Hobart stadium

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Seems a lot of money to spend on a ground that will host 5-6 afl games a year.

Could they use the roof for cricket games? Presumably it's lower than the roof at Docklands.

Maybe it's a deliberately outlandish proposal so that the next one costing half as much looks a lot cheaper than it is.
 
Seems a lot of money to spend on a ground that will host 5-6 afl games a year.

Could they use the roof for cricket games? Presumably it's lower than the roof at Docklands.

Maybe it's a deliberately outlandish proposal so that the next one costing half as much looks a lot cheaper than it is.

Why would it only host 5/6 games?

If they are building this stadium all home games will be there for a Tasmanian team.
 
Why would it only host 5/6 games?

If they are building this stadium all home games will be there for a Tasmanian team.
Well given the screen is showing North jumpers, then the expectation is that North relocates
 
Build the new stadium in Hobart and play all 11 games there (For the new tassie team).

Hawthorn (and North?) can continue to play games in Launceston until a time where Launceston can support its own team (so 2 AFL teams in Tasmania).

Time to start talking about if we're going to 20, 22 or even 24 teams in the AFL do we need to start playing in divisions (imo highly preferred to conferences). Two divisions of 12 teams each would allow for a full H+A season to be played over 22 weeks like it was from 1970 until West Coast joined the league.
 
Why would it only host 5/6 games?

If they are building this stadium all home games will be there for a Tasmanian team.
Tell that to Launceston
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Build the new stadium in Hobart and play all 11 games there (For the new tassie team).

Hawthorn (and North?) can continue to play games in Launceston until a time where Launceston can support its own team (so 2 AFL teams in Tasmania).

Time to start talking about if we're going to 20, 22 or even 24 teams in the AFL do we need to start playing in divisions (imo highly preferred to conferences). Two divisions of 12 teams each would allow for a full H+A season to be played over 22 weeks like it was from 1970 until West Coast joined the league.
Sure, if your goal is to send 6-10 teams to fold in 10 years.
 
Carlton going undefeated and winning this year's flag is far more likey than this.

779272dc5d6cd0a637034699f0ab3bc4.jpg
 
Build the new stadium in Hobart and play all 11 games there (For the new tassie team).

Hawthorn (and North?) can continue to play games in Launceston until a time where Launceston can support its own team (so 2 AFL teams in Tasmania).

Time to start talking about if we're going to 20, 22 or even 24 teams in the AFL do we need to start playing in divisions (imo highly preferred to conferences). Two divisions of 12 teams each would allow for a full H+A season to be played over 22 weeks like it was from 1970 until West Coast joined the league.

I hate the idea of divisions but it is the AFLs direction
 
Build the new stadium in Hobart and play all 11 games there (For the new tassie team).

Hawthorn (and North?) can continue to play games in Launceston until a time where Launceston can support its own team (so 2 AFL teams in Tasmania).

Time to start talking about if we're going to 20, 22 or even 24 teams in the AFL do we need to start playing in divisions (imo highly preferred to conferences). Two divisions of 12 teams each would allow for a full H+A season to be played over 22 weeks like it was from 1970 until West Coast joined the league.
Why the need for divisions? Everyone just plays everyone else once per season. Fixture would finally be fair

Can swap home and away games each year
 
Why the need for divisions? Everyone just plays everyone else once per season. Fixture would finally be fair

Can swap home and away games each year
H+A is fairer than H or A. H or A is fairer than what we currently have. Much of a muchness, but we know the AFL will wan to be able to manipulate the fixture so that certain teams can play each other twice to make them more money (be it showdowns, derbies or "big 4" match ups).
 
I hate the idea of divisions less than I hate the idea of conferences (only just).

If the AFL keeps adding teams we'll end up with one or the other.

sorry I said divisions but I meant conferences

I feel if we had our time again 2 teams from each capital (WA, SA, Vic and Syd and one team from canberra, tassie, NT and geelong) and have stronger state leagues would have been preferable
 
H+A is fairer than H or A. H or A is fairer than what we currently have. Much of a muchness, but we know the AFL will wan to be able to manipulate the fixture so that certain teams can play each other twice to make them more money (be it showdowns, derbies or "big 4" match ups).
It's not fairer it just appears fairer.

There's no desire for more expansion than 20 teams anyway. In fact I'd say most people want less, but it's hard to bring Tassie in and then once you get to 19 you may as well go 20.

But on fairness. You play 11 homes games, you play 11 away games. Trying to manipulate things to get anything much fairer than that doesn't actually achieve it.

For instance the NBA has East and Western conferences and for years 5th or 6th in the West would've been the number 1 seed in the East. And about 11th in the West would've been a 5 side in the East.

If we go to 20 teams and 22 games there will only be 3 double ups. Play 1 top 6/7, 1 middle 6/7, 1 bottom 6/7 as your double ups. That's fine.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hobart stadium

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top