GerogeBluth
Senior List
Re: Statewide League 2009 or never??????
I think we can see who is the real twit in this case
Are you serious?
I think we can see who is the real twit in this case
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Statewide League 2008
- Thread starter Duff TV
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You've missed the point, not me. Firstly, there are 18 games in the season. Your maths are wrong from the first sentence, and the only reason I didn't pick you up on this before was because I wanted to reread the document again to make sure I hadn't missed something about 20 games....unless you have a source I don't...?
I'm well aware what is meant by 11.67 - but I'll still call it a wank. If it wasn't clear before, I was saying that an awful lot of mathematical working has gone into a conclusion with a simple but fatal flaw. The question STILL has not been answered - will the NW sides be compensated for losing more home games than any other region? The other regions end up with more in their area, the NW gets fewer - I'm sure you'll register the inequity here if you just look a little harder on your sliderule, Poindexter...
And why supposedly do teams get more in their area? Because they will swap matches v extremities, for extra games v "locals" - quote marks because AFL Tas has lumped 5 teams spanning nearly 150km into "N/NW", and they play each other "2.5 times a year"...
So cut to the chase - here's the breakdown for a Southern side...
Normally:
8 in Hobart v 4 Southern teams (inc 4 Home)
3 in Lton v 3 Lton sides and 3 more at home
2 trips to the NW and 2 more Hobart home games against the NW - equals 13 in Hobart, 3 in Lton, and 2 NW, total 18.
But:
The South will only have 8 games against the N/NW, not 10. "2.5 times" as stated below equates to an extra two games against Hobart opposition. So it won't be 13.4 as you say - it will be 14 each for all 5 Hobart teams. Four trips North will mean 1 in the NW (as stated), 3 in L'ton...so for all your analysis, show me where there is room in this roster for a Hobart side to play a home game at York Park? No - the "South does not have to worry about this" - indeed! Their 4 trips are all away games.
And the story for the N/NW? The two NW sides get a match v each other and a Lton side, and one of the Northern sides will be lucky enough to play both extra games against Lton sides, the other two get a local and a NW match...
So the reality - The NW sides will play 2-3 away games in Hobart (as opposed to 4), but because these were already replaced by fixtures against N/NW sides, this becomes null and void. INSTEAD, the boot is on the other foot because the Southern sides will only make one trip to the NW - so to make this work, NW home games will be played at York Park, on the pretense that they are part of a N/NW group. The NW side sacrifices home matches for Southerners to play at YP, the Southerners do not reciprocate. Is this clear yet? Does this not register as a bit rough on Burnie and Devonport?
Hey - doesn't worry me otherwise as a Launcestonian (who lives in Brisbane anyway, won't be me paying for petrol!), so you can stick that "parochial" "one-eyed" crap right up your a r s e. As a passionate supporter of all Victorian sides' right to be in the AFL as well (seemingly against the current climate), I also recognise the inherent "that's how it is folks" when interstaters grizzle about the travel Vic teams don't have to face, so there's not meant to be hypocrisy here - there isn't. But if you're denying this NW inequity based upon a false premise, then I'll ask another question - are you ignorant of Northern Tas geography, or are you simply parochial yourself...? Are West Coast asked to play home games in Adelaide because the Vics don't like flying to Perth...?
The quote below is the relevant page in the document. Points 1-3 are fine, Point 4 isn't necessary - for the sake of 150 extra km's on one day in the season for Hobart sides, the two NW sides are expected to adhere to tougher financial viability conditions this time around by sacrificing vital home games when other sides aren't asked to do the same...you work it out...
"Based on a 10-club structure (five North/NW and five South), the fixture will
ideally be an 18-game roster based on the following:
1. Clubs will play teams within their own region (i.e. North/NW & South) 2.5
times each year; equating to 10 games per annum.
2. If possible 50 percent of the remaining 8 games would also be played at
‘home’.
3. Based on points 1 and 2 above, clubs would only travel outside of their
region four times per annum.
4. Of the four games outside of region, AFL TAS would aim to effectively
utilise Aurora Stadium with an objective for southern clubs to only travel to
the NW coast once per annum and for NW coast clubs to only travel to
Hobart on two to three occasions per season."ideally be an 18-game roster based on the following:
1. Clubs will play teams within their own region (i.e. North/NW & South) 2.5
times each year; equating to 10 games per annum.
