Entitled now am I!
You saying nothing. Why bother?
Just go back to the 'I hate Bucks thread'. That'll keep you occupied.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Apple Isle Showdown: Tas Govt threatens to end Hawks, North deals if no plan for 19th side
- Thread starter LeverPuller
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Entitled now am I!
You saying nothing. Why bother?
Just go back to the 'I hate Bucks thread'. That'll keep you occupied.
The other option that I think should be looked at here is a merger of North and St Kilda.
The two clubs joining forces with a financial incentive from the league could work in favour of both clubs. Saints get all of their debt paid down, and North has their future in Melbourne secured with a sustainable fanbase.
The merger would create another power club in Melbourne with a likely membership north of 70,000 and allow Tassie to join the league as a stand-alone club
The biggest question with this would be identity. It would make sense to base the club in St Kilda, so I guess they'd become the St Kilda Kangaroos, perhaps with royal blue, white and black as their colours.
The two clubs joining forces with a financial incentive from the league could work in favour of both clubs. Saints get all of their debt paid down, and North has their future in Melbourne secured with a sustainable fanbase.
The merger would create another power club in Melbourne with a likely membership north of 70,000 and allow Tassie to join the league as a stand-alone club
The biggest question with this would be identity. It would make sense to base the club in St Kilda, so I guess they'd become the St Kilda Kangaroos, perhaps with royal blue, white and black as their colours.
I think they'd both prefer to stay with the AFL's current brand of Socialism, & the continued chance to moan about how tough it is to be an old VFL club trying to survive against the unfairness of it all.
Like I’ve said before the first year of the pandemic has given Victoria a 6.5 billion dollar deficit. And it’s not over yet or will be for a while. So going forward it will be interesting to see how Victorian clubs & the economy there progresses going forward.
It’s one of the things I give Gutwien great credit for. He’s read the situation very early and put his stamp on this issue. Tassie is in a very good situation in that it’s found its niche in the Australian economy. Cashed up retirees moving to the state will give it a very stable economy going forward. The line of boomers moving there will continue imo as with good disposable income they find it cheap to see their children from tassie but have that quiet lifestyle that a place like inner city Melbourne or Sydney will never be able to offer. So I see the ageing population as an advantage down there and not the doom n gloom that some ignorant mainlanders see.
This. So much this.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,607
- 1,668
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I sense a tearing down the walls of the republic.. let them eat cake people... can't find enough apples to direct and dissect and
make a good apple pie...
It is fraught with danger that we are diverging into a hedonistic view of the Tassie salmon and apple republic..
they are all set to go..
make a good apple pie...
It is fraught with danger that we are diverging into a hedonistic view of the Tassie salmon and apple republic..
they are all set to go..
Would it not be better to be able to go watch your team most weeks at Marvel with a stadium full of fans?
Merging is honestly the worst idea. All merging would do is lose fans to the AFL as a whole. Sure, a new merged club would probably have more members and people at their games, but from the comp's perspective, there will be less club members and less people going to games.
Not to mention is just reduces the amount of list spots in the comp as a whole, which goes completely against the AFL's efforts to try and increase pool via expansion.
As for relocation, that is better than merging, but that will also make the comp lose fans, and is not even guarantee there will be much, if any, benefits. It could even be detrimental. At least with mergers there is a higher chance of membership increase (for the club), but relocating you may not even see an increase. If a team were to relocate, it needs to be very planned and be undoubtedly better than what they had before. I mean, imagine if 10-12 years ago North Melbourne relocated to the Gold Coast and ended up operating and training out of demountables and tin sheds for 8 years in hot and humid conditions, with their home ground located in a bad spot for public transport? Yeah, change can be good, but can also be bad.
Whether it's merging or relocating, the good has to way outweigh the bad, have significant benefit and minimal risk. Relocating it can work, but merging it's hard to see it being positive when it's two established clubs.
The answer for struggling clubs isn't just to merge, re-locate or fold. At least not for established clubs who have been around for decades. The solution is simply on-field success, and off-field success will come.
Yes, I agree some North and St Kilda members would be lost, but there would be a whole state worth of supporters gained in Tassie, so there definitely wouldn't be less members.
How? There's still 18 clubs.
The talent pool would increase, not decrease due to the increased junior participation in Tasmania as a result of having a team at the top level.
Clubs that don't invest off-field can't compete on-field. Richmond were a basket case for decades with no money to invest in the people and facilities to turn the club around. As soon as we raised the money and invested this in the club, we started making finals again and went on to win flags.
North were a powerhouse through the 70’s & 90’s & none of it ever translated to any major off field success. Hawthorn is the only club that this has happened to. And only because after it’s success in the 70’s, 80’s & early 90’s the club nearly folded. North has nearly merged and been coerced into moving interstate and not once has its finances or membership exploded like Hawthorn has.
I said it before they’re a suburban club that belongs in a suburban league, just like Port Melbourne. They do not and never will be anything other than filler for big Melbourne clubs away games that helps those sides & Victorian economy.
No the weather is still the same, but I can see sense in your suggestion that the Suns could also be a good fit for Melbourne.
Yeah you are, you think you are offering something, but anyone who disagrees offers nothing.
I worked in Tassie a long time before the VFL became the AFL i saw what was happening way before it happened.
Every 2nd person i asked who they followed in footy, would answer with a VFL side, how weird is that?
The demise of Tassie footy wasn't caused by the AFL, it was caused by Tasmanians.
Now, if you think i offer nothing,good for you, you keep thinking you know all, and keep telling yourself that the AFL is the problem.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,607
- 1,668
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
ok lets just drop the roos in it... the least to lose and the easiest to move to a system that keeps the name and history alove..
