Tasmania Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

[Chief]

---

GO TO PART 2 of this thread:

Tasmania - Tasmania Devils, welcome to the AFL. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Labor declares support for Stadium 6/5

Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5.1226653/ Was going to draft up a Summary but this is pretty good...

www.bigfooty.com

---

 

[Mr Taswegian]

If Tasmania misses out due to this it will be possibly another ten to twenty years before we get another chance to get a team. I just hope something can still be worked out otherwise we all have a long time to wait for another chance to enter the big league.

 

[My_Username]

Did the two western Australian and south Australian clubs have brand new stadiums to play out of when they entered? These are not regional areas and both Subiaco and football park where out dated second rate stadiums it’s decades in before these clubs have got new stadiums. Brisbane are literally only getting a new stadium now due to the Olympics. The afl have gone out of there way to set ridiculous over the top demands for Tasmania hoping they won’t get met

While I do see your point, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Bellerive to Subi & Football park.

 

[The_Wookie]

Did the two western Australian and south Australian clubs have brand new stadiums to play out of when they entered? These are not regional areas and both Subiaco and football park where out dated second rate stadiums it’s decades in before these clubs have got new stadiums. Brisbane are literally only getting a new stadium now due to the Olympics. The afl have gone out of there way to set ridiculous over the top demands for Tasmania hoping they won’t get met

No they didnt (but in 1987 there were no new stadiums, The MCG hadnt been updated in decades, Waverly was the same vintage as Subiaco and Football Park and many clubs were still playing out of ancient home grounds). Benefits of modern stadia have really been pushed since 2014 and the clear benefits from Adelaide oval to Adelaide itself) - but heres the real thing - the AFL actually wanted those teams. You're trying to convince a league that didnt particularly want you to take you on board. No one else had that issue.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

No they didnt (but in 1987 there were no new stadiums, The MCG hadnt been updated in decades, Waverly was the same vintage as Subiaco and Football Park and many clubs were still playing out of ancient home grounds). Benefits of modern stadia have really been pushed since 2014 and the clear benefits from Adelaide oval to Adelaide itself) - but heres the real thing - the AFL actually wanted those teams. You're trying to convince a league that didnt particularly want you to take you on board. No one else had that issue.

I fully agree,we need to do what the AFL wants because we are the ones pushing for the team. I think a lot of people dont understand this and will blame the AFL if we miss out but in all honesty it will be Tasmania's fault if we miss out.

 

[Jazny]

If the AFL doesn't want us, it's time to move on. Provincial bush league with zero global relevance. You know your sport is a dead backwater when the biggest thing to happen in it is a failed uncoordinated American college basketballer that nobody has ever heard of comes in and plays two good games.

The AFL industry got so excited when it was the only sport being played in the world during the pandemic and it's American senpai noticed it for two seconds before realising it was an embarrassing 36 a side rolling maul with rules so confusing that even professional umpires that have decades of experience often don't know how to interpret.

I wish I grew up with a different sport, it's all Bryce Gibbs fault

 

[Tasmanian saint]

While I do see your point, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Bellerive to Subi & Football park.

Did you ever go and watch a game at footy park or Subiaco ? while there a lot larger in capacity they both were extremely outdated and had pretty much zero weather protection especially footy park which originally had bench wooden seats. Blundstone while smaller and hard to get to has much more modern facilities then those grounds had !

 

[My_Username]

If the AFL doesn't want us, it's time to move on. Provincial bush league with zero global relevance. You know your sport is a dead backwater when the biggest thing to happen in it is a failed uncoordinated American college basketballer that nobody has ever heard of comes in and plays two good games.

The AFL industry got so excited when it was the only sport being played in the world during the pandemic and it's American senpai noticed it for two seconds before realising it was an embarrassing 36 a side rolling maul with rules so confusing that even professional umpires that have decades of experience often don't know how to interpret.

I wish I grew up with a different sport, it's all Bryce Gibbs fault

Going by most of your posts, I'm not sure you want the AFL, and would far prefer soccer.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Matthew Richardson

Matthew Richardson

Age

49

Ht

195cm

Wt

104kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.0

4star

K

10.9

4star

HB

3.1

3star

M

8.0

5star

T

0.5

3star

No current season stats available

D

15.0

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

7.8

5star

T

0.8

3star

was on Sen earlier and believes going to the president's without a stadium plan is very concerning. Hopefully the AFL still gives us a provisional licence with a deadline otherwise we will of lost our chance to get a team for possibly another 20 years.

 

[My_Username]

Matthew Richardson was on Sen earlier and believes going to the president's without a stadium plan is very concerning. Hopefully the AFL still gives us a provisional licence with a deadline otherwise we will of lost our chance to get a team for possibly another 20 years.