2. If possible 50 percent of the remaining 8 games would also be played at
‘home’.
3. Based on points 1 and 2 above, clubs would only travel outside of their
region four times per annum.
4. Of the four games outside of region, AFL TAS would aim to effectively
utilise Aurora Stadium with an objective for southern clubs to only travel to
the NW coast once per annum and for NW coast clubs to only travel to
I realy need to read through this thing properly; but the obvious things are:
* 10 teams is too many - from the point of view of the standard of footy and club viability, 6 would be ideal; but 8 may be necessary due to demographics and getting some variety into a season
* Gibbke is 100% correct on the harshness of the deal for NW coast sides. From a financial perspective they lose gate (and more importantly, bar) takings in 3-4 games; while from a football eprspective they lose 3-4 home games which are replaced with neutrals, and lose 1 away game which is replaced with a neutral.
The big question I have is how to get the best players playing at the top (i.e state league) level.
Without a substantial difference in salary cap, the state league clubs won't be able to lure more than a couple of the best; with the next tier being the best players in NTFL/SFL football rather than the 5h or 6th picked at state league level. The north-west coast saw this a lot with the strength of (and deliberate undermining in the emdia by) the NTFL during the old state league days.
* 10 teams is too many - from the point of view of the standard of footy and club viability, 6 would be ideal; but 8 may be necessary due to demographics and getting some variety into a season
* Gibbke is 100% correct on the harshness of the deal for NW coast sides. From a financial perspective they lose gate (and more importantly, bar) takings in 3-4 games; while from a football eprspective they lose 3-4 home games which are replaced with neutrals, and lose 1 away game which is replaced with a neutral.
The big question I have is how to get the best players playing at the top (i.e state league) level.
Without a substantial difference in salary cap, the state league clubs won't be able to lure more than a couple of the best; with the next tier being the best players in NTFL/SFL football rather than the 5h or 6th picked at state league level. The north-west coast saw this a lot with the strength of (and deliberate undermining in the emdia by) the NTFL during the old state league days.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #229
Statewide League 2008 unofficially not on
Anybody that gets on here talking up a statewide comp for next year is obviously not talking to people at the footy.
Won't happen in 2009.
Anybody that gets on here talking up a statewide comp for next year is obviously not talking to people at the footy.
Won't happen in 2009.
Re: Statewide League 2008 unofficially not on
exactly there is no way it will work, will drain to much money
Re: Statewide League 2008 unofficially not on
And given the way its been handled, particularly the original "nine new teams" proposal and the major changes and lack of consultation the whole way through, nor it should.
2010 is the very earliest, and I would think too early, Clubs, and leagues, need two off-seasons; when they don't have next week to worry about; to really get to grips with this an sort out the issues with AFL Tas.
That said, I'm not talking to people at the footy - largely because I don't live in Tas any more; but I think 2011 would be a more realistic target to get a firm footing.
And given the way its been handled, particularly the original "nine new teams" proposal and the major changes and lack of consultation the whole way through, nor it should.
2010 is the very earliest, and I would think too early, Clubs, and leagues, need two off-seasons; when they don't have next week to worry about; to really get to grips with this an sort out the issues with AFL Tas.
That said, I'm not talking to people at the footy - largely because I don't live in Tas any more; but I think 2011 would be a more realistic target to get a firm footing.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #232
Either Statewide or Devils
Kingpin is right ya can't have Devils and Statewide footy side by side.
It's either one or the other. Too much of a player drain & $$$$ going either way.
Make the Mariners full-time I say. Everyone says that this would be the way to go.
8 teams is the right number. Get it right AFL TAS and start listening to the people.
Kingpin is right ya can't have Devils and Statewide footy side by side.
It's either one or the other. Too much of a player drain & $$$$ going either way.
Make the Mariners full-time I say. Everyone says that this would be the way to go.
8 teams is the right number. Get it right AFL TAS and start listening to the people.
hardnut69
Senior List
Re: Either Statewide or Devils
Duff why would you make the mariners full time???
clearly they should scrap it! if you think over the passed 5 years can you name a mariner who has played over 50 games in the afl?? i cant name many. if it was a business the would be rated as sh*t house!
Duff why would you make the mariners full time???
clearly they should scrap it! if you think over the passed 5 years can you name a mariner who has played over 50 games in the afl?? i cant name many. if it was a business the would be rated as sh*t house!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #234
Mariners should stay but delete Devils?
