a suburban club for whatever reason. Such support puts a Tas team in a very favourable position as a means of social unity & economics from tourism & promoting the state.
Of course the Tasmanian government want an AFL team. There are undoubtedly going to be football fans in Tasmanian government positions. If that was of such a concern, also, they would stop sponsoring Hawthorn. But they haven't.

North Melbourne cant even promote Victoria let alone Tasmania.
Firstly, it's not North's job to promote Tasmania, it's not part of their deal to play games in Hobart (unlike Hawthorn), and what does "promote Victoria" even mean? They're there to serve fans that have been built through being a century-old team representing the suburb of North Melbourne... not sure what "promote Victoria" even means let alone it being a requirement of North.

Any money invested benefits our economy & flows on to benefit our football.. It stops the continual flow of footy resources off shore & helps rebalance the position of AF here.
AFL couldn't care less about the Tasmanian economy. It's not their job. Football in Tasmania, granted, is a responsibility of theirs, but not the only responsibility of theirs. You talk as if they don't equally or even greater have a responsibility to promote the game in the northern states, or promote the game in areas that also don't have an AFL team but are footy areas - for example the population of Tasmania is equal to the population of Western Australia except Perth. I'm sure the AFL would want to improve Tasmanian youth development, and that not everything they've done for the state's football has been good, but you talk as if an AFL team, whereas it would run at a loss (and take money from other areas), is a silver bullet for all of these issues. For example, in 2017, the AFL spun off the Northern Academies as U/18 division 2 teams and these four teams played Tasmania and NT, which is good for Tasmania, as it ensures that Tasmania U/18 plays more games, it makes the games more competitive and has allowed for more Tasmanian U/18 players in the Allies squad for division 1. Yet you haven't mentioned that good bit of action by the AFL once in regards to their "meddling" with Tasmania.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
So by the AFL distributing funds to the AFL clubs, of which the AFL clubs generate by playing in a professional competition, distributing some to some clubs more than others to account for differences in the fixture, is somehow "proof" of the "biased" politics of the AFL against Tasmania? Tin foil hat is over that way.


Going back to the Bears days Carrara has hosted over 1.6 million football fans. GC as a team itself has contributed to one million of it.

GWS, with 20,000 members seem to be growing-year-on-year irrespective of the Sydney media.


Of course the Tasmanian government want an AFL team. There are undoubtedly going to be football fans in Tasmanian government positions. If that was of such a concern, also, they would stop sponsoring Hawthorn. But they haven't.


Firstly, it's not North's job to promote Tasmania, it's not part of their deal to play games in Hobart (unlike Hawthorn), and what does "promote Victoria" even mean? They're there to serve fans that have been built through being a century-old team representing the suburb of North Melbourne... not sure what "promote Victoria" even means let alone it being a requirement of North.


AFL couldn't care less about the Tasmanian economy. It's not their job. Football in Tasmania, granted, is a responsibility of theirs, but not the only responsibility of theirs. You talk as if they don't equally or even greater have a responsibility to promote the game in the northern states, or promote the game in areas that also don't have an AFL team but are footy areas - for example the population of Tasmania is equal to the population of Western Australia except Perth. I'm sure the AFL would want to improve Tasmanian youth development, and that not everything they've done for the state's football has been good, but you talk as if an AFL team, whereas it would run at a loss (and take money from other areas), is a silver bullet for all of these issues. For example, in 2017, the AFL spun off the Northern Academies as U/18 division 2 teams and these four teams played Tasmania and NT, which is good for Tasmania, as it ensures that Tasmania U/18 plays more games, it makes the games more competitive and has allowed for more Tasmanian U/18 players in the Allies squad for division 1. Yet you haven't mentioned that good bit of action by the AFL once in regards to their "meddling" with Tasmania.


I agree the Tasmanian economy is of no concern to the AFL. The Tasmanian economy is of concern to the Tasmanian Gument (& me ;)) & thus getting an AFL club has both social & economic benefits to this place. So as I argue, it will make huge sense for the Gument here to help set up & help maintain a stable club situation here. It will need AFL expertise as that capability has long been drained out of here as enough qualified people who may once have been able to get on board such a venture have either 'passed on', or gone on to other interests.

I talk about football & development in Tasmania on this thread, BECAUSE thats what this thread is for!!!!!

If you wish to start a thread about other aspects of the AFL, its growth, development, responsibilities, in any part of the game or this nation, I'd be please. I'd be interested in the arguments for that. Discussion about AF is of value IMO.

As a point rural WA is spread over 1,000,000 square miles. Tasmanias population is spread over 25k. I think the relevant point is population density & population access to games.

Ive said the AFL U18 development program does little for Tasmanian football. If anyone gets drafted, they leave & the investment by clubs here is lost. Its as useful to Tasmanian football as the FIFO clubs. Conversely a club of our own will give more opportunity & inspire more kids to strive to play AF. Sure players may still go when drafted, but our own club would recruit draftees, like every other club. Its a give & take, not just the usual take that we suffer from.
So yes the u18 may be good for some individuals, but hardly at all for Tassie footy. Remember our TSL has become so degraded, players who dont get drafted often go to VFL, Neafl. How is that good for Tassie footy?
 
