Apple Isle Showdown: Tas Govt threatens to end Hawks, North deals if no plan for 19th side

[Roylion]

I know you have a intimate history on this so I won't debate details but my point is, 'similar' movements have occurred before and may well do again...

My point, as always, is North, or whoever, cannot be forced to relocate or forced into a joint venture with 'Tasmanian owners'. North Melbourne or whoever the other speculated 'relocation candidates might be are not owned by the AFL and cannot be forced to do anything that the shareholders and voting members don't vote in favour of. It's they that own the club. All the AFL can do is withdraw the club's licence to compete in the AFL competition and even then, that decision has to be ratified by the other constituent clubs.

 

[Kwality]

The death of South Melbourne. The death of Fitzroy. So, who wants to be next?

"Joint venture", ha, who are they kidding? They're putting the curtains up around a club, loading the shotgun...

South Melbourne has to be the example if there is one, VFL not AFL.

There will still be too many teams in Melbourne.

 

[Kwality]

My point, as always, is North, or whoever, cannot be forced to relocate or forced into a joint venture with 'Tasmanian owners'. North Melbourne or whoever the other speculated 'relocation candiaates might be are not owned by the AFL and cannot be forced to do anything that the shareholders and voting members don't vote in favour of. It's they that own the club. All the AFL can do is withdraw the club's licence to compete in the AFL competition and even then, that decision has to be ratified by the other constituent clubs.

Take away the AFL guarantee on debt.

 

[deanc]

My point, as always, is North, or whoever, cannot be forced to relocate or forced into a joint venture with 'Tasmanian owners'. North Melbourne or whoever the other speculated 'relocation candiaates might be are not owned by the AFL and cannot be forced to do anything that the shareholders and voting members don't vote in favour of. It's they that own the club. All the AFL can do is withdraw the club's licence to compete in the AFL competition and even then, that decision has to be ratified by the other constituent clubs.

Yep, I'm aware of all of that, but certain financial incentives also have a way of removing most of those obstacles - and if push comes to shove, despite legal challenges, the AFL could, at least threaten to, remove a club from it's main fixture - although I doubt it would ever get to that stage...

 

[Roylion]

Take away the AFL guarantee on debt.

The AFL still can't force/order a club to relocate or merge against the will of the shareholders/ members of said club. They couldn't even do it to Fitzroy.

 

[Great8]

Not surprised by this at all.
I think the AFL is basically admitting that the talent pool is too shallow and that 18 clubs is about it for now. I think relocation is the only way for a Tassie team in the near future but can’t see anyone willingly relocating so will the AFL try to “force” or coerce a move?

 

[Roylion]

Yep, I'm aware of all of that, but certain financial incentives also have a way of removing most of those obstacles

The AFL tried that with North in 2007. In the end it was the shareholders and board of directors of North Melbourne who made the final decision.

and if push comes to shove, despite legal challenges, the AFL could, at least threaten to, remove a club from it's main fixture...

I would take a very good look at the events of 1996 to determine what the AFL commission can and can't do in relation to mergers and relocation of constituent clubs. Unless the AFL own the club, then all they can do is offer incentives to get what they want, which may or may not be accepted by the concerned club or remove the club's AFL licence. This idea that the AFL commission can just force a club to relocate or merge against their will is rubbish.

 

[deanc]

The AFL tried that with North in 2007. In the end it was the shareholders and board of directors of North Melbourne who made the final decision.



I would take a very good look at the events of 1996 to determine what the AFL commission can and can't do in relation to mergers and relocation of constituent clubs. Unless the AFL own the club, then all they can do is offer incentives to get what they want, which may or may not be accepted by the concerned club or remove the club's AFL licence. This idea that the AFL commission can just force a club to relocate or merge against their will is rubbish.

I think we've had a similar discussion before - I'm suggesting incentivize a proposal which may require rigorous negotiations, but this is not 'force'...

