News NMFC & Tassie (the mass debate re our future there, the academy, attending advice)

[HBFlanker]

Ummm... so every argument you are putting forward is obliterated by that "apart from" in the last line. Of course this is about the money. It has always been about the money. And it will continue to be about the money until the money dries up.

Yeah and in my opinion, and the opinion of others, its pathetic from the club to continue to sell games to Tassie, when strategically there is nothing to gain.

Its a really poor move and I thought the club was in a better position to be able to make the right calls on decisions like this.

 

[HBFlanker]

VIC is at peak, there are no more supporters to gain. Only through immigration which is very slow and we already have a foot in via Huddle.

Easiest way to increase memberships is interstate and more supporters. Finals also helps but only a temporary boost.

Best way to increase supporters is the old fashioned way, consistent wins over a long period.

Clarko now looking at another option… international.

its not at peak at all. All clubs are continuing to grow year on year.

Will surpass Sydney in population in the next few years.

 

[FlyHigh18]

its not at peak at all. All clubs are continuing to grow year on year.

Will surpass Sydney in population in the next few years.

Yes but equal growth with other clubs isn’t what I was trying to articulate. I was referring to making our share of the pie bigger

 

[hilly]

Yeah, those members, who if they stopped attending, the club would cease to exist.

Also, selecting games in a year where we were beyond putrid as evidence.

Three of which are against interstate sides.

Solid.

There is no reason to continue with games in Tasmania.

Warlord's hammies are also at greater risk in the cooler Tassie climate. Sack Watts.

 

[Devington]

I hate it, but I love it. 3 years is 3 years of good money and plenty of time to get that exit strategy cherry ripe. Would hope/expect we're finals locks year 4 onwards so can maximise a sudden increase in crowds.

 

[Quivorir]

We've had 10 years to come up with an exit strategy.

 

[Only Forwards]

251000 in the most recent population for Hobart but I definitely agree it will be hard in a market of that size but not impossible.

To Horace ‘s point I think the AFL have set a bar at something that is not an easy to obtain thing. This is not a mistake, it is deliberate.

Stadiums are expensive (imo $750m is likely on the lower end) and they are big tax money pits.

Which in the current climate is gonna be a hard sell.

 

[Only Forwards]

We've had 10 years to come up with an exit strategy.

We’ve had a single year of Sonja leading the joint and for most of it the club was on fire.

It’ll come.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Yeah and in my opinion, and the opinion of others, its pathetic from the club to continue to sell games to Tassie, when strategically there is nothing to gain.

Its a really poor move and I thought the club was in a better position to be able to make the right calls on decisions like this.

It's pretty simple. Abandon Tasmania now and we have a $2 million hole in our budget. It would be pathetic to get to the end of 2025 and have a $6 million debt. I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of strategically if you continue to think there is nothing to gain.

 

[Uncle_Leo]

No issue with 4 games being extended or another 3 years

Anyone that thinks Tassie can support a full time team has rocks in their head

 

[Warrboy]

No issue with 4 games being extended or another 3 years

Anyone that thinks Tassie can support a full time team has rocks in their head

Tassie can and will support a full-time team. History will show that.

 

[shintemaster]

I hate it, but I love it. 3 years is 3 years of good money and plenty of time to get that exit strategy cherry ripe. Would hope/expect we're finals locks year 4 onwards so can maximise a sudden increase in crowds.

Agree.

We've had 10 years to come up with an exit strategy.

But also agree.

 

[shintemaster]

To Horace ‘s point I think the AFL have set a bar at something that is not an easy to obtain thing. This is not a mistake, it is deliberate.

Stadiums are expensive (imo $750m is likely on the lower end) and they are big tax money pits.

Which in the current climate is gonna be a hard sell.

They have and I agree not a great climate (or even realistic IMO for Tasmania at the moment).

Worth remembering though that the AFL isn't the be all and end all of this. They may act like they are making all the rules but when push comes to shove other parties have a say in this and they have big pockets. Them saying a stadium of this size and cost is the requirement doesn't necessarily make it so. There are other Governments that have big pockets and pull and if say for example the Federal Government sees value for them (and votes) in supporting this push, or supporting Tasmania's Government in pushing this they can tighten the screws in many ways.

The AFL is incredibly reliant on having its hand out for cash from Government, as well as a social license to operate and get funding at all levels - with that comes exposure to politics.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

They have and I agree not a great climate (or even realistic IMO for Tasmania at the moment).

Worth remembering though that the AFL isn't the be all and end all of this. They may act like they are making all the rules but when push comes to shove other parties have a say in this and they have big pockets. Them saying a stadium of this size and cost is the requirement doesn't necessarily make it so. There are other Governments that have big pockets and pull and if say for example the Federal Government sees value for them (and votes) in supporting this push, or supporting Tasmania's Government in pushing this they can tighten the screws in many ways.

The AFL is incredibly reliant on having its hand out for cash from Government, as well as a social license to operate and get funding at all levels - with that comes exposure to politics.

Do you believe it's still possible tassie could get a team without a stadium?

 

[shintemaster]

Do you believe it's still possible tassie could get a team without a stadium?

I think it is a cop out to link the two as it has been done even though I think neither are sustainable where they are. I've not been to Launceston but Blundstone is less accessible than 90% of the big suburban grounds in Melbourne (ie. Williamstown, Werribee etc) - you can't realistically have an AFL team playing there IMO, there needs to be decent PT for an 11 game a year team (plus finals).