I agree the Tasmanian economy is of no concern to the AFL. The Tasmanian economy is of concern to the Tasmanian Gument (& me ;)) & thus getting an AFL club has both social & economic benefits to this place. So as I argue, it will make huge sense for the Gument here to help set up & help maintain a stable club situation here. It will need AFL expertise as that capability has long been drained out of here as enough qualified people who may once have been able to get on board such a venture have either 'passed on', or gone on to other interests.

I talk about football & development in Tasmania on this thread, BECAUSE thats what this thread is for!!!!!

If you wish to start a thread about other aspects of the AFL, its growth, development, responsibilities, in any part of the game or this nation, I'd be please. I'd be interested in the arguments for that. Discussion about AF is of value IMO.
It won't just need the AFL for its expertise alone to form the an AFL team (which seems to be the point that you're trying to make)... it'll need the AFL ... to decide to add a team to its own competition ... the government of Tasmania can't just create a Tasmanian team provided it has AFL expertise, I'm not sure what point you're you're making here. If the Tasmanian Government thinks the economic benefits are great enough, they can propose a plan to the AFL which underwrites, or funds, the costs of operating the team or making up the government shortfall, making it back up with these perceived benefits. Funny how that wasn't part of their submission plan in 2008, or they claimed that they could accommodate a GC Suns relocation without mentioning anything about funding relocation costs (whilst all the while continuing to sponsor Hawthorn).

The thread title is "Tasmanian AFL team, could it happen?". It isn't a thread about whether you want a Tasmania team. Of course you do. It also isn't a thread about wider issues with football in Tasmania - as much as you keep talking about it. It's relevant to the extent that how a Tasmanian AFL team could impact them, or how they influence the argument for or against a Tasmanian AFL team, but it isn't about Tassie footy in general. I find it a bit odd that you're lecturing me about what this thread is for, when what you're lecturing is factually incorrect.

And the point I'm making about the growth, development, responsibilities of the AFL is because the AFL has scarce resources, and it has to invest those resources somewhere, of which it could be creating a Tasmania. Irrespective of the long-term viability, the start-up has initial costs involved (the costs involved to actually get an administrative structure in place, and the costs involved with accommodating another team, the marketing, PR etc.), and that's money taken away from somewhere else. It is directly relevant to an discussion about an AFL team because the AFL has to weigh up competing priorities fulfilling its mandate as a non-profit organisation as a custodian and promoter of the game of Australian football. It's directly salient to the Tassie team discussion.

As a point rural WA is spread over 1,000,000 square miles. Tasmanias population is spread over 25k. I think the relevant point is population density & population access to games.
But it's still the same footy-mad population, that needs investment in development and growth, that doesn't have an AFL team, and doesn't have an AFL team representing them - Kalgoorie, for example, is neither Fremantle or on the West Coast, just like Tassie, doesn't have a team. Of course to have a team for all of rural WA doesn't make sense economically, due to population density, like you say. But with a population just as great as Tassie, their
"claims" to broader football development are just as great as Tassie's, in that, if we consider each person to be equal, you can't poor cry about 500,000 Tasmanians without recognising there is also football fans in other parts of Australia with greater population than Tasmania without their own team.

And Tassie has access to games. 7 of them. People in Broken Hill, Kalgoorie, etc. certainly don't have the same access to games that Tasmanians have.

Ive said the AFL U18 development program does little for Tasmanian football. If anyone gets drafted, they leave & the investment by clubs here is lost. Its as useful to Tasmanian football as the FIFO clubs. Conversely a club of our own will give more opportunity & inspire more kids to strive to play AF. Sure players may still go when drafted, but our own club would recruit draftees, like every other club. Its a give & take, not just the usual take that we suffer from.
So yes the u18 may be good for some individuals, but hardly at all for Tassie footy. Remember our TSL has become so degraded, players who dont get drafted often go to VFL, Neafl. How is that good for Tassie footy?
But at least they're making changes this year, of which includes more total and more competitive games, which was the very point I made originally, and you haven't seemed to address. Unless you're arguing that more of a bad thing isn't good, but then, following that principle and logic, all the money that goes into the Tasmania U/18 system should go into other forms of Tasmanian football development and Tasmania should not run an U/18 team whatsoever. Which I think is pretty ridiculous but I suppose that's a point you make.

It's also funny how everything done within Tasmania for the state is an AFL-responsible screw up, but also everything they've done well isn't the AFL, is Tasmania, but also the AFL is suddenly going to do good with introducing and managing a new team. I'm not fully across the TSL, but isn't its relative lack of success in part because of Tasmanian mis-management, and the fact that there's still competing north-south in-fighting that goes back decades when there used to be breakaways, supposed state leagues with southern dominance, etc. etc.?
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
It won't just need the AFL for its expertise alone to form the an AFL team (which seems to be the point that you're trying to make)... it'll need the AFL ... to decide to add a team to its own competition ... the government of Tasmania can't just create a Tasmanian team provided it has AFL expertise, I'm not sure what point you're you're making here. If the Tasmanian Government thinks the economic benefits are great enough, they can propose a plan to the AFL which underwrites, or funds, the costs of operating the team or making up the government shortfall, making it back up with these perceived benefits. Funny how that wasn't part of their submission plan in 2008, or they claimed that they could accommodate a GC Suns relocation without mentioning anything about funding relocation costs (whilst all the while continuing to sponsor Hawthorn).