Example: AFL proposal to Saints.
You have not been financially solvent as an operation for nearly a decade and we no longer intend to support this! Rather than your club dissolve, we will wipe your debt and broker a financial support strategy with your new 'operating partner' providing you seek the necessary stakeholders approval to relocate under a new license, while maintaining your brand as a club..?

Removing the emotional aspects of such a proposal - it's really not that hard to understand, is it...?

 

[Rowan18]

I think we've had a similar discussion before - I'm suggesting incentivize a proposal which may require rigorous negotiations, but this is not 'force'...

Example: AFL proposal to Saints.
You have not been financially solvent as an operation for nearly a decade and we no longer intend to support this! Rather than your club dissolve, we will wipe your debt and broker a financial support strategy with your new 'operating partner' providing you seek the necessary stakeholders approval to relocate under a new license, while maintaining your brand as a club..?

Removing the emotional aspects of such a proposal - it's really not that hard to understand, is it...?

Yep - it would be pretty simple for a club that is consistently making losses. Withdraw the debt guarantees and let them relocate or go into administration (then relocate or re-allocate the licence). Sure, the legal entity of the club may exist afterwards (like Fitzroy) but they sure as shit won't be playing AFL.

Tassie needs to force the hand here. Start by cutting their sponsorship of North and Hawks (even if just reducing a game a year each) to show they're serious and send some shock waves. Keep future sponsorship to one year deals only so they can adjust pressure as needed.

 

[Engimal v3]

I think we've had a similar discussion before - I'm suggesting incentivize a proposal which may require rigorous negotiations, but this is not 'force'...

Example: AFL proposal to Saints.
You have not been financially solvent as an operation for nearly a decade and we no longer intend to support this! Rather than your club dissolve, we will wipe your debt and broker a financial support strategy with your new 'operating partner' providing you seek the necessary stakeholders approval to relocate under a new license, while maintaining your brand as a club..?

Removing the emotional aspects of such a proposal - it's really not that hard to understand, is it...?

Doesn't this sound eerily similar to "North Melbourne, you are too far in debt. We are willing to give you the money to pay this, plus a lot more, on the condition that you relocate to the Gold Coast"?

How'd that work out?

 

[The_Wookie]

I think we've had a similar discussion before - I'm suggesting incentivize a proposal which may require rigorous negotiations, but this is not 'force'...

Example: AFL proposal to Saints.
You have not been financially solvent as an operation for nearly a decade and we no longer intend to support this! Rather than your club dissolve, we will wipe your debt and broker a financial support strategy with your new 'operating partner' providing you seek the necessary stakeholders approval to relocate under a new license, while maintaining your brand as a club..?

Removing the emotional aspects of such a proposal - it's really not that hard to understand, is it...?

Ok but even then there are limits to what the league can do.

Funding is more or less already allocated through to the next tv deal (or the extension recently signed for the current one), and its unlikely the league can back down on that. Further the club is guaranteed its share of the tv income from the league, that cant be unilaterally withdrawn. the club is also entitled to distributions from the league in terms of revenue from matches at Docklands, AFL members and MCG signage for its games there, if any. This leaves additional distributions (variable/disequal) at around 5m a year.

St Kilda would then have the same expectation of support that every club before it has received, perhaps more so in the economic climate we currently have. Removing support would not be supported by many clubs at all - clubs like Carlton that have benefited from AFL support and come through ok, as well as North and the Bulldogs who receive additional funding, but are now financially reasonably ok. Then theres Brisbane, Gold Coast, GWS, Sydney and Port who currently need AFL support and would be a mite terrified those funding changes would be applied across the board - and if that didnt occur, then the Saints go to court citing discriminatory business practice.

The Clubs would also have to support the changes - its one of the few powers they retain, in terms of relocations or new licenses.

Any arrangement then has to pass the Saints members. The Saints arent in receivership, so the AFL cant do what they did with Fitzroy and connive with the Adminstrator to get the result they wanted.

