2019 AFL Crowds & Ratings Thread

[AstuteTiger]

It feels like a low 60’s crowd to me, decent weather permitting. If it’s a Hawks member replacement game it may get a few more. Essendon only drew 63,500 to a similar timeslot 2 weeks ago against Geelong for what I’m sure would’ve been a circa 70,000 crowd on a Saturday / Friday night. 3:20pm Sunday is the 2nd worst timeslot for crowds (behind 4:40pm) and Thursday night I suppose. Not good for young families.

Incidentally I believe the 1:10pm Sunday slot is one of the best. Great for young families and crowds generally much better than the 3:20pm slot.

Incidentally, I’m resigned to a poor turnout at Marvel on Saturday night. I’d say it will be Essendon’s worst crowd since that 2016 saga year. Essendon people are filthy with what happened last Friday night. Effort and trust are non negotiable and Essendon have fallen short on both consistently. Season technically alive yes. But it means little in the broader sense with injuries compounding a bad week. Reality is that appears another year wasted. Every team suffers when things get tough in field. No fan base is immune. My gut feel is Essendon’s on field efforts have fallen below a key threshold of intolerance last Friday night and the crowd this week will confirm this. 26-27,000 my prediction which will be a strong message to the power brokers that the fan base is losing patience!

Well said agree wholeheartedly. Guess we'll wait and see but it should clear 60K.

On the bombers i understand your frustrations only to well and as you know my tigers before our glory tested the patience more than once over last 30 years.
Bombers support at marvel is pretty resilient and my initial thoughts were early 30's but if it dips to what u are suggesting 26/27K this will definitely send a clear msg that the fans have had a gutful of substandard performances.

But in saying all that theres a long way to go in the season and it only takes a win to stir up the emotions of the fans so i hope u guys knock off Freo and us the hawks as the following week its dreamtime at the G and it would be awesome going into the match both as winners.

 

[magic_johnson!]

Yeah righto

I presume Hawthorn (thanks to their designated home game status) will remain the Cats largest gate for the season

Selling home games to an MCG tenant does bring into question the integrity of the competition but for 10 years ongoing dollars is dollars

Bit off topic but I'll presume the hawthorn game will be either Geelong's lowest or second lowest 'gate' for the season. Way more money to be made for the club through proper home games.

In regards to mother's day though, I can't recall a Geelong crowd in Melbourne attracting as small an attendance in recent years as the 21 against north. Not a great day for crowds all round.

 

[manicmagpie]

In regards to mother's day though, I can't recall a Geelong crowd in Melbourne attracting as small an attendance in recent years as the 21 against north. Not a great day for crowds all round.

It was Geelong’s lowest ever crowd at Docklands and the lowest for Geelong at any Melbourne venue excluding Western Oval since 1990.

So that does include games at the M.C.G., Waverley, Princes Park, Victoria Park and Moorabbin.

 

[JohnZ]

Yeah righto

I presume Hawthorn (thanks to their designated home game status) will remain the Cats largest gate for the season

Selling home games to an MCG tenant does bring into question the integrity of the competition but for 10 years ongoing dollars is dollars

We don't sell them. The AFL forces us, because you sell home games to tassie, and the AFL has a contract to fulfil. If you take the Hawks and North games back from tassie and put them in Melbourne, Geelong would be allowed to play 11 home games in Geelong

 

[blaisee]

The Rich Hawthorn game will be like the tigers playing an interstate team especially in the worst timeslot 3.20 on a Sunday.

Doubt we will get to to 60k, but with the tiger army gathering momentum, who knows.

 

[Hawkk]

We don't sell them. The AFL forces us, because you sell home games to tassie, and the AFL has a contract to fulfil. If you take the Hawks and North games back from tassie and put them in Melbourne, Geelong would be allowed to play 11 home games in Geelong

Righto

Actually Hawthorn plays in Tasmania because the AFL can’t commit that they will play the games at the MCG.

