Tim Lane - Time for a Tasmanian Team

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ndot

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Posts
3,845
Likes
608
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
soccer
#29
merge two vic teams or just let the kangas die... and bring in the tas team. it'll happen, just a matter of when.

i say the sooner the better
 

Lidge

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 28, 2003
Posts
15,134
Likes
45
Location
Qantas Club Lounge
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Washington Generals
#30
Plus corporate sponsorship will be a lot easier to get in tassie given their is no pressure from other codes down there.
Think before you post son.

The nearest thing to a 'corporate' in Tasmania is Forestry Tas (the only company in the state with more than 500 employees). Plus head office is in Hobart. It's really an SME - not a corporate sized business.

Maybe they may be able to sell one corporate box - that's assuming they have one at Launceston.
 

Blues_Man

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Posts
26,793
Likes
3,477
Location
paradise
AFL Club
Carlton
#33
Think before you post son.

The nearest thing to a 'corporate' in Tasmania is Forestry Tas (the only company in the state with more than 500 employees). Plus head office is in Hobart. It's really an SME - not a corporate sized business.

Maybe they may be able to sell one corporate box - that's assuming they have one at Launceston.
Forestry Tas ???? :confused: I think you are a little confused ...Gunns is Tasmanias biggest corporation .

Tassie does not need or want their own football team ...there is far too much rivalry between the North V South for it to ever occur.

why do people presume that supporters will suddenly stop following their respective teams..that they have probablyfollowed most of their life, and start following a state team ..it just ain't gonna happen folks !

leave it as it is..with the Hawks playing a few games here per year ...and a couple of NAB cup games ..if we Tasmanians want to watch our teams play then we just jump on a plane and in 45 minutes we are in Melbourne .

and i'm sure Launceston would have more corporate boxes than the poor old homeless and destitute Roos ...didn't theirs all go up in a fire ??
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,062
Likes
33,019
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
#34
This is the problem with the footy dreamers (Caroline Wilson, Tim Lane and Robert Walls) is that there is no economical fact put into their dreams of clubs moving all over the country.

It is just not economically feasible.

The only valid point Tim Lane makes is just how unfeasible the Gold Coast is and will continue to be.

Darwin, Canberra, Tasmania and Gold Coast wont be able to afford to host an AFL side, not for a very long time. If anyone is looking for someone to blame for this the AFL only need look at themselves expecting a club to generate $25-30 million a year to be viable. No clubs in development regions are going to be able to make that kind of cash.

It is the only sport in Australia where cost of running a club is spiraling out of control. It is the only sport in Australia which generates the kind of money it does ($1.4 billion over the next 5 years) yet has so many clubs not doing well financially.

AFL have to take a long hard look at how they administrate the competition and the kind of money they return to clubs. It is not sufficient for existing clubs and makes it unviable to take the game into the developing regions.
 

Bestbird

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Posts
5,463
Likes
629
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
#36
This is the problem with the footy dreamers (Caroline Wilson, Tim Lane and Robert Walls) is that there is no economical fact put into their dreams of clubs moving all over the country.

It is just not economically feasible.

The only valid point Tim Lane makes is just how unfeasible the Gold Coast is and will continue to be.

Darwin, Canberra, Tasmania and Gold Coast wont be able to afford to host an AFL side, not for a very long time. If anyone is looking for someone to blame for this the AFL only need look at themselves expecting a club to generate $25-30 million a year to be viable. No clubs in development regions are going to be able to make that kind of cash.

It is the only sport in Australia where cost of running a club is spiraling out of control. It is the only sport in Australia which generates the kind of money it does ($1.4 billion over the next 5 years) yet has so many clubs not doing well financially.

AFL have to take a long hard look at how they administrate the competition and the kind of money they return to clubs. It is not sufficient for existing clubs and makes it unviable to take the game into the developing regions.
In regards to the embolded part

Much like having 10 teams in Melbourne.

I'm sure the AFL is aware that new clubs would not be economicaly viable in the short to medium term but it does open the game up to new markets a lot more than the poorer Melbourne based clubs playing a few token games in these areas to make extra money whilst still requiring handouts.

lets face it

Any supporters in these new markets are not going to embrace a team with that kind of tokenism. The Roos dalliance in Canberra proved that
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
27,186
Likes
12,680
Location
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
#37
This is the problem with the footy dreamers (Caroline Wilson, Tim Lane and Robert Walls) is that there is no economical fact put into their dreams of clubs moving all over the country.

It is just not economically feasible.

The only valid point Tim Lane makes is just how unfeasible the Gold Coast is and will continue to be.

Darwin, Canberra, Tasmania and Gold Coast wont be able to afford to host an AFL side, not for a very long time. If anyone is looking for someone to blame for this the AFL only need look at themselves expecting a club to generate $25-30 million a year to be viable. No clubs in development regions are going to be able to make that kind of cash.