Having lived through Fitzroy, no club will willingly go down without a fight and youd expect the Saints to fight any attempts to forcibly demote, relocate or take other actions regarding its license in court. The AFL has never been keen on court fights as they expose the underlying mechanisms of the competition to formal judgement - ie. salary caps and franchise agreements to competition and trade practice laws.

 

[Great8]

Doesn't this sound eerily similar to "North Melbourne, you are too far in debt. We are willing to give you the money to pay this, plus a lot more, on the condition that you relocate to the Gold Coast"?

How'd that work out?

There is a difference between the carrot and the stick methods. North were dangled the carrot and to their credit refused.
IF and it’s a big IF the AFL wanted to go down the stick path they could refuse to guarantee a clubs debt, cut their equalisation payments, fixture them in the 4pm Sunday slot every game, give worse deals at Marvel etc, etc. Not saying they would do this but if they really wanted a club gone they could send them to the wall financially

 

[The_Wookie]

Take away the AFL guarantee on debt.

Wont be supported by the clubs - too many of them have guarantees.

 

[The_Wookie]

There is a difference between the carrot and the stick methods. North were dangled the carrot and to their credit refused.
IF and it’s a big IF the AFL wanted to go down the stick path they could refuse to guarantee a clubs debt, cut their equalisation payments, fixture them in the 4pm Sunday slot every game, give worse deals at Marvel etc, etc. Not saying they would do this but if they really wanted a club gone they could send them to the wall financially

Trying to force a club to the wall would get messy rapidly. Onerous franchise agreements and anti competitive stadium behaviour in Melbourne in particular would - and should be - forced under the microscope as clubs like St Kilda are unable to negotiate their own stadium deals - the MCG wont deal with anyone without AFL approval, and the AFL wont approve Saints matches anywhere outside of Docklands in Melbourne. One would expect a fair minded court to take a dim view of that if asked.

Fixturing arrangements that heavily disadvantage St Kilda would come under review, forcing the Saints to pay 95% of the salary cap would come under review.

 

[Great8]

Trying to force a club to the wall would get messy rapidly. Onerous franchise agreements and anti competitive stadium behaviour in Melbourne in particular would - and should be - forced under the microscope as clubs like St Kilda are unable to negotiate their own stadium deals - the MCG wont deal with anyone without AFL approval, and the AFL wont approve Saints matches anywhere outside of Docklands in Melbourne. One would expect a fair minded court to take a dim view of that if asked.

Fixturing arrangements that heavily disadvantage St Kilda would come under review, forcing the Saints to pay 95% of the salary cap would come under review.

Oh I agree and hope it never comes to that. I just don’t trust the turds at AFL house.
Simply withdrawing any guarantees over the club would be easily done though wouldn’t it?
If the Saints are continually losing millions and the AFL refuses to guarantee the debt eventually something has to give way doesn’t it?

 

[The_Wookie]

Oh I agree and hope it never comes to that. I just don’t trust the turds at AFL house.
Simply withdrawing any guarantees over the club would be easily done though wouldn’t it?
If the Saints are continually losing millions and the AFL refuses to guarantee the debt eventually something has to give way doesn’t it?

theyd have to withdraw every clubs guarantees or they are in for a wonderful time in court. They'd expect similar steps as to what were taken at Melbourne and other clubs where the AFL appointed finance managers and ceos to oversee improvement and financial diligence before going down the hard road.

The AFl has something like 8m in loans to the club that it could call in, but it hasnt done that at any other club either.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Doesn't this sound eerily similar to "North Melbourne, you are too far in debt. We are willing to give you the money to pay this, plus a lot more, on the condition that you relocate to the Gold Coast"?

How'd that work out?

If it works out the same, it sounds like we have another two teams coming after North refuse!

 

[Munga]

If my club got the axe I doubt I'd even follow the sport anymore let alone the "joint venture".