If Geelong are compelled to play games in Melbourne perhaps they can play them at Docklands so Hawthorn can get their MCG home games back.

Failing that, play low drawing home games in Melbourne and Hawthorn / Collingwood / Essendon games in Geelong

I find it highly ironic that a Geelong fan has a go at Hawthorn crowds (when 6 of 8 games have been in the dreaded 3.20pm slot) when the Cats profiteer off substantial crowds of Hawthorn fans filling their coffers at these MCG ‘home games’

Actually when you factor in away game reserve seating Hawthorn members have more seating at these games then the Cats. It’s purely a money grab by the Cats and good on them I guess, those grandstands don’t pay for themselves

 

[JohnZ]

Righto

Actually Hawthorn plays in Tasmania because the AFL can’t commit that they will play the games at the MCG.

If Geelong are compelled to play games in Melbourne perhaps they can play them at Docklands so Hawthorn can get their MCG home games back.

Failing that, play low drawing home games in Melbourne and Hawthorn / Collingwood / Essendon games in Geelong

I find it highly ironic that a Geelong fan has a go at Hawthorn crowds (when 6 of 8 games have been in the dreaded 3.20pm slot) when the Cats profiteer off substantial crowds of Hawthorn fans filling their coffers at these MCG ‘home games’

Actually when you factor in away game reserve seating Hawthorn members have more seating at these games then the Cats. It’s purely a money grab by the Cats and good on them I guess, those grandstands don’t pay for themselves

Did you proof read any of that?

All MCG clubs play 1 home game at Marvel. No club gets all 11 at the MCG. Not Collingwood, not Richmond and certainly not Hawthorn.

Your club took the Tassie deal because it was broke and on it's knees. Barely 10 years since winning multiple flags and you had spent it all on hookers and blow.

Pokies money out west in low social economic areas, taking money from tax payers to play 4 games in front of 10,000. An absolute leech on the public.

The AFL has signed contracts which require 45 games at both the MCG and Marvel. If Hawthorn, North, Melbourne and Bulldogs all played 11 home games in Melbourne (like Richmond, Pies, Carlton, Essendon and Saints do), there would be 99 home games in Melbourne. Do the math, that's an extra 9 home games above the 90 the AFL signed up for. That could all be played at the MCG. But instead, only 88 games are played by those clubs, so Geelong plays the 2 to make up the numbers.

Except we don't get paid by the AFL, or the Vic Gov to play games at the MCG. A home game at KP makes $1m in revenue. A 100k crowd at the MCG makes $750k. Cold hard fact. We lose money playing home games in front of crowds biased against us. It is to our detriment, taking home games away from out western districts fans, who would have to spend 4+ hours each way to come to Melbourne for a game.

As a Waverley tennant, you should count yourself lucky the AFL allowed you to push North Melbourne out of the MCG when Docklands first opened.

 

[Hawkk]

Did you proof read any of that?

Are you serious? I've been on this train for 15 years, but here goes the merry round again

All MCG clubs play 1 home game at Marvel. No club gets all 11 at the MCG. Not Collingwood, not Richmond and certainly not Hawthorn.

I am aware of that.

How far back do you want to go?

In 1999 (20 seasons ago) Ian Dicker came to an agreement with the MCC and the AFL to shift Hawthorn's home games from Waverley Park to the MCG.

Despite getting offers from Docklands the Hawks opted for the MCG thanks to the significantly greater general admission seating (which could be converted into club membership seating). Read Ian Dicker's thoughts here (10 yeats ago)

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...e/news-story/94bd42f93aa626c09c54243ea20b5894

By comparison St Kilda opted for the fools gold at Docklands, as per this article from 5 season ago...

