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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually like the lack of a roof. One of the advantages QLD teams get is being accustomed to the heat & humidity, which gives us a bit of an edge (especially early and late in the season) with visiting teams. The idea of Tassie being able to do the same with cold, wintery nights has some appeal to it.

As for a song, with Tassie being a traditional footy state, I reckon they should use something with a sea shanty vibe to it. That sort of slightly rough, slightly wild, heart & soul vibe is how I'd be marketing the team as a point of difference in the comp, and something with the singalong appeal of a sea shanty would be brilliant (and so much better than anything modern).

Something to the tune of one of these would be awesome, and so unique in the comp:





 
Cunnington Cartel said:
Colin Carter’s review into the Tasmanian business case controversially put relocations and co-locations back on the agenda. These options were never going to work with Tassie; however, in relation to the NT, a co-location model could perhaps be the best outcome they could hope for (provided there’s a Victorian club that’s willing to take it on). How this could work:

  • 5/6 home games in Melbourne, 5/6 games in Darwin, possibly 1 in Alice.
  • a Victorian club would also have 6-7 games in Melbourne as an ‘away’ team so they’d still get about 12 Victorian games in total, which is essentially what members of non-Victorian clubs get.
  • The NT’s population and economy is too small to host a club full time, but if the club maintained its Vic supporter base then it would alleviate these issues.
  • The club could be based in Melbourne throughout the pre-season and start of the season, thus avoiding the challenges posed by the wet season.
  • The coaches and playing list could potentially spend an extended block of time in the NT throughout the middle of the season to engage with the community, spearhead social programs, school visits etc.
  • The club would gain the NT as a next gen academy to funnel local talent into the club instead of them all going to the Suns, as per current arrangements.

This would obviously mean that Canberra can rightfully get the 20th license (hopefully with a presence in the Riverina too), while the co-located club provides a long-term, sustainable solution to grow the game, increase AFL content in the NT, while also giving the locals a club to represent them.

I doubt any Victorian clubs would be prepared to take up an offer like this. However, the AFL should be seriously considering putting it on the table with some incentives because the current situation with the Suns playing games in Darwin is both short-sighted and totally inadequate.
Click to expand...
As you said, a Vic club would have to take up the offer. How would you feel as a North supporter about North taking the deal, with access to NT academy players? 5 Melbourne, 5 Darwin, 1 Alice, 6-7 "away" in Melbourne but members would need more access to away games.

It'd be interesting to see perhaps (if the Giants fail) the Dogs take on a similar deal but in Western Sydney, with the Saints taking on a Cairns/FNQ deal also similar to the NT one you proposed (say, 4 Cairns, 1 Townsville, 1 Mackay).

Giants full time to Canberra maybe and a 3rd Perth team (Sharks), or just Canberra full-time, and you've got VIC, WA, SA, NSW, QLD, TAS, and ACT covered, with the Top End (part-time co-location) covered while still maintaining 20 teams.

Just don't think it'd pan out that way at all, though, as you'd need those three Vic clubs to take deals and if they all say no, then you just shrug your shoulders and bring in Canberra as the 20th team.

Your proposal is so much better than Eddie's, though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

As for team name and designs for the new Tassie team. The group behind it, and AFL marketing should stay well the heck away from it. They will just turn TAS into some cheesy Americanized brand, or come up with a crap name like the Jackjumpers.

They should come up with 10 designs, and let the people of Tasmania pick the winner, since it will be THEIR team. Let the people decide for once.
 
PattyKwasagun said:
I actually like the lack of a roof. One of the advantages QLD teams get is being accustomed to the heat & humidity, which gives us a bit of an edge (especially early and late in the season) with visiting teams. The idea of Tassie being able to do the same with cold, wintery nights has some appeal to it.

As for a song, with Tassie being a traditional footy state, I reckon they should use something with a sea shanty vibe to it. That sort of slightly rough, slightly wild, heart & soul vibe is how I'd be marketing the team as a point of difference in the comp, and something with the singalong appeal of a sea shanty would be brilliant (and so much better than anything modern).

Something to the tune of one of these would be awesome, and so unique in the comp:





Click to expand...

