Tasmania AFL Say No To Tassie Team

[Kwality]

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.

Just withdraw the AFL guarantee on borrowings for leverage.

 

[madmug]

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.

I think you are looking for the Australian politics board. This is about Australian Rules Football & the AFLs hypocritical treatment of a football heartland area. Do you understand that? Or are you just trying a Troll?

Why not discuss something of relevance, like why WA has only 2 clubs? Why not 3? Will they add one when the new stadium opens?

Anyway, have a nice day. I hope the price of Iron ore can rise again for you.

 

[Papa G]

Just withdraw the AFL guarantee on borrowings for leverage.

Exactly. No more extra money for you. It would have been easy. On one hand we are offering millions on the other we aren't you make the choice. When have you ever seen Vlad so meekly back down over anything? And to a pencil neck like Brayshaw who at that stage wasn't even embedded in the Melbourne Football media boys club? It was piss weak and has done irrevocable damage to the chances of this league ever becoming the league it could or should be.

 

[Papa G]

And I'm fully aware of what the VFL apologists will come back re Port Adelaide and their handouts over the years. Almost all the clubs in the league have gone through a patch when they have required outside assistance including Carlton and Richmond. But there is a difference between clubs that need it as a short term fix, and ones that despite 100 years of trying, will always need it.

 

[Lemma]

Without the original Victorian clubs the league wouldn't exist, so as much as you don't want to admit it, the AFL IS an extension of the VFL. The AFL came about by adding interstate teams to the then-VFL.

 

[sproketman]

I think you are looking for the Australian politics board. This is about Australian Rules Football & the AFLs hypocritical treatment of a football heartland area. Do you understand that? Or are you just trying a Troll?

Why not discuss something of relevance, like why WA has only 2 clubs? Why not 3? Will they add one when the new stadium opens?

Anyway, have a nice day. I hope the price of Iron ore can rise again for you.

I keep reading that Melbourne/Victoria has too many teams. Last year the state of Victoria added around 20% of Tasmania's population to its borders, and Melbourne alone is forecast to have added 8 further Tassies by 2050. Tasmania meanwhile goes nowhere, it is the slowest growing state in the Federation, and has been for decades.

If you split the current population of Victoria equally among the 10 residing clubs, you would have less representation for football goers than if Tasmania had one club. And that disparity is only going to get more pronounced.

So why does Tasmania deserve a professional football club at the top level? They have neither the population nor economy to support it. The arguments against the number of Melbourne based clubs undermine the argument for the existence of a Tasmanian based club. Why remove a club in Australia's fastest growing city to put it in a state with minimal prospects? Sentimentality?

 

[Papa G]

I keep reading that Melbourne/Victoria has too many teams. Last year the state of Victoria added around 20% of Tasmania's population to its borders, and Melbourne alone is forecast to have added 8 further Tassies by 2050. Tasmania meanwhile goes nowhere, it is the slowest growing state in the Federation, and has been for decades.

If you split the current population of Victoria equally among the 10 residing clubs, you would have less representation for football goers than if Tasmania had one club. And that disparity is only going to get more pronounced.

So why does Tasmania deserve a professional football club at the top level? They have neither the population nor economy to support it. The arguments against the number of Melbourne based clubs undermine the argument for the existence of a Tasmanian based club. Why remove a club in Australia's fastest growing city to put it in a state with minimal prospects? Sentimentality?

Because for all of this talk about Victoria's increasing population, the numbers aren't transferring to attendances, participation or people watching on TV. At best they are stagnant. This is the silly argument that the VFL apologists and the AFL itself can't seem to grapple with. You can't force the game on people who don't want it. Yet there is a passionate state crying out for it, who would support it and they are constantly ignored because it doesn't fit their agenda. They are following a loss leader strategy costing what will probably be well into the hundreds of millions of dollars and we are fed the same bullshit that these new clubs are driving up the TV rights deals. Have you seen the FTA ratings in Qld and NSW? Absolutely deplorable. The Foxtel takeup? I dare say that GWS and Gold Coast supporters would represent an absolute minuscule amount of subscribers. TV companies aren't stupid, they aren't adding $100s of millions to the deal because of Gold Coast and GWS (they wouldn't for a Tassie team either), the extra game is worth something, but it would be on a sliding scale.

 

[sproketman]

Because for all of this talk about Victoria's increasing population, the numbers aren't transferring to attendances, participation or people watching on TV. At best they are stagnant. This is the silly argument that the VFL apologists and the AFL itself can't seem to grapple with. You can't force the game on people who don't want it. Yet there is a passionate state crying out for it, who would support it and they are constantly ignored because it doesn't fit their agenda. They are following a loss leader strategy costing what will probably be well into the hundreds of millions of dollars and we are fed the same bullshit that these new clubs are driving up the TV rights deals. Have you seen the FTA ratings in Qld and NSW? Absolutely deplorable. The Foxtel takeup? I dare say that GWS and Gold Coast supporters would represent an absolute minuscule amount of subscribers. TV companies aren't stupid, they aren't adding $100s of millions to the deal because of Gold Coast and GWS (they wouldn't for a Tassie team either), the extra game is worth something, but it would be on a sliding scale.