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...f-the-equalisation-debate-20131213-2zcsl.html

In 2000-01 Hawthorn played 9 home games at the MCG, in 2002-05 it was 8, 5 in 2006 (Commonwealth Games) and consistantly 7 from 2007 onwards (with the notable exception of 2013, 2015, 2017-19)

When Hawthorn took over St Kilda's games in Tasmania (2006) Jeff Kennett struck an in principle deal with the AFL to play 7 home games at the MCG (effectively locking the club into a 7-4 arrangement) as the Hawks at the time was doing the AFL a favour in renegotiating the Tasmanian contract to allow the Saints to return to Docklands.

As the shine on that deal wore off, and as the AFL actively pushed for Hawthorn's removal from Tasmania, that deal went the way of most AFL deals. Nonetheless the anchor of the 7-4 agreement was for Hawthorn to play 7 home games at the MCG (down from the natural 8-3 arrangements enjoyed by Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood at the time) with all MCG co-tenant games to be played at the MCG (giving Hawthorn a 10-11 game membership at the stadium)

If you want evidence of the AFL white anting Hawthorn in 2010 look no further then this...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl-denies-hurting-hawks-in-tassie-deal-20101117-17xif.html
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...7bb9c7be1a?sv=7a0768c47542de5c31c9f0a7e337390
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-15/hawks-say-no-to-afl-cash/2337938

Which of course has led to 9 years of speculation that the AFL would lobby the Tasmanian government to end the 19 year partnership with Hawthorn FC

Your club took the Tassie deal because it was broke and on it's knees. Barely 10 years since winning multiple flags and you had spent it all on hookers and blow.

Okay so are we talking about 2001 or 2006?

Nonetheless its irrelevant, Hawthorn was one of the most financial clubs in Victoria at both those junctures. Don't mistake 1996 for 2001, Hawthorn's finances were significantly stronger then all clubs bar Collingwood and Essendon at that point.

Geelong by contrast was just about stone motherless broke, I went to a Geelong 'home game' against Hawthorn at Docklands in 2001 (you were selling your souls and shifting home games against Hawthorn to Melbourne almost 20 years ago) and there was a tin rattle before the game to help the Cats. At that time there was speculation that the AFL wanted to shift you to Docklands or merge you with another club (until the Bendigo Bank came to the rescue)

But that's all by the by and probably for a different thread

Pokies money out west in low social economic areas, taking money from tax payers to play 4 games in front of 10,000. An absolute leech on the public.

Okay, again that's not relevant to 2001 or 2006 (Hawthorn didnt acquire Caroline Springs until 2010)

Nonetheless I guess that's why Hawthorn remains the most taxed club in the league by the AFL...

The AFL has signed contracts which require 45 games at both the MCG and Marvel. If Hawthorn, North, Melbourne and Bulldogs all played 11 home games in Melbourne (like Richmond, Pies, Carlton, Essendon and Saints do), there would be 99 home games in Melbourne. Do the math, that's an extra 9 home games above the 90 the AFL signed up for. That could all be played at the MCG. But instead, only 88 games are played by those clubs, so Geelong plays the 2 to make up the numbers.

Except we don't get paid by the AFL, or the Vic Gov to play games at the MCG. A home game at KP makes $1m in revenue. A 100k crowd at the MCG makes $750k. Cold hard fact. We lose money playing home games in front of crowds biased against us. It is to our detriment, taking home games away from out western districts fans, who would have to spend 4+ hours each way to come to Melbourne for a game.

Again they also have a contract to play higher drawing games at Marvel which is why our games are now highly prone to be shifted to Marvel (we almost lost the Dogs home game to Marvel in the original fixture draft).

The problem Hawthorn has is trying to solidify and protect their MCG home games, which is also a problem all other MCG co tenants have. That is the draw back of the AFL acquiring Marvel Stadium, they now have a commercial motivation to play higher drawing games at the stadium (like they did at Waverley in the 80s and early 90s) and shift low drawing Docklands tenant games (like the Dogs, North and Saints) to Ballarat, Tasmania and other markets (like NZ etc)

As a Waverley tennant, you should count yourself lucky the AFL allowed you to push North Melbourne out of the MCG when Docklands first opened.