The thread title is "Tasmanian AFL team, could it happen?". It isn't a thread about whether you want a Tasmania team. Of course you do. It also isn't a thread about wider issues with football in Tasmania - as much as you keep talking about it. It's relevant to the extent that how a Tasmanian AFL team could impact them, or how they influence the argument for or against a Tasmanian AFL team, but it isn't about Tassie footy in general. I find it a bit odd that you're lecturing me about what this thread is for, when what you're lecturing is factually incorrect.

And the point I'm making about the growth, development, responsibilities of the AFL is because the AFL has scarce resources, and it has to invest those resources somewhere, of which it could be creating a Tasmania. Irrespective of the long-term viability, the start-up has initial costs involved (the costs involved to actually get an administrative structure in place, and the costs involved with accommodating another team, the marketing, PR etc.), and that's money taken away from somewhere else. It is directly relevant to an discussion about an AFL team because the AFL has to weigh up competing priorities fulfilling its mandate as a non-profit organisation as a custodian and promoter of the game of Australian football. It's directly salient to the Tassie team discussion.


But it's still the same footy-mad population, that needs investment in development and growth, that doesn't have an AFL team, and doesn't have an AFL team representing them - Kalgoorie, for example, is neither Fremantle or on the West Coast, just like Tassie, doesn't have a team. Of course to have a team for all of rural WA doesn't make sense economically, due to population density, like you say. But with a population just as great as Tassie, their
"claims" to broader football development are just as great as Tassie's, in that, if we consider each person to be equal, you can't poor cry about 500,000 Tasmanians without recognising there is also football fans in other parts of Australia with greater population than Tasmania without their own team.

And Tassie has access to games. 7 of them. People in Broken Hill, Kalgoorie, etc. certainly don't have the same access to games that Tasmanians have.


But at least they're making changes this year, of which includes more total and more competitive games, which was the very point I made originally, and you haven't seemed to address. Unless you're arguing that more of a bad thing isn't good, but then, following that principle and logic, all the money that goes into the Tasmania U/18 system should go into other forms of Tasmanian football development and Tasmania should not run an U/18 team whatsoever. Which I think is pretty ridiculous but I suppose that's a point you make.

It's also funny how everything done within Tasmania for the state is an AFL-responsible screw up, but also everything they've done well isn't the AFL, is Tasmania, but also the AFL is suddenly going to do good with introducing and managing a new team. I'm not fully across the TSL, but isn't its relative lack of success in part because of Tasmanian mis-management, and the fact that there's still competing north-south in-fighting that goes back decades when there used to be breakaways, supposed state leagues with southern dominance, etc. etc.?

I've said the massive social change since the 1980s affected all community sport & activity. I said the AFL rode the wave of TV rights. I said the places that were included in the AFL have gained that benefit. Thats at least a counter to the losses on local community football. ie the fall of the WAFL is balanced by the rise of WCE & FFC. The point being Tasmania copped the same social change but no AFL club to balance things out for AR football here.

The TSL is an AFL competition, AFLTas is a fully owned & controlled branch of the AFL. It implements AFL Policy.

Sure Access to AFL games may be easier here than at Kalgoorlie. Its FIFO football. That It provides almost no benefit for Tasmanian football is my point.

As far as 500k people in a reasonable area is concerned, Please let me know of a similar area that has no professional football level to represent it & interact to the benefit of local sport? If their is, & I cant immediately think of one, they should look at starting a thread too.
 
I've said the massive social change since the 1980s affected all community sport & activity. I said the AFL rode the wave of TV rights. I said the places that were included in the AFL have gained that benefit. Thats at least a counter to the losses on local community football. ie the fall of the WAFL is balanced by the rise of WCE & FFC. The point being Tasmania copped the same social change but no AFL club to balance things out for AR football here.

The TSL is an AFL competition, AFLTas is a fully owned & controlled branch of the AFL. It implements AFL Policy.

Sure Access to AFL games may be easier here than at Kalgoorlie. Its FIFO football. That It provides almost no benefit for Tasmanian football is my point.

As far as 500k people in a reasonable area is concerned, Please let me know of a similar area that has no professional football level to represent it & interact to the benefit of local sport? If their is, & I cant immediately think of one, they should look at starting a thread too.
Riverina (Wagga, Albury etc.)+ Canberra has a population of 600k+, and 3 games from a "FIFO" team in GWS. It's over a larger area than Tasmania, granted, but they get 3 games vs 7 and the population is larger than Tasmania (so similar density of population? I get it's a slightly rugby area, but there's probably more footy fans in Canberra than there are in Hobart given the difference in population (not to mention the vastly different disposable income factors that make Canberra's footy fans more attractive to sponsors and advertisers than Hobart's).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back