Surely loss of supporters/members from the sport would be more of a deciding factor than a club's temporary financial status, which is being managed by a temporary staff member. As if the Saints would leave Moorabbin after recently developing it.



2021 CLUB MEMBERSHIP LADDER

1. West Coast Eagles – 106,422 (2020 tally: 100,776)

2. Richmond – 105,084 (2020 tally: 100,420)

3. Collingwood – 82,527 (2020 tally: 76,862)

4. Essendon – 81,662 (2020 tally: 66,686)

5. Carlton – 81,302 (2020 tally: 67,035)

6. Hawthorn – 77,079 (2020 tally: 76,343)

7. Geelong Cats – 70,293 (2020 tally: 60,066)

8. Adelaide Crows – 60,232 (2020 tally: 54,891)

9. Port Adelaide – 56,532 (2020 tally: 46,820)

10. St Kilda – 55,802 (2020 tally: 48,588)

11. Melbourne – 53,188 (2020 tally: 40,571)

12. Fremantle – 50,342 (2020 tally: 51,577)

13. Sydney Swans – 50,144 (2020 tally: 48,322)

14. Western Bulldogs – 46,541 (2020 tally: 38,876)

15. North Melbourne – 46,357 (2020 tally: 38,667)

16. Brisbane Lions – 40,289 (2020 tally: 29,277)

17. GWS Giants – 30,185 (2020 tally: 30,841)

18. Gold Coast Suns – 19,460 (2020 tally: 16,236)

 

[Verdun]

Time for Tas to pull the money that it funnels to North Melbourne and Hawthorn. Fairly simple.

 

[Roylion]

Trying to force a club to the wall would get messy rapidly.

That's correct. And that's something the AFL want to avoid at all costs.

if the AFL want to relocate a club then they need to bring that club's directors, shareholders (if any) and members with them to make that relocation go smoothly. Mergers are even messier in that you have to persuade two sets of directors, shareholder members etc. that such a move was of benefit to their club

A relocation of a Melbourne club interstate is a very hard sell, because the future of such a club's Melbourne presence is writ large in Sydney and Brisbane's experience (the second wasn't even a merger, basically because the directors and shareholders of Fitzroy opposed the action).

AFL promises of a minimum number of games for the relocated club aren't worth the paper they are printed on either. Often promises to retain colours or logos of the original club(s) are broken at some later stage as as well. See the Brisbane Lions vs Fitzroy court stoush in 2010 for an example of that.

Club directors, members and supporters would be very aware of all that. And wary and cynical about any AFL grand promises made at the time to get what they want.

 

[Fire]

Without having read the report this is all spin.

I'd like to posit this theory based on what I've read in this thread;
The report says what the AFL and tas governments want it to; a 19th side is economically unviable, but preferable to no AFL in Tasmania. So they present, in order, three outcomes:
1. A relocated club (impossible to enact)
2. A 'partnership' (a vague, non-concept thats unviable)
3. A 19th side with long term underwriting and guarantees by the Tas state government. (Desired outcome).

If the report simply said that a 19th team was fantastic, then the AFL would be on the hook. If the report said it is a bad idea, the AFL and Tasmania both lose.

Instead, Tasmania wins because it gets its team. The AFL wins because it won't cost them a cent. Both are portrayed as heros.

 

[fargothegreat]

I’m late to the party here, so apologies if this has already been answered …

… but curious why the Tassie government haven’t applied for an AFLW licence over the last five years? If they’d been forward thinking they could have gotten in close to the ground floor with women’s footy? Doesn’t need the big dollars or the big stadiums of the men’s game.

If Tassie had had an AFLW team over the last 4-5 years, would have thought it’d strengthen the case for a men’s team?

We did try to get an AFLW team.

The AFL's answer was to give North Melbourne all of the Tasmanian players and get them to wear a jumper that says 'Tassie Kangaroos' when they played here to try and fool us into thinking we had our own team.