Read above. The AFL didnt orchestrate the MCG switch the actually lobbied for us (and the Saints) to move to Docklands.

The MCC came to the party once Essendon was stitched up as the anchor Docklands tenant, Carlton re-committed to Princes Park and they needed a 4th tenant at the MCG

At the time (1999) Hawthorn had the largest Victorian membership (32,120) so they were an attractive alternative for the MCC

 

[dave10]

Th

You would have a better understanding on how the Bomber support base are feeling. But from an outsiders point of view the Essendon supporters time and time again show how resiliant they are and so I'm predicting 33 to 34,000 on Saturday night. Predicting 62,000 on Sunday with a massive Tigers turn out.

There won’t be 33k on Sat night. The trust is gone and frustration high undetstandably.

 

[Raz Man]

Th

There won’t be 33k on Sat night. The trust is gone and frustration high understandably.

Mate, hopefully the Bombers supporters turn up (we always do!). I am hoping between 35k -40k and that will show why other clubs are so envious of our membership/attendances. We have had no success since 2004 yet we continually pull crowds and have nearly 80,000 members.

 

[The_Wookie]

ratings and everything else here

 

[Kwality]

We don't sell them. The AFL forces us, because you sell home games to tassie, and the AFL has a contract to fulfil. If you take the Hawks and North games back from tassie and put them in Melbourne, Geelong would be allowed to play 11 home games in Geelong

Both clubs have moved on from the old state league days in all ways compared to so many Melbourne clubs rooted in the past.
Both clubs have prospered since the mid noughties (00s) & their approach to the FIXturing leads the competition.

Snipes over selling games does not do justice to either club & its time the AFL prodded other Melbourne clubs to follow suit: I suggest the increase in club membership numbers is resulting in lower walk ups to away games & many Melbourne clubs do not have the support to pull a crowd on their own.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Both clubs have moved on from the old state league days in all ways compared to so many Melbourne clubs rooted in the past.
Both clubs have prospered since the mid noughties (00s) & their approach to the FIXturing leads the competition.

Snipes over selling games does not do justice to either club & its time the AFL prodded other Melbourne clubs to follow suit: I suggest the increase in club membership numbers is resulting in lower walk ups to away games & many Melbourne clubs do not have the support to pull a crowd on their own.

Kangas sell games in Tassie
Hawks sell games in Tassie
Dogs sell games to Ballarat
Saints sold (and working to resume selling) games to NZ
Melbourne sell games to the NT

That leaves:

Geelong - dont need to with their KP revenues
Essendon - financially dont need to AND the AFL need them as anchor tenant at Marvel
Collingwood - financially dont need to and have a contract that requires them to play most of their games at the G
Richmond - only sold to pay down debt, on record that they financially dont need to now
Calrton - trying to increase MCG games, selling will kill this push

who should the AFL be forcing to relocate games to (and genuine options, not your forcing vic clubs to play home games in perth pipe dream)

 

[Kwality]

The MCC came to the party once Essendon was stitched up

Yep, the dynamics of Vic footy home & away games changed forever & the AFL stuffed it, the MCC became a party to AFL fixturing. The clubs were asleep at the wheel.

 

[Kwality]

Kangas sell games in Tassie
Hawks sell games in Tassie
Dogs sell games to Ballarat
Saints sold (and working to resume selling) games to NZ
Melbourne sell games to the NT

That leaves:

Geelong - dont need to with their KP revenues
Essendon - financially dont need to AND the AFL need them as anchor tenant at Marvel
Collingwood - financially dont need to and have a contract that requires them to play most of their games at the G
Richmond - only sold to pay down debt, on record that they financially dont need to now
Calrton - trying to increase MCG games, selling will kill this push

who should the AFL be forcing to relocate games to (and genuine options, not your forcing vic clubs to play home games in perth pipe dream)

Fair comment about my pipe dream, however how long can the status quo continue?

