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

---

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I wouldn't say that it would necessarily equate to higher crowds if two Vic teams merge, especially teams like North and WB.

Okay, why not?

And if you're going to use those as the reasons for the NRL mergers being failures, then it's fair to say that they would also factor heavily in any merger of Melbourne clubs in the AFL.

I don't agree. Melbourne is not Sydney, it's much more centralised because it only has one CBD rather than two, and it's easier to get to the Melbourne CBD from a random suburb than it is for the main Sydney CBD. This is one of the reasons why Melbourne has higher attendances in practically every sport than Sydney does. Geography isn't as great a factor, with the possible exception of the Western Bulldogs.

nor would a lot of members from either side support a merger in general.

Of course. Nobody wants their team to merge, but if it has to be done, remaining in Melbourne and having 11 home games to go to is the least worst option.

The only reason Fitzroy fans wanted to merge with North was because the Lions were sadly doomed at that stage and it was their only chance of staying in Melbourne.

Funny how they wanted their team to stay in Melbourne. Sounds like they preferred it to their identity being sent interstate.

The reactions to Fitzroy/Footscray or the Melbourne Hawks are more appropriate when gouging how fans would respond to a merger.

As Roylion pointed out, neither of those were a merger of equals.

It settles GC because it would give them a boost financially from at least a few thousand new members (they would get some people from NM supporting the club)

How many and for how long? I think it would be an absolute disaster, almost every North fan would shun the new entity. The Suns aren't overly worried about finances in the short term because the AFL will cover their losses, the bigger issue is how to pull crowds in the long term, and ditching the identity they've been trying to build seems counterproductive.

and it would allow them to potentially fix player retention if they had an established culture in place.

What established culture? A merger is a messy mix of two playing lists with completely different experiences and hierarchies. Brisbane needed four seasons and a new coach to make it work.

Having a presence in Melbourne like Sydney and Brisbane have wouldn't hurt them either.

But how will it help them? It severely hurts the fans of whichever club gets sacrificed to strengthen Gold Coast.

However, merging with a struggling Victorian club, IMO, would be a good way for them to get a lot of internal stability much the same way Brisbane got.

Brisbane's stability came from hiring one of the toughest bastards in the history of the game to whip them into shape. That's what the Suns need, not a merger, but unfortunately they don't grow on trees.

I've always been of the opinion that GC should have been Southport or a relocated North and in this time of crisis and uncertainty, if it comes to, I feel the AFL could right some wrongs in regards to the Suns and set them up to be strong off the field in the long term (unless they win three in a row and Eddie shits his pants about it).

There's a reason they didn't pick either of those options. Southport were the Collingwood of Gold Coast clubs, and North didn't want to relocate (and the AFL couldn't force them).

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I know that but I'm sure some people prefer a handful of matches to no matches whatsoever.

But that's not the choice at stake. If a merger is an inevitability, any Victorian fan would take 18 games a year in Victoria compared to 5.

Merging the Bulldogs and the Roos together wouldn't work IMO because merging two mediocre clubs with no potential guarantees a mediocre result.

Why does it guarantee a mediocre result, when they now have 40k fans who regularly go to games instead of 20k?

Fitzroy and Bears worked because you had the history of Fitzroy with the potential of Brisbane in becoming a strong club.

History doesn't pay the bills. Both Roylion and I have explained how it worked: cash handouts and poaching players. And even then it needed Leigh Matthews.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Follow-up to my post#2134 above.

The "...economic impactof Australian Rules Football...generated $6.8 billion in financial contribution to the Australian economy in 2018".

We can conclude, therefore, governments will be very keen to ensure that AF remains in a healthy state in Aust.- since they have a valid & vested interest that the c. $6.8 billion pa does not diminish.

Economic windfall thanks to AFL

newsroom.unsw.edu.au

This huge economic impact also suggests the prospects of all 18 AFL clubs surviving are good- even if it requires interest free loans from governments.