 

[Great8]

If my club got the axe I doubt I'd even follow the sport anymore let alone the "joint venture".

Surely loss of supporters/members from the sport would be more of a deciding factor than a club's temporary financial status, which is being managed by a temporary staff member. As if the Saints would leave Moorabbin after recently developing it.


2021 CLUB MEMBERSHIP LADDER

1. West Coast Eagles – 106,422 (2020 tally: 100,776)

2. Richmond – 105,084 (2020 tally: 100,420)

3. Collingwood – 82,527 (2020 tally: 76,862)

4. Essendon – 81,662 (2020 tally: 66,686)

5. Carlton – 81,302 (2020 tally: 67,035)

6. Hawthorn – 77,079 (2020 tally: 76,343)

7. Geelong Cats – 70,293 (2020 tally: 60,066)

8. Adelaide Crows – 60,232 (2020 tally: 54,891)

9. Port Adelaide – 56,532 (2020 tally: 46,820)

10. St Kilda – 55,802 (2020 tally: 48,588)

11. Melbourne – 53,188 (2020 tally: 40,571)

12. Fremantle – 50,342 (2020 tally: 51,577)

13. Sydney Swans – 50,144 (2020 tally: 48,322)

14. Western Bulldogs – 46,541 (2020 tally: 38,876)

15. North Melbourne – 46,357 (2020 tally: 38,667)

16. Brisbane Lions – 40,289 (2020 tally: 29,277)

17. GWS Giants – 30,185 (2020 tally: 30,841)

18. Gold Coast Suns – 19,460 (2020 tally: 16,236)

All well and good having those membership numbers but for the Saints those figures need to start translating to the balance sheets. Can’t keep bleeding money like they continue to. I hope no one is forced to relocate though (Carlton excluded ) and that Tasmania gets its own team.
The TAS government need to pull all funding from the Hawks and Roos immediately though

 

[The Blue Baggers]

If my club got the axe I doubt I'd even follow the sport anymore let alone the "joint venture".

Surely loss of supporters/members from the sport would be more of a deciding factor than a club's temporary financial status, which is being managed by a temporary staff member. As if the Saints would leave Moorabbin after recently developing it.



2021 CLUB MEMBERSHIP LADDER

1. West Coast Eagles – 106,422 (2020 tally: 100,776)

2. Richmond – 105,084 (2020 tally: 100,420)

3. Collingwood – 82,527 (2020 tally: 76,862)

4. Essendon – 81,662 (2020 tally: 66,686)

5. Carlton – 81,302 (2020 tally: 67,035)

6. Hawthorn – 77,079 (2020 tally: 76,343)

7. Geelong Cats – 70,293 (2020 tally: 60,066)

8. Adelaide Crows – 60,232 (2020 tally: 54,891)

9. Port Adelaide – 56,532 (2020 tally: 46,820)

10. St Kilda – 55,802 (2020 tally: 48,588)

11. Melbourne – 53,188 (2020 tally: 40,571)

12. Fremantle – 50,342 (2020 tally: 51,577)

13. Sydney Swans – 50,144 (2020 tally: 48,322)

14. Western Bulldogs – 46,541 (2020 tally: 38,876)

15. North Melbourne – 46,357 (2020 tally: 38,667)

16. Brisbane Lions – 40,289 (2020 tally: 29,277)

17. GWS Giants – 30,185 (2020 tally: 30,841)

18. Gold Coast Suns – 19,460 (2020 tally: 16,236)

pretty simple to right a previous wrong

In Tasmania

Out Gold Coast

 

[Mr Taswegian]

pretty simple to right a previous wrong

In Tasmania

Out Gold Coast

The Gold Coast will not make way for a tassie team after all the money has poured in to it and it's membership has risen by over 3000 this season so they would consider that a promising sign for it's future.