- Moderator
- #2,190
Not every club has to be a big one.
If the league and north members feel like the club is viable on its own then its not going anywhere any time soon. The league DOES have an obligation to support its constituent clubs, particularly where its policies and agreements actively combine to keep teams down.
North has no debt and no pokies. It has a big development coming through at Arden. The clubs members are dead against relocation, and arent financially destitute enough that the AFL can force the issue. Even the Saints believe they can get out of their present mire, much like the Bulldogs, Blues and Roos before them - they just need competent admin and support in the meantime.
Well I was mainly talking about just merging, without factoring in an addition of a new side, cause you don't need to merge or fold clubs to add new teams in. They can simply increase the number of teams without losing any supporters. And it's no guarantee there would more Tassie supporters than the amount lost. The number could be huge.
I'm talking about if you meant purely merging, and not adding any new teams in. If those two teams merged without adding any new teams, there would be 17 teams. And if you add a team, that's 18. Given the AFL is focusing on increasing the talent pool and expansion, if anything, they would look to increase the number of list spots by adding new teams rather than keeping it the same or reducing it.
So those teams can do that. You've shown that there are solutions. If your team dug yourself out of debt and mediocrity, why not let other teams prove they can do it now that you have set the example and shown it can be done? Should we be discussing Richmond merging or relocating had North Melbourne or St Kilda done it before you did? St Kilda has only recently relocated to better facilities, made changes and already seeing benefits on field. Should we not wait to see where that leads before calling for a merger? I don't understand why you're advocating for merging when other methods worked to great effect for your club.
Last edited:
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,607
- 1,668
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
but where do things end? we can have 18 clubs doing things that are going to keep them afloat but there are those few clubs who have to have a
bit more concrete in their daks. hmm.. get a bit of wilderness in the settlements and harden up sunshine...
Exactly. One could argue that a team in Tassie could never be a big club with the state of footy in tassie right now, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a team. As long as the club benefits the competition in some way, it's worth having them there. Which they do. More clubs create more jobs and helps therefore helps the economy. No to mention the community as well. Even if the club is in debt, as long as the AFL is making a profit as a whole with them being there it doesn't matter. There are plenty of major corporations and businesses who are in debt all the time. Having more teams means more games, and that means more games for people to attend and to sell to networks for huge money. The broadcast deal from having an extra game each round (due to the inclusion of GC & GWS) brings in huge money and has benefited the AFL financially greatly.
Did you even read what I have said? Clearly not.
We had/have the development of a 'national' league. 12 VFL clubs, then one to Sydney, one VFL license to Brisbane plus the SA & WA teams, growing with 2 others then GWS & GC. Add that to the nations social changes as noted, plus the loss of media diversity ie centralising on Sydney/Melbourne. The game maintained its interest/support in Victoria, SA & WA being the basis of the now AFL
The AFL do control the game.
We (Tasmania) had no counter to all that. So other than getting an AFL team to redress the pressure on AF in this place, what do we do?.
Anyway, add all that up & see what you end up with.
It doesn't matter if it's better for the comp as a whole. There will always be clubs not doing as well as others, so should we constantly merge, fold and relocate everytime until there are no teams left? If the club can survive, let them stay and do their thing. Having them around will benefit the comp, economy and community. And you're telling me to harden up over me thinking merging and relocating isn't a good idea? Seems like you're the one offended by my opinion. Maybe you should be taking your own advice.
Do you remember when i came into this thread, it was when you said the demise of footy in Tassie was caused by the AFL.
Now you want to talk about reading what is said.
I am saying, that is complete and utter bullshit.
The demise of Tassie footy was happening a long time before the VFL went to AFL.
The demise of Tassie footy was caused by Tasmanians, they had more interest in Victorian clubs, than Tasmanian clubs, that maybe because Vic. clubs were poaching players, who knows.
You keep saying that Tasmanians don't want a side from Vic, you want your own side, now i can't say this from any certainty, but that is very hypocritical considering how many Tasmanians already follow Vic clubs.
I will say this again, you think you know all, you like telling people they are wrong.
well, maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.
I'm not advocating for a merger at all. I think Tasmania should be team #19.
I'm just responding to media reports suggesting that the AFL prefer North relocating to Tassie with the opinion that a merger would be a better outcome than that option.
And as for Richmond, I think the health of North and St Kilda is very different. Richmond have always been a big club with a big fan base that just needed to be re-energized after a period of sustained mediocrity. North and St Kilda aren't 'sleeping giants' like we were and like Carlton is now. North especially has always been a small club struggling to survive without ever really growing.
They don't have to transform themselves into big powerhouses off-field, but they can get to a level to where they're not just barely staying afloat and be financially content and not be seen as a financial burden to the rest of the comp. That's not to say they shouldn't aim to be a powerhouse, but if they reach a point where they don't have to worry about debt, relocating, merging and all that, it's fine to have them in the comp.
Relocating a Victorian club to Tasmania will not work. If the AFL wants to stay at 18 clubs, but still make room for Tasmania then the only viable option is a merger of either two weaker Victorian clubs or a weaker Victorian club with the Gold Coast Suns.
Alright then. But not all teams need to be big powerhouse clubs. I get that St Kilda and North Melbourne were never big clubs and probably never will be. But look at what the Western Bulldogs have done. People used to talk about them folding, merging or relocating, and all that talk has gone away now that they changed things, eliminated debt and have had success both on-field and off-field. People aren't talking about merging and relocating North Melbourne and St Kilda because they weren't big clubs, it's because they're barely surviving. But if they can get to the point where that is not the case, there is no reason for them to merge or relocate.
- Status