Furthermore, the Tasmanian Business Case (which no AFL, or non AFL, expert source has publicly & directly challenged, let alone rebutted) demonstrates the economic/tourism benefits for Tasmania FAR exceeds the approx. $11m pa the Tas. govt will provide directly for the 19th team.

"...a windfall of $110m a year and hundreds of jobs".

(These above positive factors do not change from 2021, notwithstanding the 2020 economic devestation caused by the covid-19 outbreak- assuming it has been resolved within c. 9 months)

Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team must happen to save code, report finds

A Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team would not only thrive in the national competition, it is the only thing that will save Australian Rules Football in the state from dying in the face of competition from other sports, a long-awaited report finds.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Engimal v3]

Does anyone think this is even a possibility in the next 5-10 years now? How things change.

 

[madmug]

Does anyone think this is even a possibility in the next 5-10 years now? How things change.

Why not? Business & Government here will want confidence & economic activity to return asap. Such a thing to look forward to will be a boost for this place. That can't be ignored by an AFL which touts its community credentials.

Next year will be different. The AFL will be looking at a media rights deal through to 2025. They still have plenty of time to factor in any changes which might occur. Growth into Tasmania, or the destruction of the AFL & some clubs are all possible.

With TasTeam we are looking at 2025. Overly negative views are grossly over rated at this stage.

Its a year by year prospect.

Whatever happens we need to dump the fly in & out teams.

Hawks may still play in Launceston for political reasons, unless Kennett gets the boot at Hawthorn. North are Gawn. If hawks do stay, you watch the backlash.

No more grifters.

 

[Established1870]

Does anyone think this is even a possibility in the next 5-10 years now? How things change.

10 years, possibly. Won't be seeing Tasmania in the AFL for this decade though.

 

[BringBackTorps]

The Age M. Gleeson et al 20.3

Some good news for the AFL & its 18 clubs- & the Tas. 19th team bid.

Gleeson wrote

"Marvel Stadium is not only a valuable asset but it promises future cash flows for parties willing to offer credit. The League is in a strong credit position to access debt (at low interest rates- my words)...Clubs are also examining the equity in their own assets to draw against...".

Marvel Stadium key asset as AFL acts to survive financial calamity

With revenues falling off a cliff due to games being played in front of no crowds the AFL is working on an emergency response.

www.theage.com.au

EDIT:

The Age P. Ryan 22.3

"...the AFL would take a minimum of 5 years to recover financial ground with many...predicting the games economic model would look different forever".

"...Marvel Stadium being raised as a potential asset they could use to securitise loans (ie offer DS as collateral for low interest loans- my words).

Five-year recovery as smaller Victorian AFL clubs battle for survival

Industry analysts say the AFL will need to assist smaller Victorian clubs such as Melbourne and St Kilda so they can survive coronavirus epidemic

www.theage.com.au

It was very prescient the AFL bought out DS early, before 2025. As the new owner, it can now access low interest loans: the AFL 18 Clubs' & 14 AFLW teams' salvation. And this will be beneficial for the Tas. 19th team bid.

 

[Rob]

Not sure why people are suggesting mergers as a solution. Debt doesn't magically disappear if there's a merger.
It was only a potential solution in the 90s because the AFL offered huge financial incentives. They won't be forthcoming from anyone now, let alone the AFL.

 

[BringBackTorps]

1. SEN Melb. Radio 24.3

The asset that puts the AFL in a much stronger survival position than the NRL

“It might ultimately save the game."

www.sen.com.au

AFAIK, DS land & stadium have a total value of c. $1.25 billion.

Docklands Stadium likely to bail out the AFL from any major long term damage. All 18 AFL clubs & 14 AFLW teams likely to survive.

Will the likely AFL "limited & manageable" effects of covid-19, cf other Aust. sports, give it a major relative advantage to these pro sports? And a relative boost for GR AF?








