Tasmania "You need 45 million" - Clubs that fail the Tasmanian Revenue Test.

[telsor]

The only long term view l have is retirement

Other than that l CBF waiting. I think we've waited well long enough. 20-30, why not just say 50 or 100yrs. Its just as arbitrary. Just as pointless. We dont have to prove anything. So fek 'em.

Because the player pool does have to have time to grow (or standards actually will drop), and the AFL's finances need to strengthen after pouring massive amounts into GC/GWS before more teams can be added (because any new teams, however viable, will need a few years before they can stand on their own and contribute to the league as a whole).

BTW..20-30 years was for all 5 teams...I'd add the next two in 5-10 years.

 

[madmug]

Because the player pool does have to have time to grow (or standards actually will drop), and the AFL's finances need to strengthen after pouring massive amounts into GC/GWS before more teams can be added (because any new teams, however viable, will need a few years before they can stand on their own and contribute to the league as a whole).

BTW..20-30 years was for all 5 teams...I'd add the next two in 5-10 years.

l would love to see the AFLs prognostications on when some clubs will be able to "stand on their own two feet'? & its definition of same. $45mil perhaps.

 

[telsor]

l would love to see the AFLs prognostications on when some clubs will be able to "stand on their own two feet'? & its definition of same. $45mil perhaps.

There is a difference between maintaining support for existing 'costs' and bringing in new ways to spend.

Just because your car is expensive to maintain doesn't mean you should go out and buy another.

 

[madmug]

Because the player pool does have to have time to grow (or standards actually will drop), and the AFL's finances need to strengthen after pouring massive amounts into GC/GWS before more teams can be added (because any new teams, however viable, will need a few years before they can stand on their own and contribute to the league as a whole).

BTW..20-30 years was for all 5 teams...I'd add the next two in 5-10 years.

I think this idea of a quality player pool is worth discussion. IMO overall the average player is much fitter, stronger,betterhand/foot skilled under pressure & tackle better than 20yrs ago. Kicking for goal is no better
So I don't know how much better people expect the players to be?
You always get the stars, but theirs always been a shortage of them. Look at star strikers in soccer. Not many real superstars in that mass of players. NFL Qtrbacks, very few super stars.
No, overall quality is up. So what next?
The AFL said one team in Tas. When do they actually do what they say? Its their game. They run it.

 

[telsor]

I think this idea of a quality player pool is worth discussion. IMO overall the average player is much fitter, stronger,betterhand/foot skilled under pressure & tackle better than 20yrs ago. Kicking for goal is no better
So I don't know how much better people expect the players to be?
You always get the stars, but theirs always been a shortage of them. Look at star strikers in soccer. Not many real superstars in that mass of players. NFL Qtrbacks, very few super stars.
No, overall quality is up. So what next?
The AFL said one team in Tas. When do they actually do what they say? Its their game. They run it.

I think it's more a matter of depth...Player 30 on the list rather than player 2 or 3, and I figure that if the growth of the game (both pop and new regions playing) will probably cover all skill/talent levels...So going by 30 per team that's 540 players...grow by 10% and you have 54 more or (almost) 2 teams worth.

BTW...When has the AFL said 1 team in Tas? (not counting that as 1 FIFO team, which I know you don't think counts).

 

[madmug]

I think it's more a matter of depth...Player 30 on the list rather than player 2 or 3, and I figure that if the growth of the game (both pop and new regions playing) will probably cover all skill/talent levels...So going by 30 per team that's 540 players...grow by 10% and you have 54 more or (almost) 2 teams worth.

BTW...When has the AFL said 1 team in Tas? (not counting that as 1 FIFO team, which I know you don't think counts).

Gil has said a hundred times. They mean FIFO Teams. The AFL knows the stupidity & confusing look of having two teams FIFO.

The punters often put a query on the supposed effect on football of parochialism in Tasmania.. The AFL having 2 teams coming here just reinforces that stereotypical view.

 

[telsor]

Gil has said a hundred times. They mean FIFO Teams. The AFL knows the stupidity & confusing look of having two teams FIFO.

The punters often put a query on the supposed effect on football of parochialism in Tasmania.. The AFL having 2 teams coming here just reinforces that stereotypical view.

I think 2 FIFO teams reinforces the view that Tasmania isn't 'one single, unified market', and it's more Tas Government's doing than the AFL.

 

[madmug]

I think 2 FIFO teams reinforces the view that Tasmania isn't 'one single, unified market', and it's more Tas Government's doing than the AFL.

Absolutely but its the AFLs game & fixture. The Guments view is to look like heros by giving the plebs some football. They refused to support football in Hobart from 1999 until now, pure stupidity & base politics, but for the AFL to allow them to use the game in such a crass political way, was a disgrace. Now the pollies are all over North Melbn. Just pathetic.