If the bid is close, then hopefully they'll offer a review/delay (12 months?) to sort that, and any other issues, out.

I know many would be annoyed at them 'kicking the can down the road', but it beats the alternative.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

If the bid is close, then hopefully they'll offer a review/delay (12 months?) to sort that, and any other issues, out.

I know many would be annoyed at them 'kicking the can down the road', but it beats the alternative.

I think they should be offering a provisional licence in this situation.

 

[My_Username]

I think they should be offering a provisional licence in this situation.

It would be a major issue (PR mostly, but...) to reverse a provisional license, so unless they're pretty sure it's going to go ahead, they'd be better off delaying the decision.

It would also cut into the AFL's negotiating power over any stadium.

That said, Gil seems to want this done before he leaves (much as I think it should be decided by the incoming CEO, because he'll have to make it happen), so that would suggest provisional is more likely.

 

[fargothegreat]

It would be a major issue (PR mostly, but...) to reverse a provisional license, so unless they're pretty sure it's going to go ahead, they'd be better off delaying the decision.

It would also cut into the AFL's negotiating power over any stadium.

That said, Gil seems to want this done before he leaves (much as I think it should be decided by the incoming CEO, because he'll have to make it happen), so that would suggest provisional is more likely.

I think a provisional licence is the best way to get both levels of government to trust the AFL.

A provisional licence says "all you need to do is a build a stadium and you're in", which means there's no chance the AFL can move the goal posts again.

 

[fargothegreat]

Fat Ed said on FC that Gil has told the clubs they will have the info on Tassie by the end of August, but that doesn't necessarily mean the vote will happen by the end of August. So I think the vote will be happening a bit later than originally planned.

 

[My_Username]

I think a provisional licence is the best way to get both levels of government to trust the AFL.

A provisional licence says "all you need to do is a build a stadium and you're in", which means there's no chance the AFL can move the goal posts again.

I think you've got it backwards.

As has been pointed out previously in the thread, it's the governments trying to convince the AFL, not the other way around. Getting "both levels of government to trust the AFL" isn't a major issue here....Indeed, I think a large part of why the AFL wants the stadium is that it symbolises government commitment and allows the AFL to trust the government.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Fat Ed said on FC that Gil has told the clubs they will have the info on Tassie by the end of August, but that doesn't necessarily mean the vote will happen by the end of August. So I think the vote will be happening a bit later than originally planned.

Here comes the delays once again.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If the AFL doesn't want us, it's time to move on. Provincial bush league with zero global relevance. You know your sport is a dead backwater when the biggest thing to happen in it is a failed uncoordinated American college basketballer that nobody has ever heard of comes in and plays two good games.

The AFL industry got so excited when it was the only sport being played in the world during the pandemic and it's American senpai noticed it for two seconds before realising it was an embarrassing 36 a side rolling maul with rules so confusing that even professional umpires that have decades of experience often don't know how to interpret.

I wish I grew up with a different sport, it's all Bryce Gibbs fault

It's a little sad that you've made 15 000 posts on a site about a game you don't even seem to like.

 

[fargothegreat]

I think you've got it backwards.

As has been pointed out previously in the thread, it's the governments trying to convince the AFL, not the other way around. Getting "both levels of government to trust the AFL" isn't a major issue here....Indeed, I think a large part of why the AFL wants the stadium is that it symbolises government commitment and allows the AFL to trust the government.

The AFL have moved the goalposts on Tassie so many times. The Federal Government's view is that they can't commit to helping fund a stadium until the AFL commits to having a team to play out of it.

Do you expect them to fork out $500m for a stadium only for the AFL to say "actually, we've decided that North Melbourne will play out of it instead"?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

No point wanting something that doesn't want you back! We have repeatedly been told that Tasmania isn't needed or wanted by the AFL. Message received, enjoy your irrelevant game.

Let's go after A Leage instead. I'd rather our government spent money on NRL a sport I have zero interest in.

The A-league shafted Tasmania in their last expansion also.

The reality is that no sport could afford to ignore Tasmania if the economic and population arguments were working in their favour. That's a big reason the Gold Coast has a team in both the AFL and NRL (and A-League before Clive Palmer proved to be too great an embarrasment). If the state concentrates on economic infrastructure, everyone will be queuing up to expand into Tassie and won't demand huge government subsidies to do so. Yet even one light rail line can't get built in Hobart despite there already being a viable corridor for its use.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

The AFL have moved the goalposts on Tassie so many times. The Federal Government's view is that they can't commit to helping fund a stadium until the AFL commits to having a team to play out of it.