I dont buy the Hawks sell games, the sponsorship aspect differentiates them from the other clubs who simply sell games for the money & can be grouped for that reason IMHO. The Tiges used the 'sell games strategy' to fix their financial problems, did it, & stopped selling games.
Equally the suggestion that the Cats sell games to the MCG is a nonsense.

Back to WA & SA, it'd be hard to deny the supply & demand scenario, just as it is clearly at play in Melbourne.
'Home & away' games are not being played 'at home' regularly as documented above, yet it continues to be a 'go to' defence in the face of change - as I said the Cats & Hawks continue to lead & success has followed them.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Fair comment about my pipe dream, however how long can the status quo continue?

I dont buy the Hawks sell games, the sponsorship aspect differentiates them from the other clubs who simply sell games for the money & can be grouped for that reason IMHO. The Tiges used the 'sell games strategy' to fix their financial problems, did it, & stopped selling games.
Equally the suggestion that the Cats sell games to the MCG is a nonsense.

Back to WA & SA, it'd be hard to deny the supply & demand scenario, just as it is clearly at play in Melbourne.
'Home & away' games are not being played 'at home' regularly as documented above, yet it continues to be a 'go to' defence in the face of change - as I said the Cats & Hawks continue to lead & success has followed them.

Im on record as saying Victoria should only have 8 teams - ideally 6, perfect world 4 (and mine gets killed in that scenario), but thats not gunna happen because there isnt the political will in the AFL or amongst the clubs to do it (inc outside Vic clubs), so lets not even bother with that


forcing clubs to play interstate wont create full houses in Victoria, so I dont understand your rationale for this outcome. If it did that, the hawks would have sell outs every week

and the cats dont sell games - if you sell a game it should be for a profit, the cats lose money playing at the MCG

 

[Kwality]

forcing clubs to play interstate wont create full houses in Victoria, so I dont understand your rationale for this outcome. If it did that, the hawks would have sell outs every week

When there is an oversupply of a product you should address it* & Melbourne had/still has an oversupply of games. The VFL recognised it & sent South to Sydney.
Early days of the AFL it was recognised, a couple of mergers failed, Fitzroy were unceremoniously shoved & the Brisbane Lions resulted, two down, yet the market is still oversupplied, Andy D tries to push North & baked/failed, the problem of oversupply remained.
The Hawks helped the oversupply when it signed the sponsorship deal with Tassie.

The solution of choice by the present AFL administration is to sell games, yet the problem of oversupply remains & it only screams out when clubs such as North or the Dogs cannot pull a crowd, see calls for a boutique stadium.

Limited by a contract with the MCC does not appear to be addressed by the purchase of Docklands.

That WA & SA have demand for footy is a separate issue for the controlling body.

If the supply & demand issue is to be addressed, a big if, IMHO the on again/off again home & away concept needs to consigned to the round thing in the corner.

* I'm sure the supply/demand issue is discussed behind closed doors.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

When there is an oversupply of a product you should address it* & Melbourne had/still has an oversupply of games. The VFL recognised it & sent South to Sydney.
Early days of the AFL it was recognised, a couple of mergers failed, Fitzroy were unceremoniously shoved & the Brisbane Lions resulted, two down, yet the market is still oversupplied, Andy D tries to push North & baked/failed, the problem of oversupply remained.
The Hawks helped the oversupply when it signed the sponsorship deal with Tassie.

The solution of choice by the present AFL administration is to sell games, yet the problem of oversupply remains & it only screams out when clubs such as North or the Dogs cannot pull a crowd, see calls for a boutique stadium.

Limited by a contract with the MCC does not appear to be addressed by the purchase of Docklands.

That WA & SA have demand for footy is a separate issue for the controlling body.

If the supply & demand issue is to be addressed, a big if, IMHO the on again/off again home & away concept needs to consigned to the round thing in the corner.

* I'm sure the supply/demand issue is discussed behind closed doors.