What are they adding the extra $100s of millions for?

What is the AFL's agenda?

 

[deltablues]

Without the original Victorian clubs the league wouldn't exist, so as much as you don't want to admit it, the AFL IS an extension of the VFL. The AFL came about by adding interstate teams to the then-VFL.

What you say bolded is true, and is in fact the crux of the issue. The grandfather clauses preserving a number of the original VFL teams (to which the new AFL business model gave a financial lifeline, and without which those VFL teams "wouldn't exist") and the legacy issues (MCG/stadia contracts etc) are examples of the VFL redux. I mean, in a truly national league (such as the NFL) there are no "interstate" teams - they are all national.

But that was a generation ago and in the current landscape there are some double standards and conflicts of interest in respect of what the AFL now actually is, where it is going, and what its core mission is or should be. It has, like most large bureaucracies, engaged in mission creep beyond its remit (e.g. its cultural identity PC-themed games - the whole Goodes' affair is an example of this [my take on that is that it is not personality driven, but all about double standards]).

The points raised by the pro-Tasmanian team posters deal with all of this (have you actually taken the time to read them?) and you don't appear willing to address this at all.

Until the VFL-centric mindset, as illustrated by your post, changes, then Tasmania will continue to wither on the vine in respect of having its own AFL team.

 

[madmug]

I keep reading that Melbourne/Victoria has too many teams. Last year the state of Victoria added around 20% of Tasmania's population to its borders, and Melbourne alone is forecast to have added 8 further Tassies by 2050. Tasmania meanwhile goes nowhere, it is the slowest growing state in the Federation, and has been for decades.

If you split the current population of Victoria equally among the 10 residing clubs, you would have less representation for football goers than if Tasmania had one club. And that disparity is only going to get more pronounced.

So why does Tasmania deserve a professional football club at the top level? They have neither the population nor economy to support it. The arguments against the number of Melbourne based clubs undermine the argument for the existence of a Tasmanian based club. Why remove a club in Australia's fastest growing city to put it in a state with minimal prospects? Sentimentality?

Well thats better, a discussion.

You should read through this & other threads & you might see how the discussion has gone, anyway

Melbourne may double in size, that doesnt mean it will evenly benefit all 10 clubs. Melbourne has doubled in the last 40 years. Some clubs struggled then, they still do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow what a surprise.

Tasmania can support a club. The finances will be ok. It would have a positive social benefit for the whole state, it will have a positive economic benefit for tourism & associated businesses. Gument & sponsorship monies will stay here & not float off to Victoria.

When it comes to 'deserving' a club. Thats the AFLs own words via their CEO Gil McLachlan. I'd suggest you give him a call about that. If as Demitriou said, GWS 'deserve their own team', then why not Tasmania?

To say we cant afford a team is crap. It is an ignorant statement. $45million is an arbitrary figure which is not achieved by a lot of clubs. It is not relevant to operational costs which vary between clubs.. Actually we cant afford to keep giving to the AFL & its clubs for SFA return. Players, coaches, memberships, sponsorships, all one way into a black hole. SFA comes back.

Anyway, Perth is growing at a faster rate than Melbourne, when do you expand to 3 clubs?

WA3 & Tas1.

 

[Kwality]

Exactly. No more extra money for you. It would have been easy. On one hand we are offering millions on the other we aren't you make the choice. When have you ever seen Vlad so meekly back down over anything? And to a pencil neck like Brayshaw who at that stage wasn't even embedded in the Melbourne Football media boys club? It was piss weak and has done irrevocable damage to the chances of this league ever becoming the league it could or should be.

irrevocable damage is not an overstatement,

No AFL guarantee would require the clubs to be solvent.

 

[Kwality]

What are they adding the extra $100s of millions for?

What is the AFL's agenda?

Are you on about the latest media deal?

 

[Kwality]

With you mugster, a team in Tassie would be more viable than the cotcase clubs in Melbourne. The arguments suggesting the local economy could not afford it lack mental rigour aka are nonsense,the national comp attracts national sponsors, and 22 games would ensure that continues in Tas.

The Tas taxpayer is currently kicking the can for the Hawks & North ($millions) and by putting that money into a local club they would get more games for their money & would get a bonus i.e all clubs should play there over a 2 year period. Tourism would get a real fillup.