It is the only sport in Australia where cost of running a club is spiraling out of control. It is the only sport in Australia which generates the kind of money it does ($1.4 billion over the next 5 years) yet has so many clubs not doing well financially.

AFL have to take a long hard look at how they administrate the competition and the kind of money they return to clubs. It is not sufficient for existing clubs and makes it unviable to take the game into the developing regions.
Good post, but you don't really offer a solution. The problem isn't the money that's being generated or given back to the clubs, it's that there is such a huge gap between the AFL and the next best league/s. There isn't a transition that allows clubs (either new or existing) to build support until they are viable enough to enter the league in their own right. No club is going to be able to enter the AFL and immediately be viable, it's just a fact of life. Football clubs need time to attract supporters. Other than entering the AFL, how can they do that? Like the chicken and the egg.

Not that I have a solution to the problem either. But I know you can't judge the success, or potential success of a new team in the AFL by the support they will immediately attract. Look 10, even 20 years into the future and judge prospective support levels.
 

longsuffreosupp

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Posts
3,819
Likes
1,483
Location
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
#38
I dont know much about the VFL comp, but is there something from Tasmania in that. Couldn't that get people into a support base to launch a team from there. A bit like how Port have their supporters from the SANFL
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,062
Likes
33,019
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
#39
In regards to the embolded part

Much like having 10 teams in Melbourne.
Well, we have 9. Geelong gets most of it's support from the Geelong area.

9 teams is not too many, each Melbourne clubs helps to generate a significant amount of income for the other clubs, Collingwood doesn't need 50k members because the interest in games by supporters of both home and away teams means that usually you get a good crowd for Melbourne games.

You can say our membership base is low at around 25k, but in 05 we averaged over 40k attendances for games in Melbourne, a reasonable year on-field.

Interstate teams need a high level of support because little is coming from the away supporters. There is little difference between a club that has 40k members to one that averages 40k for home games.

The main advantage interstate clubs have is the availability of low maintenance stadiums to play games at. AFL recognise that is a major issue in Victoria and one that is mostly responsible for creating a significant difference in profitability.

I'm sure the AFL is aware that new clubs would not be economicaly viable in the short to medium term but it does open the game up to new markets a lot more than the poorer Melbourne based clubs playing a few token games in these areas to make extra money whilst still requiring handouts.
What does Sydney or even Brisbane bring to the table that a Melbourne club does not?

Of the $1.4 billion generated by the AFL over the next 5 years you want to take a stab at how much of that revenue is generated in Victoria compared to anywhere else?

Sydney and Brisbane have been receiving $10 million every year in game development grants which are in effect free promotion work for those club, Swans are on the SDF after all these years of support, TV stations are forced to play games there, tell me what it adds to the competition as a whole other than just another team playing somewhere else?

lets face it

Any supporters in these new markets are not going to embrace a team with that kind of tokenism. The Roos dalliance in Canberra proved that
North never tried to establish Canberra as a new home so I am not sure what you are getting at. Our games there were a good opportunity for Canberra to show that they wanted to see more footall and wanted their own team in the future. They let themselves down really because as time went on it was becoming less and less feasible to play games there.

The advantage we get at the Gold Coast are lights so the ability to play on Saturday Nights. That is better promotion, they have greater corporate and promotional opportunities there and they have a larger population.

Gold Coast had their own team, it went broke, as did all major sporting clubs there. Us playing games there gives them the opportunity to build up football, build better facilities and grow the support for the game. But it is a pipe dream that they will be able to support a club there in the near future.

If they do not embrace clubs wishing to help them develop the sport there then they definitely do not deserve a team of their own there.
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,062
Likes
33,019
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
#40
Good post, but you don't really offer a solution.
I think the major advantage interstate clubs have is that they can pick and choose where they want to play, it helps a lot having their owners also own the stadium where they play. This is probably the biggest issue for clubs here, the cost of playing games.

We have a very large stadium in the MCG (100k) and a large stadium in TD (55k). MCG is owned by the MCC, they have no incentive to offer clubs a cheap and affordable venue to play games, they are still trying to pay off extensive upgrades to the stadium, none of which make any difference to most clubs who wont utilise the capacity.

TD is still owned by a third part organisation that is looking to make profits, they have no incentive to offer affordable games to clubs.

Like it or not, AFL forces us to play 2 home games at MCG, despite TD being our home ground. Like it or not, AFL would forces us to play 2 or 3 home games at TD even if MCG was our home ground. They wont let clubs play anywhere else.

We would be more profitable playing our home games from Arden Street just in front of our own members than it would be to play games at TD or MCG because they have horrendous overheads and are just not suited to a team of our supporter size. It would be like Eagles playing at MCG every week and getting 40k people to a 100k stadium. You would be lucky to break even on your home games.