A cull isnt going to happen, unless the AFL itself gets a massive haircut on tv rights. Thats why I wouldnt tie these two discussions. All the smaller clubs are selling games, which is exactly what you wanted them to do

 

[Hawkk]

Yep, the dynamics of Vic footy home & away games changed forever & the AFL stuffed it, the MCC became a party to AFL fixturing. The clubs were asleep at the wheel.

The dynamic changed in the 1990s when the AFL effectively took over from the clubs and became the defacto stadium managers of Melbourne stadiums.

They pushed Hawthorn (1992), Essendon (1992), St Kilda (1994) to Waverley Park and the MCG and then lobbied hard for Essendon, St Kilda, W Bulldogs and St Kilda to move to Docklands in 2000. Collingwood held onto 2 games at Victoria Park for dear life in the mid to late 1990's but their full time MCG move was inevitable and they were losing significant games to the neutral Waverley Park and MCG as far back as the mid to late 1980s.

By the time the AFL renegotiated the MCG deal with the MCC in 2004 (?) and pushed Carlton into a 6-5 Docklands / MCG stadium arrangement (2005) we now had a environment where only 3 Victorian clubs have water tight stadium deals with the MCG and Docklands (Essendon 7-4, Collingwood 14 MCG games and Carlton 6-5)...

The rest of the clubs are at the bequest of the AFL to schedule games at their designated home stadiums...

I expect 'home' stadiums will become much more fluid for Melbourne based clubs as a result of the AFL buying MSL out for the controlling shares of Docklands.

This in itself probably makes the Hawthorn relationship with Tasmania unworkable as securing a minimum amount of games at the MCG was a key anchor in selling that deal to the membership (the loss of MCG games since 2013 has been masked by the clubs sustained success on the field but now as a middle of the road team those losses can't be sustained in the medium term)

The fixture and allocation of games at 'home venues' in reasonable time slots is a potent weapon.

I suspect this is what Jeff Kennett was referring to yesterday

 

[Slax]

A cull isnt going to happen, unless the AFL itself gets a massive haircut on tv rights. Thats why I wouldnt tie these two discussions. All the smaller clubs are selling games, which is exactly what you wanted them to do

The problem is that governments are signalling that they won't continue to do that.

The China game is being paid for by federal government not China.

Tassie has signalled they won't be paying to host Hawthorn or North games when the current deals expire.

NZ will only resume an arrangement of it is tied to key indicators regarding tourism, don't meet those indicators and financial compensation must be paid.

The return on investment isn't there to pay to host games.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The problem is that governments are signalling that they won't continue to do that.

The China game is being paid for by federal government not China.

Tassie has signalled they won't be paying to host Hawthorn or North games when the current deals expire.

NZ will only resume an arrangement of it is tied to key indicators regarding tourism, don't meet those indicators and financial compensation must be paid.

The return on investment isn't there to pay to host games.

China is being paid for mostly by some developer in China, and the Au part is purely using it as a trade exposure gimic (regularly done with govt underwriting stands for multiple participants at trade shows). That game will continue as long as the Chinese sponsor support is there, and the trade networking benefit is there.

Tassie wants to consolidate behind one team only if it can't get stand alone. It will continue to support a team one way or the other

Ballarat has a long term contract

NZ is close to finalizing a new agreement

 

[Hawkk]

The problem is that governments are signalling that they won't continue to do that.

The China game is being paid for by federal government not China.

Tassie has signalled they won't be paying to host Hawthorn or North games when the current deals expire.

NZ will only resume an arrangement of it is tied to key indicators regarding tourism, don't meet those indicators and financial compensation must be paid.

The return on investment isn't there to pay to host games.

I'm not sure they have actually stated that exactly...

They have said the contract's are up for renewal and failing the admission of a new Tasmanian team they are open to opening the contracts up for another party to take over (i.e. St Kilda)

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I'm not sure they have actually stated that exactly...