Yes, the economic argument is shallow.

PLEASE not more teams, PLEASE no reduction in the depth of the player pool - dont duck the hard decisions !!

 

[Papa G]

With you mugster, a team in Tassie would be more viable than the cotcase clubs in Melbourne. The arguments suggesting the local economy could not afford it lack mental rigour aka are nonsense,the national comp attracts national sponsors, and 22 games would ensure that continues in Tas.

The Tas taxpayer is currently kicking the can for the Hawks & North ($millions) and by putting that money into a local club they would get more games for their money & would get a bonus i.e all clubs should play there over a 2 year period. Tourism would get a real fillup.

Yes, the economic argument is shallow.

PLEASE not more teams, PLEASE no reduction in the depth of the player pool - dont duck the hard decisions !!

A Tasmanian club would do so much to lift the community and state too. They would get behind it 100%. Sure most of them have a Vic team, but this would dissipate over time. As I've said before, there is nothing competing with it Tassie and this is their game. For those people who poo poo them getting 15,000 to the FIFO teams, ask yourself this, how often would you go and watch a team you have zero affinity or connection with?

 

[thegreig]

Is Gill off to Tas tomorrow, If so what could possibly be achieved now that the tv deal and haw/nm club deals are done? Are we even going to hear any feedback from the meeting? I realy can't see tassie gaining anything from him going over or any significant changes for that matter

 

[thegreig]

apart from maybe some extra TSL funding... and an academy

 

[Kwality]

Is Gill off to Tas tomorrow, If so what could possibly be achieved now that the tv deal and haw/nm club deals are done? Are we even going to hear any feedback from the meeting? I realy can't see tassie gaining anything from him going over or any significant changes for that matter

Sadly tony, you are correct. An academy or two would be a step towards regenerating one of footys most successful breeding grounds. The current AFL Commission is in to gestures, not substance.

 

[The Speaker]

And I'm fully aware of what the VFL apologists will come back re Port Adelaide and their handouts over the years. Almost all the clubs in the league have gone through a patch when they have required outside assistance including Carlton and Richmond. But there is a difference between clubs that need it as a short term fix, and ones that despite 100 years of trying, will always need it.

I couldn't care less about the 'handouts' PA has had from the AFL. I just find it amazing that someone supporting a club which proudly identifies its history should wish to kill off other, real clubs, instead of identifying that the problem with the AFL is its construction.

 

[Papa G]

Not kill, just demote or merge.

 

[sherb]

Not kill, just demote or merge.

Effectively the same thing.

 

[sverik25]

Not kill, just demote or merge.

Demoting would effectively be killing. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[sproketman]

With you mugster, a team in Tassie would be more viable than the cotcase clubs in Melbourne. The arguments suggesting the local economy could not afford it lack mental rigour aka are nonsense,the national comp attracts national sponsors, and 22 games would ensure that continues in Tas.

The Tas taxpayer is currently kicking the can for the Hawks & North ($millions) and by putting that money into a local club they would get more games for their money & would get a bonus i.e all clubs should play there over a 2 year period. Tourism would get a real fillup.

Yes, the economic argument is shallow.

PLEASE not more teams, PLEASE no reduction in the depth of the player pool - dont duck the hard decisions !!

Not the Tas taxpayer - the Australian taxpayer. The Federal government overwhelming supports Tasmania both through the CGC and welfare payments to large proportion of unemployed, disability and old aged pensioners there.

 

[Kwality]

I couldn't care less about the 'handouts' PA has had from the AFL. I just find it amazing that someone supporting a club which proudly identifies its history should wish to kill off other, real clubs, instead of identifying that the problem with the AFL is its construction.

Any chance its performance related - after 100 years if you don't perform WHY are you regarded as untouchable on geographic grounds?

Yes there are more teams seeking players than the available talent provides.
Yes there are too many teams in Melbourne to allow for a truly representative national comp.

As for real clubs, are these social clubs?

 

[Kwality]

Without the original Victorian clubs the league wouldn't exist, so as much as you don't want to admit it, the AFL IS an extension of the VFL. The AFL came about by adding interstate teams to the then-VFL.

Equally without the non Vic clubs there would be NO AFL - compre ????????? What a ridiculous claim, you would be laughing at your own post Lemma?

Remember ALL the best players didn't play VFL footy, they play AFL now, equating the VFL with the AFL is like claiming cattle class in the air is like first class - no doubt some people would eh Lemma. Hell a seat is a seat.

 

[Kwality]

Not the Tas taxpayer - the Australian taxpayer. The Federal government overwhelming supports Tasmania both through the CGC and welfare payments to large proportion of unemployed, disability and old aged pensioners there.

Well fair dinkum - this is a footy forum, there is a political thread, find it if you want to run off at a tangent.