EDIT:

The AFL is seeking a $500m loan- offering DS as collateral, thus achieving a loan at very low interest rates.

This will ensure the long term security of ALL 18 AFL clubs & 14 AFLW teams. It probably will enhance the chances of a Tas. team some time c .2026

AFL to seek $500m plus loan during unprecedented crisis

The bank loan that the AFL is seeking to secure the game's future as the coronavirus takes a stranglehold on the 2020 season is expected to exceed half a billion dollars.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Not sure why people are suggesting mergers as a solution. Debt doesn't magically disappear if there's a merger.

It doesn't, but the TV money pile would be shared out amongst fewer clubs (and given it's only financially weak teams being discussed, we're talking $40 million per year being cut down to at least $20 million, possibly less depending on how strong the merged entity becomes). Also, match day revenue would be combined from two sets of fans, while operating costs would remain the same since there's no need to double up on staff or facilities. In essence, from a financial perspective a merger of two clubs in the same city would increase revenue without increasing costs, thus creating a stronger club off-field. The only problem is that it dilutes the history and culture of both the existing clubs, having to rebuild it as a different entity.

 

[madmug]

It doesn't, but the TV money pile would be shared out amongst fewer clubs (and given it's only financially weak teams being discussed, we're talking $40 million per year being cut down to at least $20 million, possibly less depending on how strong the merged entity becomes). Also, match day revenue would be combined from two sets of fans, while operating costs would remain the same since there's no need to double up on staff or facilities. In essence, from a financial perspective a merger of two clubs in the same city would increase revenue without increasing costs, thus creating a stronger club off-field. The only problem is that it dilutes the history and culture of both the existing clubs, having to rebuild it as a different entity.

Isn't part of the TV money predicated on content? ie the number of games?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Isn't part of the TV money predicated on content? ie the number of games?

You're right, fair point. Adding in Tasmania or anyone else to make 9 games per week again would mean the $20 million saved by a merger would go to the expansion club.

But, it does avoid the pie being carved up by 19 clubs and everyone getting a smaller share. That's a potential stumbling block for Tasmanian entry removed. The other way would be adding a 20th club for a 10th game per week, but as has been discussed, NSW isn't ready, WA doesn't care, and who knows how much extra the networks would pay for a 10th game, there are diminishing returns from more games per week.

The other stuff I mentioned still stands.

 

[madmug]

You're right, fair point. Adding in Tasmania or anyone else to make 9 games per week again would mean the $20 million saved by a merger would go to the expansion club.

But, it does avoid the pie being carved up by 19 clubs and everyone getting a smaller share. That's a potential stumbling block for Tasmanian entry removed. The other way would be adding a 20th club for a 10th game per week, but as has been discussed, NSW isn't ready, WA doesn't care, and who knows how much extra the networks would pay for a 10th game, there are diminishing returns from more games per week.

The other stuff I mentioned still stands.

I'm not so sure the networks will have the cash to pay what they do now, let alone any extra.

Sponsorships may also be a little thin on the ground. That may also complicate things.

Hopefully we don't lose any clubs, but they will be taking a haircut. Less waste on fat football departments. Even player payment cuts. You can't pay what you don't have.


Maybe less corporate wages at AFL HQ??

 

[Rob]

It doesn't, but the TV money pile would be shared out amongst fewer clubs (and given it's only financially weak teams being discussed, we're talking $40 million per year being cut down to at least $20 million, possibly less depending on how strong the merged entity becomes). Also, match day revenue would be combined from two sets of fans, while operating costs would remain the same since there's no need to double up on staff or facilities. In essence, from a financial perspective a merger of two clubs in the same city would increase revenue without increasing costs, thus creating a stronger club off-field. The only problem is that it dilutes the history and culture of both the existing clubs, having to rebuild it as a different entity.

But that needs to happen before the clubs get into financial strife. They need to foresee that they're not going to be able to survive and then sell to their members that a merger is the only way out of a problem that hasn't happened yet.