I do however think there is a world of difference between the AFL's current stance of stadium must exist in this spot of this size before a team vs current setup. I also think that the AFL is not as all powerful in this scenario as they think, it's not about Tasmania removing support for North / Hawthorn (because the AFL couldn't give a toss whether either team are supported by Tasmania IMO) but life can be made more difficult for the AFL by State & Federal Governments and that is a constantly changing picture.

Just to be clear, whilst I like the idea of a Tasmanian team in general - and would have preferred them to have been one of the last 2 teams - fundamentally I couldn't care less if they come to be, ultimately I care about North Melbourne. The above is my 2c only, but I think the AFL are trying to construct an image of being in total control and the sole arbiter of this process and I think the ground they stand on is not necessarily rock solid when they - and clubs - have their hands out for cash, support and tax exclusion year on year.

 

[Devington]

Agree.


But also agree.

We were probably always going to hold off on exiting until either a Tasmanian team came in, they told us to f off, or an equivalent deal in Victoria reared it's head. I think the whole Tasmania thing boils down to the money being too good to say no to, both while in debt and while out of debt because we were shit anyway so it alleviated crowd issues (even if there is solid logic to say it helped create some too). I don't think it's too cynical to say that.

 

[shintemaster]

We were probably always going to hold off on exiting until either a Tasmanian team came in, they told us to f off, or an equivalent deal in Victoria reared it's head. I think the whole Tasmania thing boils down to the money being too good to say no to, both while in debt and while out of debt because we were s**t anyway so it alleviated crowd issues (even if there is solid logic to say it helped create some too). I don't think it's too cynical to say that.

Yep. I never had a fundamental issue with Hobart games. I did have an issue with:

• the club expanding to 4 games, particularly 5 mins after having its hand out for debt reduction money
• ongoing and poor member experience at games, replacement games are the pits and it seems the club has zero interest - or ability - to correct this
• the smarmy PR that came out of certain people implying that its all good cos we will win 9/10 games in Hobart (that went well) &;
• the simple fact that in the long run any plan that doesn't aim towards having us profitable and achieving close to capacity crowds for 11 games at docklands ultimately leaves us vulnerable

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Yep. I never had a fundamental issue with Hobart games. I did have an issue with:

• the club expanding to 4 games, particularly 5 mins after having its hand out for debt reduction money
• ongoing and poor member experience at games, replacement games are the pits and it seems the club has zero interest - or ability - to correct this
• the smarmy PR that came out of certain people implying that its all good cos we will win 9/10 games in Hobart (that went well) &;
• the simple fact that in the long run any plan that doesn't aim towards having us profitable and achieving close to capacity crowds for 11 games at docklands ultimately leaves us vulnerable

I felt that replacement game experience improved this year in all but the Essendon game, as we had reasonable opportunity to access seats in a designated away team bay. The Essendon game was shitful as they didn't provide enough seats and the ones they did provide required mountain climbing experience.

We should not even consider Essendon for replacement games.

 

[shintemaster]

I felt that replacement game experience improved this year in all but the Essendon game, as we had reasonable opportunity to access seats in a designated away team bay. The Essendon game was shitful as they didn't provide enough seats and the ones they did provide required mountain climbing experience.

We should not even consider Essendon for replacement games.

Its better but ultimately if a reserved seat is 10/10 replacement games have gone from a score of 0 to 2 out of 10. I'll freely admit that my experience and the gap between replacement vs home game might be different than a GA member or different membership tiers. Ultimately though the people most impacted by the replacement games are also the members that shell out the most money each year to be reserved home members - personally I think that's bad business in the long run and I also think that fundamentally you can't devalue the member experience and then in good faith beg members to come along to games to increase numbers. It's a hypocritical and short term approach.

 

[Only Forwards]

There are other Governments that have big pockets and pull and if say for example the Federal Government sees value for them (and votes) in supporting this push, or supporting Tasmania's Government in pushing this they can tighten the screws in many ways.

There are only 5 seats in the whole of Tassie from a federal level.

There’s only 2 that would get use out of a stadium in Hobart.

So yes it’s a lever however it’s also an expensive one to pull for relatively small return.

 

[Go_Roos!]

If the Tasmanian State Government is dopey enough to want to give us money instead of spending it on all the things broken down there, let's take it with open arms , ta

 

[chubbspeterson]

I get the angst but I'm pretty sure Hawks will take the cash and play games down there until 2025 as well.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

I get the angst but I'm pretty sure Hawks will take the cash and play games down there until 2025 as well.

UTAS stadium most likely won't be available after next season due to it's planned $200 million upgrade expected to be underway.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

UTAS stadium most likely won't be available after next season due to it's planned $200 million upgrade expected to be underway.

That will be interesting then. Hawthorn will be counting on the money from their major sponsor but the strings attached mean they have to play games in Tasmania. I wonder if they'll play in Hobart.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Its better but ultimately if a reserved seat is 10/10 replacement games have gone from a score of 0 to 2 out of 10. I'll freely admit that my experience and the gap between replacement vs home game might be different than a GA member or different membership tiers. Ultimately though the people most impacted by the replacement games are also the members that shell out the most money each year to be reserved home members - personally I think that's bad business in the long run and I also think that fundamentally you can't devalue the member experience and then in good faith beg members to come along to games to increase numbers. It's a hypocritical and short term approach.

Yes I agree it's a long way off the same experience for reserved seat members and especially for level 2 reserved seat members. I don't know whether we are going to get 11 home games eventually, or if we'll end up selling games somewhere else or going to Bendigo or Albury. I'd at least like to get back to 8 and preferably 9 genuine home games. I could cope with a road trip twice a year to regional Victoria or the border.