Do you expect them to fork out $500m for a stadium only for the AFL to say "actually, we've decided that North Melbourne will play out of it instead"?

I'm told the stadium issue was the big reason Tassie missed out on a team back in 1996, could history repeat it's self this time around?....

 

[My_Username]

The AFL have moved the goalposts on Tassie so many times. The Federal Government's view is that they can't commit to helping fund a stadium until the AFL commits to having a team to play out of it.

Do you expect them to fork out $500m for a stadium only for the AFL to say "actually, we've decided that North Melbourne will play out of it instead"?

and the AFL wont commit to a team without a stadium. Who will blink first?

Except hat it doesn't work that way...these things can be mutually agreed before (major) spending occurs.

The AFL isn't asking for a stadium to be built before it commits to a team...just that a mutually agreeable design is done and a commitment is made that it WILL be built.

Not sure about what these moving goalposts are though...When has the AFL ever said "if you do X,Y,Z you'll get a team"? It does support the underlying argument about who needs to convince ('trust'?) who though. The AFL is clearly OK with 'take it or leave it', and walk away if it isn't happy. It's the Tas government/bid team that needs to make the running here and ensure all the boxes are ticked.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

and the AFL wont commit to a team without a stadium. Who will blink first?

Except hat it doesn't work that way...these things can be mutually agreed before (major) spending occurs.

The AFL isn't asking for a stadium to be built before it commits to a team...just that a mutually agreeable design is done and a commitment is made that it WILL be built.

Not sure about what these moving goalposts are though...When has the AFL ever said "if you do X,Y,Z you'll get a team"? It does support the underlying argument about who needs to convince ('trust'?) who though. The AFL is clearly OK with 'take it or leave it', and walk away if it isn't happy. It's the Tas government/bid team that needs to make the running here and ensure all the boxes are ticked.

Yes if we miss out the government will be to blame not the AFL. I think the government if getting a bit lazy and doesn't want to do the work required which will sadly cost us in the end.

 

[fargothegreat]

and the AFL wont commit to a team without a stadium. Who will blink first?

Except hat it doesn't work that way...these things can be mutually agreed before (major) spending occurs.

The AFL isn't asking for a stadium to be built before it commits to a team...just that a mutually agreeable design is done and a commitment is made that it WILL be built.

Not sure about what these moving goalposts are though...When has the AFL ever said "if you do X,Y,Z you'll get a team"? It does support the underlying argument about who needs to convince ('trust'?) who though. The AFL is clearly OK with 'take it or leave it', and walk away if it isn't happy. It's the Tas government/bid team that needs to make the running here and ensure all the boxes are ticked.

For starters, there was no requirement to build a new stadium at all to begin with. It wasn't part of the business case or the AFL's 'independent' review of the business case. Goal posts moved.

It was also all supposed to be decided last year. Goal posts moved.

Your belief that the AFL has a 'take it or leave it' attitude incorrectly assumes that the AFL has nothing to lose if they don't give Tasmania a team.

People think Tasmanians are exaggerating when they say football is very sick in this state, but go and check the facts. Football fanaticism (the people who spend $$ on footy), crowds and participation have all been declining over the last decade, whilst other sports (basketball in particular) are rising rapidly in all of these areas.

Not to mention the millions of dollars each season the AFL would lose in government funding.

 

[My_Username]

Yes if we miss out the government will be to blame not the AFL. I think the government if getting a bit lazy and doesn't want to do the work required which will sadly cost us in the end.

I'm not sure blame/fault is really applicable.

Both parties can be just too far apart to find a reasonable compromise.

The AFL wants a new club that will clearly add to the existing comp in a variety of ways.

The Tas government wants a team that will clearly add to Tas in a variety of ways.

Both are right to do so.


It could well reach the point where the needs of both parties cannot be met with the same deal.

Sometimes, the best 'deal' is to walk away, no matter how much you might want it to happen.



As things stand, it's looking like costing the various governments the best part of a billion dollars to get this team ( $50M up front, 10*$10M annual, $500-750M Hobart stadium and more for upgrades to York park)...At what point is it reasonable for them to say 'enough' and walk away?

 

[The_Wookie]

For starters, there was no requirement to build a new stadium at all to begin with. It wasn't part of the business case or the AFL's 'independent' review of the business case. Goal posts moved.

AFL requirements have never actually been revealed. The business case was a Tasmanian Gov proposal, and the AFLs review was a feasibility study with recommendations to the league.

 

[Bjo187]

The Tasmanian government moving the goalposts at the last minute, strange move. They demand a team, get told the requirements, release big plans and then pull them right before the vote.