They have said the contract's are up for renewal and failing the admission of a new Tasmanian team they are open to opening the contracts up for another party to take over (i.e. St Kilda)

I decided to do a search of what the Tassie government actually said and found this article by Caro from 6 or 7 weeks ago that I missed. Some interesting info which partly confirms what you wrote but hints at a slightly stronger stance by the government.

The current 6 year TV deal ends 2022. Before that it was 3 x 5 year deals 2002-06, 2007-11, 2012-16 - The Tassie government signed 5 year deals with Hawks i line with that 2007-11, worth $16.5m with annual CPI increases and bonuses included in that total, 2012-16 $18m with CPI and bonuses inc, and 2017-21 worth $19m.

The term of the next TV deal either ending 2027 or 2028 will drive the timing Tassie gets a team and a share of that revenue stream.

Some of the numbers first
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...for-a-tasmanian-afl-team-20190322-p516mb.html
The AFL advice is that the state would require at least 50,000 members and an initial commitment of $40 million to enter the league.

Tasmania boasts 91,000 members across the 18 AFL clubs and contributes an estimated combined $10 million to the Hawks and the Kangaroos.

That framework includes:

• 50,000 members
• A capital commitment of $40 million
• A unified Tasmanian football community
• AFL-standard venues
• Increasing the Australian rules talent pool from junior ranks through to double-figure representation in the AFL
• Designing a "respectful" exit strategy for Hawthorn and North Melbourne.

The AFL distributions to the GWS and Gold Coast from 2012-16 totalled almost $170 million and still exceed an annual combined total of more than $45 million.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...for-a-tasmanian-afl-team-20190322-p516mb.html

The Tasmanian government is rallying a powerful group of corporate and sporting heavyweights charged to transition Hawthorn and North Melbourne out of the island state and to establish its own AFL club by 2026. The AFL is privately endorsing the project, which is being driven by Tasmanian Treasurer Peter Gutwein, who told The Age: "The time is right. It’s no longer a matter of if but when. In my view this should occur in the next five to seven years."

League chief Gillon McLachlan has emerged as a cautious advocate for a historic Tasmanian AFL licence, unofficially advising Premier Will Hodgman as his government puts together the charter for the project group with a view to gaining entry into the national competition by 2026.
.......
Gutwein indicated that the project group would work towards the team playing AFL games in both Hobart and Launceston........... "It’s important we can take everyone on this journey with us. Before we get a member or a corporate supporter we must demonstrate we are united and will work to improve out talent pathways. Where Hawthorn and North Melbourne are concerned they are our AFL partners and it is crucial we continue to respect those relationships. "The strength of those relationships beyond 2021 will be tested by how well and with what dignity we can manage those transitions to establish a team of our own."

While Hodgman in the past has declared Tasmania deserved a team ahead of the Gold Coast the new project’s strategy will avoid the establishment of a Tasmanian team at the expense of a current or relocated AFL club. The prevailing view is that Hawthorn would end their two-decade relationship Launceston at the end of 2021 while North Melbourne could continue to play AFL games at Blundstone Arena with the shortfall in Tasmanian fixtures made up by a series of other AFL clubs.

​

 

[Kwality]

A cull isnt going to happen, unless the AFL itself gets a massive haircut on tv rights. Thats why I wouldnt tie these two discussions. All the smaller clubs are selling games, which is exactly what you wanted them to do

Selling games is purely financial, nothing to do with the home & away concept as near on all clubs across the comp share venues, play games both home & away at the same venue but we believe there is a difference.
But this is the wrong place for this conversation IMHO, no need to take this thread off course.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Selling games is purely financial, nothing to do with the home & away concept as near on all clubs across the comp share venues, play games both home & away at the same venue but we believe there is a difference.
But this is the wrong place for this conversation IMHO, no need to take this thread off course.

Not sure what this has to do with my post. I never commented on the motivation of clubs to sell, and the ones I excluded (pies, dons, tigs) I excluded specifically because they didn't need to do so financially