It's not about money, it's about supporters.
You'd have to have brain damage to think GWS is about money. Well, not making money anyway.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Tasmania AFL Say No To Tassie Team
- Thread starter rdhopkins2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's not about money, it's about supporters.
You'd have to have brain damage to think GWS is about money. Well, not making money anyway.
sherb
Hall of Famer
That is precisely what you implied in your previous post.
You are happy to play "deserve" card when it comes to Victorian clubs and yet completely dismiss it when it comes to a Tasmanian side.
If you were the slightest bit consistent, you would be arguing for some Victorian clubs to go because they can't cut it financially.
But you aren't. You apply "soulless" financial criteria to Tassie, but when it comes to Victoria - you play the sentimental card. Which is sweet, and quaint, and touching - but totally the opposite stance.
In case you hadn't worked it out by the way, my last post wasn't serious, it was to make a point.
And for the record - I support 10 Victorian sides AND a Tasmanian side. Unlike some here.
As I said to Rob, there is no point my continuing to discuss this issue with people on here who relentlessly and fervently argue against a Tassie side. It would just be nice to one day know why said people feel that way. To me it just reinforces how Victorian centric many people are - "It's Victoria's game, no-one elses, and it is only through the goodness of our hearts that we share the game with you".
"In the meantime peasants, be grateful for the crumbs we offer you."
What arrogance.
- Moderator
- #354
Firstly, I never applied any financial criteria to the Tasmnaina bid, the AFL did. and when it comes to Victorian sides I simply believe that all things being equal including stadium arrangements and the fixture, that all teams would be more than viable. Ive never played a "deserve to be in the comp" card. Ive played a "the clubs already exist" card.
For thre record: ive said any number of times that I support a Tasmanian side but I dont support one at the expense of a victorian one. My position has been consistent since I wrote The Case For Tasmania three years ago.
For the rest, you can keep making up stuff I never said as much as you damn well like. No one has said its victorias game and no one elses. Ever.
- Moderator
- #355
Except that doesnt gel with the rest of the VFL expansion. or the fact that the league has spent millions propping up Brisbane, Port and Sydney while funding GWS and Gold Coast.
sherb
Hall of Famer
It doesn't have to be said, the prevailing attitude tells the story.
And given the bolded, it's got me buggered why you post here the way you do. I'd hate to think what you would write if you actually opposed a Tasmanian side.......
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #359
Port Adelaide was superfluous to the needs of the league prior to Adelaide Oval on the same criteria. Brisbane currently are. Its always the mean old VFL clubs though
- Moderator
- #360
Literally again, not even close to the sentiments being expressed anywhere. Quit trolling.
Carn Wook. You seen our membership? Bigger than the Crows......bigger than Carlton even. It's not the mean old VFL clubs mate. The mean ones deserve to be in a national league, it's the shit ones that don't. 100 years of trying, and they're still no good. Tasmania deserves it's chance where others have continually failed.
- Moderator
- #362
Id wait for membership revenue and the full audit numbers before crapping on about it. and again about the deserving.
Look forward to reading the latest on your website.
- Moderator
- #364
Well most afl stuff is put here first. And the full numbers dont really come until the annual reports in march, so enjoy the wait.
Is the whole competition suffering because of the artificial restraints referred to?
Even then comparing like with like is not easy - it should be easy ...
- Moderator
- #367
yeah, then most sports forums would be half the size they are.
- Moderator
- #368
To some extent fixturing and stadium deals play a part at many clubs, however the extent that anything can be done about them seems limited at times.
In terms of stadiums, Im not sure what more could be done in South Australia - the Government determined early on that it was a SANFL/SACA thing. In Queensland, the Government is a monopoly owner of the stadiums there, and given only one side in Brisbane Im not sure what power the AFL could wield at the bargaining table, given a lack of viable options. Further, all non victorian clubs have their games shown live or on delay on FTA in their home markets.
In Melbourne, clubs that are most at risk of financial failure just so happen to also be the ones with the least exposure in their home market, whether its tv or fox or the timing of matches, due to the needs of the broadcaster or the afls club maximisation policies. They are also the ones forced to play most games at Etihad Stadium.
The extent that Ground rationalisation, and taking the competition national, benefited the smaller clubs at all could be argued. A lack of return games against major Victorian oposition - bearing in mind that many non victorian clubs are simply not attractive to Victorian audiences for whatever reason, and even less so if the game is at Etihad - coupled with the cost of renting newer stadiums, and a club like the Dogs would be infinitely better financially to play Fremantle/GWS/Port etc at the Western Oval than at Etihad.
Or play it at Subi more often than not - scheduling it on TV may even be easier. Yes the home & away, take a leaf out of the Hawks book, less games in Melbourne is better. You acknowledge the difficulties of Vic footy fans embracing the national comp.
The non Vic clubs FTA TV deal reflect the advantages of less is more.
Well maybe. It really shows that the Victorian market really cant sustain 10 clubs. Its a massive inefficiency for the AFL.
Those clubs want the benefits of being in the league, they want someone to build them a smaller stadium & play in it when it suits them, they want to use a larger stadium when it suits them too, they want to ignore the needs of contracting to use stadiums. Including the GF, no matter who plays.
I think the AFL would like nothing more than to relocate 2 teams. The one that should have gone to the GC, & another to Tasmania. It would see those clubs with old & new supporters, like with the Swans & Lions.
That would solve a lot of issues for them.
Jackson squibbed what needed to be done, perhaps because he was a South Australian and didn't want to be seen as the interstater killing their clubs and Dimetrou "failed" to get North to the Gold Coast. I mean Vlad got stared down by the lightweight Brayshaw and his mythical White Knights...please. Me thinks he had a bit of a soft spot for his old club. So what we got left with is an unbalanced league, 2 clubs that aren't wanted in where they have been plonked, too many teams and Tasmania continually left to wither on the vine whilst others less deserving continue to suck at the teet. Disgraceful.
- Moderator
- #374
You should be blaming Victorian club members. Members revolted over the Melbourne-Hawthon merger, Members fully supported Brayshaw and North against the AFL proposal. You can make all the plans in the world, but you still have to convince the clubs to go along.
sproketman
Club Legend
- Aug 6, 2015
- 1,226
- 2,071
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #375
Tasmania barely adds anything to the Federation. Maybe when they cease to be the welfare state with minimal prospects major sporting leagues will begin giving them local clubs, but until then they'll be considered the same as the Northern Territory. A dead weight.
Similar threads