You think that's going to happen? Zero chance.

 

[madmug]

But that needs to happen before the clubs get into financial strife. They need to foresee that they're not going to be able to survive and then sell to their members that a merger is the only way out of a problem that hasn't happened yet.

You think that's going to happen? Zero chance.

Too early to call anything.

I think they'll all get through, just.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

But that needs to happen before the clubs get into financial strife. They need to foresee that they're not going to be able to survive and then sell to their members that a merger is the only way out of a problem that hasn't happened yet.

You think that's going to happen? Zero chance.

I never said I think that's going to happen. I think it'd be a good idea for long term stability and competitiveness, but yes, realistically mergers will only happen when a club is at death's door. We're not a proactive nation.

 

[Rob]

I never said I think that's going to happen. I think it'd be a good idea for long term stability and competitiveness, but yes, realistically mergers will only happen when a club is at death's door. We're not a proactive nation.

Yeah of course. I was just commenting in response to a few calls in the media that we may see mergers if clubs get in to serious financial difficulty. In the current environment mergers are preventative, not a solution to avoid going bankrupt 5 minutes before it happens.
For that reason I can't see any mergers happening.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Yeah of course. I was just commenting in response to a few calls in the media that we may see mergers if clubs get in to serious financial difficulty. In the current environment mergers are preventative, not a solution to avoid going bankrupt 5 minutes before it happens.
For that reason I can't see any mergers happening.

Fair enough, I see your point.

 

[Established1870]

Yeah of course. I was just commenting in response to a few calls in the media that we may see mergers if clubs get in to serious financial difficulty. In the current environment mergers are preventative, not a solution to avoid going bankrupt 5 minutes before it happens.
For that reason I can't see any mergers happening.

If the AFL can't leverage Docklands to make up most of the money they're going to lose then I can't see 18 clubs going into 2021. It's a very real possibility and people can't just say it won't happen. People in the media like Caro and even Barrett wouldn't be mentioning mergers or clubs folding if they didn't hear about it being discussed privately in AFL HQ. And if there are clubs the AFL deem unnecessary to a national competition then those clubs will be Melbourne based because whether people want to accept it or not, having 2 clubs in every other major state was needed for getting such a massive TV rights deal last time and will be crucial when the next few TV rights negotiations come around.

Onto the discussion point of this thread, I don't see Tasmania getting a team in the next 10-15 years unless a team folds leaving an imbalanced competition or a team like North or St Kilda think relocation is preferable to merging.

 

[Verdun]

If the AFL can't leverage Docklands to make up most of the money they're going to lose then I can't see 18 clubs going into 2021. It's a very real possibility and people can't just say it won't happen. People in the media like Caro and even Barrett wouldn't be mentioning mergers or clubs folding if they didn't hear about it being discussed privately in AFL HQ. And if there are clubs the AFL deem unnecessary to a national competition then those clubs will be Melbourne based because whether people want to accept it or not, having 2 clubs in every other major state was needed for getting such a massive TV rights deal last time and will be crucial when the next few TV rights negotiations come around.

Onto the discussion point of this thread, I don't see Tasmania getting a team in the next 10-15 years unless a team folds leaving an imbalanced competition or a team like North or St Kilda think relocation is preferable to merging.

Yep either do I, this has changed from 2 months ago.

Now more than ever Tasmania needs to stop giving money to Hawthorn and North Melbourne therefore subsidising the AFL. The reverse welfare needs to stop.

 

[madmug]

Yep either do I, this has changed from 2 months ago.

Now more than ever Tasmania needs to stop giving money to Hawthorn and North Melbourne therefore subsidising the AFL. The reverse welfare needs to stop.

Everything is 'up in the air'.

We need to wait to see what the recovery is like & how long it takes.

Until then, everything is supposition.