Most people are saying reports of it having no roof is incorrect, wouldnt that mean the stadium plans and price of the stadium all change?
 
Coolangatta said:
As you said, a Vic club would have to take up the offer. How would you feel as a North supporter about North taking the deal, with access to NT academy players? 5 Melbourne, 5 Darwin, 1 Alice, 6-7 "away" in Melbourne but members would need more access to away games.

It'd be interesting to see perhaps (if the Giants fail) the Dogs take on a similar deal but in Western Sydney, with the Saints taking on a Cairns/FNQ deal also similar to the NT one you proposed (say, 4 Cairns, 1 Townsville, 1 Mackay).

Giants full time to Canberra maybe and a 3rd Perth team (Sharks), or just Canberra full-time, and you've got VIC, WA, SA, NSW, QLD, TAS, and ACT covered, with the Top End (part-time co-location) covered while still maintaining 20 teams.

Just don't think it'd pan out that way at all, though, as you'd need those three Vic clubs to take deals and if they all say no, then you just shrug your shoulders and bring in Canberra as the 20th team.

Your proposal is so much better than Eddie's, though.
Click to expand...
I’m an interstate member who is used to watching North on TV so it wouldn’t have as much of an impact on me as it would for Melbourne-based members. Despite this, I wouldn’t take the offer for several reasons:

1) it has the potential to change the fabric of the club too much.
2) the majority of members would be dead against the offer.
3) it could potentially lead to instability at the club, board challenges etc, which is the last thing we need.
4) I’m sick of the 25+ years of relocation talk surrounding our club, taking up an offer like this would ensure that the talk continues for many more years.
5) I’d rather see the club focus its efforts on Melbourne, and potentially, regional Victoria - if a secondary market is vital for the sustainability of the club. We’ve had a mediocre record with secondary markets interstate: Sydney, Canberra, GC, Hobart. I believe that now is the right time for a change of approach instead of throwing a dart at the map and hoping for a better result.

If the club was on its knees and it was a choice of taking the offer or folding then of course I’d be happy for them to take it, but North is currently in its best financial position in decades (despite the poor performances) so I’m optimistic about our future in Melbourne. Although, it’s undeniable that an NT co-location arrangement would be a superior option than the GC relocation package that the AFL offered us about 15 years ago.

Your secondary market suggestions are interesting. It will be fascinating to see how everything in that space unfolds after team 19 comes into play. I can’t see the Dogs taking up a new market interstate. They seem to have a pretty good thing going on with Ballarat and the Western corridor, so I don’t think it will be desirable or necessary for them to pursue other avenues.
 
_Cerberus_ said:
As for team name and designs for the new Tassie team. The group behind it, and AFL marketing should stay well the heck away from it. They will just turn TAS into some cheesy Americanized brand, or come up with a crap name like the Jackjumpers.

They should come up with 10 designs, and let the people of Tasmania pick the winner, since it will be THEIR team. Let the people decide for once.
Click to expand...
It will be the Devils in state colours. Haven’t heard from many who disagree with that branding. There are debates about whether the state guernsey should be used - I don’t think it should be, but I won’t be devastated if it is. The best outcome would be an original jumper design in state colours that has a traditional look about it.
 
Cunnington Cartel said:
I’m an interstate member who is used to watching North on TV so it wouldn’t have as much of an impact on me as it would for Melbourne-based members. Despite this, I wouldn’t take the offer for several reasons:

1) it has the potential to change the fabric of the club too much.
2) the majority of members would be dead against the offer.
3) it could potentially lead to instability at the club, board challenges etc, which is the last thing we need.
4) I’m sick of the 25+ years of relocation talk surrounding our club, taking up an offer like this would ensure that the talk continues for many more years.
5) I’d rather see the club focus its efforts on Melbourne, and potentially, regional Victoria - if a secondary market is vital for the sustainability of the club. We’ve had a mediocre record with secondary markets interstate: Sydney, Canberra, GC, Hobart. I believe that now is the right time for a change of approach instead of throwing a dart at the map and hoping for a better result.