Realistically, if AFL is going to tell clubs where to play in Victoria then they need to do a collective barganing arrangement on behalf of all Victorian clubs with the stadium owners, otherwise free clubs up to play where they want to play.

Clubs should never be put in the position where they can't bargain with the stadium owners because they know we will be forced to play due to moronic AFL agreements with stadium owners.

The problem isn't the money that's being generated or given back to the clubs, it's that there is such a huge gap between the AFL and the next best league/s. There isn't a transition that allows clubs (either new or existing) to build support until they are viable enough to enter the league in their own right. No club is going to be able to enter the AFL and immediately be viable, it's just a fact of life. Football clubs need time to attract supporters. Other than entering the AFL, how can they do that? Like the chicken and the egg.
For a lot of clubs, the VFL to AFL transition is much like teams being born from scratch, especially those that had low supporter bases. They were never going to generate the kind of money that was expected just due to timing of the change and haven't really had the funds to improve the situation. Until last year AFL only really gave us enough to break even assuming a bare bones budget. That allows you to keep your head above water, it doesn't help you to fix the problem.

This year is the first year we are going to be given an amount that allows the club start to do something about our issues. The sooner we do not need that assistance, the better.

Not that I have a solution to the problem either. But I know you can't judge the success, or potential success of a new team in the AFL by the support they will immediately attract. Look 10, even 20 years into the future and judge prospective support levels.
We do have a number of issues, I don't have the answers to all the problems, I just know the AFL is starting to become aware of what the issues are, finally. When you know what the issues are you can at least start to address them.

AFL just does not return enough to clubs, to generate $1.4 billion over 5 years and return about $600 million for a sevice based industry with little in the way of overheads it is a meager investment in the clubs that are all helping to generate that revenue.

That is where it needs to start. AFL distributions do not even pay the salary of players. Football clubs in the USA thrive on just broadcasting revenue alone, if the AFL is going down the track where they throw equallity out the window for the sake fo maximising broadcasting revenue then they owe a lot to clubs to ensure the sacrifices made result in a significant distribution made to the clubs.
 

Sir_Adrian84

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
3,776
Likes
4
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Australian Cricket Team
#41
Think before you post son.

The nearest thing to a 'corporate' in Tasmania is Forestry Tas (the only company in the state with more than 500 employees). Plus head office is in Hobart. It's really an SME - not a corporate sized business.

Maybe they may be able to sell one corporate box - that's assuming they have one at Launceston.
i doubt that will continue when Howard is voted out.
 

fishmonger

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
3,454
Likes
4
Location
St Kilda
Other Teams
Grassroots Footy
Thread starter #43
You speak with such authority and yet you are so wrong. That would trouble the average individual ...

"Up until 1987 Western Australia was immersed in WAFL culture. The West Coast Eagles joined the VFL (Victorian Football League) in 1987 and crowds for WAFL started to slip. The Sharks once pulled on average 20,000 people to a home game. Now, in 2006, 2,000 people to a home game is considered a strong attendance.Why the decline? Ask West Coast."

http://www.answers.com/topic/east-fremantle-football-club
well said.

a lot of people on this thread may not have watched the most recent game. The Hawks were booed, just like North was in Canberra on occassion. This is supposedly a team wearing a (token) Tasmania badge. But it is obvious that the real footy fans know that they have been sold out.

Yet, if they can get 15,000+ to a pre-season match, imagine what a Tasmanian team would get to a home and away match .... it would easily be a sell-out, and 23,000 a match is the equivalent to what Geelong gets at Kardinia park and much more than you'll ever get at the Gold Coast.

And if the Lions don't improve onfield, expect to start seeing Gabba crowd figures return to their low 20,000s before they made the finals, which would make the Tasmanian proposition much more attractive crowdwise. Lets not forget that the mighty threepeat premier Brisbane Lions, even with their supposedly massive TV audience etc made a loss last year. A Tasmanian team would have a captive audience, not a bunch of bandwagoners who jump on board when their rugby league team isn't performing.
 

KingyOrTheKing

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 15, 2001
Posts
3,763
Likes
1
Location
Northern France
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
LFC
#44
Think about it:

-Small ageing population. Young adults tend to move interstate even if the government is saying otherwise. The state attracts retirees.
-Only state without population primacy (population in Tas is spread out. And no, some people down here won't travel the 2-2 1/2 hrs to see a game)
-Corporate $$?

Answer: No. This place will not support an AFL team.
 

fishmonger

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
3,454
Likes
4
Location
St Kilda
Other Teams
Grassroots Footy
Thread starter #46
Think about it:

-Small ageing population. Young adults tend to move interstate even if the government is saying otherwise. The state attracts retirees.
-Only state without population primacy (population in Tas is spread out. And no, some people down here won't travel the 2-2 1/2 hrs to see a game)
-Corporate $$?