 

[Established1870]

Another thing to consider with the financial ramifications impacting upon expansion further down the track is the more pie in the sky ideas of areas like the NT getting a side won't happen in our lifetimes if the AFL were even considering it.

The only sides who could potentially happen by 2050 would be Tasmania and Canberra unless places like Newcastle or FNQ suddenly switched over to our game to such an extent that it was financially feasible for the AFL to make the risk. With the probable demise of Union and the A-League and with the NRL being all but rooted for the foreseeable future, it's plausible to suggest that the AFL could swoop in on areas no longer without representation in any major sports league and grow the game in those areas.

The game will be in dire straights for awhile but compared to the other codes we compete with, from the point of view regarding expansion, the league could be in a great area 15-20 years down the line to expand into areas that most of us thought impossible.

 

[madmug]

Another thing to consider with the financial ramifications impacting upon expansion further down the track is the more pie in the sky ideas of areas like the NT getting a side won't happen in our lifetimes if the AFL were even considering it.

The only sides who could potentially happen by 2050 would be Tasmania and Canberra unless places like Newcastle or FNQ suddenly switched over to our game to such an extent that it was financially feasible for the AFL to make the risk. With the probable demise of Union and the A-League and with the NRL being all but rooted for the foreseeable future, it's plausible to suggest that the AFL could swoop in on areas no longer without representation in any major sports league and grow the game in those areas.

The game will be in dire straights for awhile but compared to the other codes we compete with, from the point of view regarding expansion, the league could be in a great area 15-20 years down the line to expand into areas that most of us thought impossible.

All it takes is bucket of money, possibly only a few generations & hope we don't get a health or other economic shock/disaster.

Otherwise, yep, maybe.

 

[Kwality]

Follow-up to my post#2134 above.

The "...economic impactof Australian Rules Football...generated $6.8 billion in financial contribution to the Australian economy in 2018".

We can conclude, therefore, governments will be very keen to ensure that AF remains in a healthy state in Aust.- since they have a valid & vested interest that the c. $6.8 billion pa does not diminish.

Economic windfall thanks to AFL

newsroom.unsw.edu.au

This huge economic impact also suggests the prospects of all 18 AFL clubs surviving are good- even if it requires interest free loans from governments.

Furthermore, the Tasmanian Business Case (which no AFL, or non AFL, expert source has publicly & directly challenged, let alone rebutted) demonstrates the economic/tourism benefits for Tasmania FAR exceeds the approx. $11m pa the Tas. govt will provide directly for the 19th team.

"...a windfall of $110m a year and hundreds of jobs".

(These above positive factors do not change from 2021, notwithstanding the 2020 economic devestation caused by the covid-19 outbreak- assuming it has been resolved within c. 9 months)

Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team must happen to save code, report finds

A Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team would not only thrive in the national competition, it is the only thing that will save Australian Rules Football in the state from dying in the face of competition from other sports, a long-awaited report finds.

www.abc.net.au

Social fabric is a stronger argument for footy in the restart than economic, given its seasonal.

 

[Roylion]

If the AFL can't leverage Docklands to make up most of the money they're going to lose then I can't see 18 clubs going into 2021. It's a very real possibility and people can't just say it won't happen.

It won't happen.

People in the media like Caro and even Barrett wouldn't be mentioning mergers or clubs folding if they didn't hear about it being discussed privately in AFL HQ.

Of course they would. Just another topic to speculate on to fill air time and column inches.

And if there are clubs the AFL deem unnecessary to a national competition then those clubs will be Melbourne based because whether people want to accept it or not, having 2 clubs in every other major state was needed for getting such a massive TV rights deal last time and will be crucial when the next few TV rights negotiations come around.

Lucky the AFL commission doesn't make the final decision. 75%+ of the 18 clubs do. A minimum of 14 clubs need to agree to any change to the structure of the competition including admissin, ejection and merging of clubs. Added to that the merging clubs also need to agree.