If the club was on its knees and it was a choice of taking the offer or folding then of course I’d be happy for them to take it, but North is currently in its best financial position in decades (despite the poor performances) so I’m optimistic about our future in Melbourne. Although, it’s undeniable that an NT co-location arrangement would be a superior option than the GC relocation package that the AFL offered us about 15 years ago.

Your secondary market suggestions are interesting. It will be fascinating to see how everything in that space unfolds after team 19 comes into play. I can’t see the Dogs taking up a new market interstate. They seem to have a pretty good thing going on with Ballarat and the Western corridor, so I don’t think it will be desirable or necessary for them to pursue other avenues.
Click to expand...
All good points. I can't see any Vic club merging or relocating ever again.

It will be Tassie and then the AFL, if they're smart, will take a wait and see approach in regards to a potential 20th club.

FWIW I think they messed up by renewing the Canberra deal and by not rebranding the GWS name as soon as possible.

They should've offered Hawthorn or North a contract to play three to four games in Canberra by 2028 onwards, with the Giants playing all of their games in Western Sydney (or maybe still one in Canberra to keep some connection going). Give them a run of that first before declaring they are bust. Extending the deal until 2032 potentially holds a Canberra team back because the AFL will take the Giants games away from Canberra before they give up on them entirely, but they'll leave Canberra open for a GWS relocation. That could possibly mean no Canberra team until the 2040s, or none at all if the boneheads in footy media shout at the rooftops for an NT team by then.

But back on topic, the AFL have the rights to the 'Devils' name, that's what it'll be, and they'll be in green, maroon, and gold. I do like the idea of the public deciding on about 10 different jumper proposals, though. There's some talented graphics designers on BF who outperform the mainstream ones imo.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RightWingRoo said:
Once the new stadium is up and running, Tassie will be added to the gather round rotation. Could imagine 5-6 games in Hobart, 2-3 at UTAS. And 1 at either Devonport or Burnie
Click to expand...

I'm not sold on Tasmania for Gather Round.

People complained about the 30 mins to Mt Barker, the 2.5hr trip is going to take a lot of time out of people's weekends.

Most people would have to decide to watch either the Hobart or Launceston games, but few would be able to do both.

And folks had a tizzy at the St Kilda v Collingwood game only being able to host max 50k, it'd be a meltdown if that game occurred in a 23k stadium.

I think Tasmania is too decentralised for the Gather Round concept.
 
BobbyMorri said:
Think the first team photo should be taken at Queenstown, just for the giggles.

And Tassie should always play a pre-season matchup on the NW-Coast.
Click to expand...
I think the NW Coast pre-season game is a goer. Rockliff said the government intends to keep upgrading the facility at Dial Park in Penguin so it has the capacity to host those kinds of games.
 
jumper designs already being drawn up on other parts of big footy ... scroll down and look at spider eaters entry ... its a cracker

[edit] not so sure about the logo .... but the jumper is mint

[edit] devils for mine

Discussion - Tasmania AFL Jumper Design

Hey guys :) I've been thinking about how a Tassie team's guernsey could look should we be granted a license to join the league as a stand-alone club (not a relocation). I don't think we should enter the league with the traditional map jumper for a couple of reasons: It's a state of origin...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
Last edited:
Cunnington Cartel said:
Colin Carter’s review into the Tasmanian business case controversially put relocations and co-locations back on the agenda. These options were never going to work with Tassie; however, in relation to the NT, a co-location model could perhaps be the best outcome they could hope for (provided there’s a Victorian club that’s willing to take it on). How this could work:

  • 5/6 home games in Melbourne, 5/6 games in Darwin, possibly 1 in Alice.
  • a Victorian club would also have 6-7 games in Melbourne as an ‘away’ team so they’d still get about 12 Victorian games in total, which is essentially what members of non-Victorian clubs get.
  • The NT’s population and economy is too small to host a club full time, but if the club maintained its Vic supporter base then it would alleviate these issues.
  • The club could be based in Melbourne throughout the pre-season and start of the season, thus avoiding the challenges posed by the wet season.
  • The coaches and playing list could potentially spend an extended block of time in the NT throughout the middle of the season to engage with the community, spearhead social programs, school visits etc.
  • The club would gain the NT as a next gen academy to funnel local talent into the club instead of them all going to the Suns, as per current arrangements.