Answer: No. This place will not support an AFL team.
You're kidding yourself if you don't think that the Gold Coast (or Queensland for that matter) is the home of an ageing population. It is nothing more than a retirement home with canals and a casino. :rolleyes:

from the Gold Coast City COuncil:
In the 25 years from 2001 to 2026, the proportion of Gold Coast residents aged 55 and over is expected to have increased from 23.9% to 33.8%. In terms of numbers of people, the older population will have more than doubled.

The Gold Coast has an older age profile than the state and national averages

Persons aged 60 and over represent 18.3% of the Gold Coast City population, compared to 15.9% for Queensland and 16.8% for Australia.

The proportion of persons aged 70 and over has increased from 10.4% of the population in 1991 to 11 per cent in 2001.

People aged 75 years and over represent 6.3% of the total population.
If you don't believe me, read here http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?pid=935 there is some interesting facts. For instance, most people think that people on the GC are richer, therefore there is more money there than say Tassie. This is simply not true.

Gold Coast City residents in 2001 had incomes below the national levels and above the national levels for older residents. Despite this, it was recorded that nearly two thirds of Gold Coast City residents aged 55 and over earned less than $400 per week.
And how many big corporates are based on the Gold Coast ?? Well you could approach some Japanese investors or Daimaru, but they pulled out years ago.

Contrast, from the University of Tasmania:
In Tasmania, 12.8 percent of people are aged 65 and over

So if people aren't travelling, how do they manage to get 20,000 to a game in a city of 100,000 ??? :rolleyes: are they magically appearing ???

And who says that you need young people to watch AFL, at least talented kids there actually play the game.

I am really sick of the same BS myths keep getting bandied around about Tassie.

And face it if you are a North supporter, your club is gonna die anyway, so stop making excuses for your idiotic whoring. Go take your old fart poverty stricken Gold Coast pie and eat it.
 

catman2006

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Posts
3,065
Likes
1,132
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Sunderland & Penrith
#47
Funny the most resistance comes from a club who's head is on the chopping block. Tasmanians don't want another AFL side they want their own from the start.

People in the south would get over the fact games will be played in the north.

If Geelong can survive when most of it's members come from Melbourne and not in Geelong, Tasmanian side would survive.

Finding a sponsor would not be a problem in a national competition.

Tasmania will have a team in the next 5-10 years like it or not.
 

Pessimistic

TheBrownDog
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
66,358
Likes
26,062
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
#48
well said.

a lot of people on this thread may not have watched the most recent game. The Hawks were booed, just like North was in Canberra on occassion. This is supposedly a team wearing a (token) Tasmania badge. But it is obvious that the real footy fans know that they have been sold out.

Yet, if they can get 15,000+ to a pre-season match, imagine what a Tasmanian team would get to a home and away match .... it would easily be a sell-out, and 23,000 a match is the equivalent to what Geelong gets at Kardinia park and much more than you'll ever get at the Gold Coast.

And if the Lions don't improve onfield, expect to start seeing Gabba crowd figures return to their low 20,000s before they made the finals, which would make the Tasmanian proposition much more attractive crowdwise. Lets not forget that the mighty threepeat premier Brisbane Lions, even with their supposedly massive TV audience etc made a loss last year. A Tasmanian team would have a captive audience, not a bunch of bandwagoners who jump on board when their rugby league team isn't performing.
Lane is harsh on Hawthorn who have genuinely embraced the state. He obviously also hates Kennett and loves carlton.

There are lots of Carlton fans in tassie, along with Richmond Saints and Hawks. The carlton fans were making the most of the once in 100 years appearance. Hawks fans might now be getting 'spoilt' as there are 4 H & A games to come.
 

KingyOrTheKing

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 15, 2001
Posts
3,763
Likes
1
Location
Northern France
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
LFC
#49
You're kidding yourself if you don't think that the Gold Coast (or Queensland for that matter) is the home of an ageing population. It is virtually a retirement home with canals. :rolleyes:
Never said it wasn't. Work it out. At minimum 550,000 on the Gold Coast, and this can double at various times of the year (and that would be understating it). 18% over 65 so around 450,000 under 65. In Launceston (~100,000), (North East Tas has the highest 65+ % in the state BTW, so it is in fact much higher than 12.8%), 12.8% 65+, so 87,000 under 65. Whats the argument here?

And I suppose you are going to argue that the population is in fact 500,000. Like those tourists that come over here and think they can see everything in a day because the island looks 'so small' on a map.:D

Tasmania's population is spread all over. Take a drive around some time. Or don't you even live in Tas?

So if people aren't travelling, how do they manage to get 20,000 to a game in a city of 100,000 ??? :rolleyes: are they magically appearing ???
Where are there 20,000 North supporters in Tassie? As much as I'd love to see more Kangas games down here, it wouldn't be viable.
 
Top Bottom