This would obviously mean that Canberra can rightfully get the 20th license (hopefully with a presence in the Riverina too), while the co-located club provides a long-term, sustainable solution to grow the game, increase AFL content in the NT, while also giving the locals a club to represent them.

I doubt any Victorian clubs would be prepared to take up an offer like this. However, the AFL should be seriously considering putting it on the table with some incentives because the current situation with the Suns playing games in Darwin is both short-sighted and totally inadequate.
Click to expand...
Your club would be ideal for such a model if they're open to it. The branding would be easy too, as most people already refer to you simply as "North".
 
Canberra Pear said:
I'm not sold on Tasmania for Gather Round.

People complained about the 30 mins to Mt Barker, the 2.5hr trip is going to take a lot of time out of people's weekends.

Most people would have to decide to watch either the Hobart or Launceston games, but few would be able to do both.

And folks had a tizzy at the St Kilda v Collingwood game only being able to host max 50k, it'd be a meltdown if that game occurred in a 23k stadium.

I think Tasmania is too decentralised for the Gather Round concept.
Click to expand...
Get what you're saying, it would run differently to a gather round in Adelaide or Perth.
Devonport and Launceston have their own airports/ferry terminal, so supporters would only travel to where their particular team is playing.
Would still be great for tourism in the north and north-west of the state.
 
Bjo187 said:
Fans need to start putting it out there on radio, social media etc if that's the case. Gotta get the media on board.
Click to expand...
Kappa and co will have to switch to the Canberra thread when they move past the grief of Tassie getting a license.
 
Cunnington Cartel said:
Colin Carter’s review into the Tasmanian business case controversially put relocations and co-locations back on the agenda. These options were never going to work with Tassie; however, in relation to the NT, a co-location model could perhaps be the best outcome they could hope for (provided there’s a Victorian club that’s willing to take it on). How this could work:

  • 5/6 home games in Melbourne, 5/6 games in Darwin, possibly 1 in Alice.
  • a Victorian club would also have 6-7 games in Melbourne as an ‘away’ team so they’d still get about 12 Victorian games in total, which is essentially what members of non-Victorian clubs get.
  • The NT’s population and economy is too small to host a club full time, but if the club maintained its Vic supporter base then it would alleviate these issues.
  • The club could be based in Melbourne throughout the pre-season and start of the season, thus avoiding the challenges posed by the wet season.
  • The coaches and playing list could potentially spend an extended block of time in the NT throughout the middle of the season to engage with the community, spearhead social programs, school visits etc.
  • The club would gain the NT as a next gen academy to funnel local talent into the club instead of them all going to the Suns, as per current arrangements.

This would obviously mean that Canberra can rightfully get the 20th license (hopefully with a presence in the Riverina too), while the co-located club provides a long-term, sustainable solution to grow the game, increase AFL content in the NT, while also giving the locals a club to represent them.

I doubt any Victorian clubs would be prepared to take up an offer like this. However, the AFL should be seriously considering putting it on the table with some incentives because the current situation with the Suns playing games in Darwin is both short-sighted and totally inadequate.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately as you stated none of the Victorian clubs will agree to the co- location model. Norths members and Directors would not agree, and Bulldogs already play 2 games at regional Mars stadium. St Kilda is financially struggling, yet decided not to even sell their one cairns game this year and now play all their home games in Victoria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
2025 AFL/State & Womens Attendance
Replies
1
Views
249
Walshawk
Walshawk
The_Wookie
North in $6m deal to sell WA 2 games a year over 3 seasons
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
projectv
projectv
Holden Hillbilly
News Corp and Telstra will sell Foxtel in a US$2.2bn (A$3.4bn) deal, the companies announced on Monday.
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
5K
Rob
Rob
The_Wookie
Tasmania: From License reveal to set up - what we know
Replies
17
Views
1K
____
____
The_Wookie
Play Nice 2024 Non AFL Crowds/Ratings and other Industry thread
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
854
Views
57K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
AFL Clubs on Social Media 2024
Replies
1
Views
347
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
  • Sticky
Please read this post on BigFooty's Terms of Use regarding posting copyright material such as news articles:
Replies
0
Views
1K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top