Well we know (scraping the Mariners)will never happen. The program surely is good for younger players who if not drafted are better for it once they start playing local senior footy.
I see your points about guys getting drafted and delisted and yeah we've had few but I think its a good program for the better up and coming stars. Surely it makes sense to educate our top 17-18 yo's on the finer points of the game.
So if there is no Mariners program what are you proposing then?
Are you cornered on this one HardNut?
Well we know (scraping the Mariners)will never happen. The program surely is good for younger players who if not drafted are better for it once they start playing local senior footy.
I see your points about guys getting drafted and delisted and yeah we've had few but I think its a good program for the better up and coming stars. Surely it makes sense to educate our top 17-18 yo's on the finer points of the game.
So if there is no Mariners program what are you proposing then?
Are you cornered on this one HardNut?
hardnut69
Senior List
Re: Mariners should stay but delete Devils?
cornered i think not!
i do remember the years before the mariners when tassie in the late 80's early 90's were getting between 10-20 drafted per year! did they ave the specialist coaching????
its a load of crap! and for the players who dont get drafted.. which is nearly all of them end up not playing footy anyway cause they have been pumped up to be stars and arent, or end up playing somewhere in the country.
they should do what they do in qld, if an under 18 program. they have 3-4 trips to melbourne before the champs. when not playing in that you play for your senior club. if your getting a kick their against the men then your doing ok. i seem to recall the last 4 years they have had nearly 1o players drafted each year! in fact 2 years ago they had 15. Aint no mariners up their! i guess my chain of thought is it would cost a truck load of money to run it each year. why not put the money back into the clubs and improve the standard of local footy!
cornered i think not!
i do remember the years before the mariners when tassie in the late 80's early 90's were getting between 10-20 drafted per year! did they ave the specialist coaching????
its a load of crap! and for the players who dont get drafted.. which is nearly all of them end up not playing footy anyway cause they have been pumped up to be stars and arent, or end up playing somewhere in the country.
they should do what they do in qld, if an under 18 program. they have 3-4 trips to melbourne before the champs. when not playing in that you play for your senior club. if your getting a kick their against the men then your doing ok. i seem to recall the last 4 years they have had nearly 1o players drafted each year! in fact 2 years ago they had 15. Aint no mariners up their! i guess my chain of thought is it would cost a truck load of money to run it each year. why not put the money back into the clubs and improve the standard of local footy!
DOSACHOKER
Senior List
Maybe we should be asking ourselves whether the quality of the Mariners and Devils programs are the issue not the fact they exist?
A comment passed on a previous post states that if it were a business it would be shizen, well it is a business and yes it is shizen. So why is it
We constantly hear mumblings to even rants about Wade and Co. Maybe the mumblers and ranters should write to King Andrew on the big AFL island and ask him to look at the business accumen of the local AFL office. Football will never move forward in this state till the "jobs for the boys" mentallity stops and real business people are involved. Get out the broom I say and start at the top! Look at the bodies on these kids for a start.
Cornelius for example can play, most of us have seen it but look at his body, what chance will he have of playing against a Matthew Scarlet, Trent Croad, even Dustin Fletcher who is a light frame. AFL Tas set these kids up to fail every year. It's not the fact these programs exist that is the problem it is the people running them, cant be anything else can it
A comment passed on a previous post states that if it were a business it would be shizen, well it is a business and yes it is shizen. So why is it
We constantly hear mumblings to even rants about Wade and Co. Maybe the mumblers and ranters should write to King Andrew on the big AFL island and ask him to look at the business accumen of the local AFL office. Football will never move forward in this state till the "jobs for the boys" mentallity stops and real business people are involved. Get out the broom I say and start at the top! Look at the bodies on these kids for a start.
Cornelius for example can play, most of us have seen it but look at his body, what chance will he have of playing against a Matthew Scarlet, Trent Croad, even Dustin Fletcher who is a light frame. AFL Tas set these kids up to fail every year. It's not the fact these programs exist that is the problem it is the people running them, cant be anything else can it
The Racer
Rookie
Re: Mariners should stay but delete Devils?
Also better prepares the boys for if or when they do get drafted..... mixing it with men and matured bodies not to mention the speed of senior footy.
To many young guys take to long to mature once they get drafted, you will find the ones that have a season or two under their belts are better prepared.
We still need the program to a certain extent though, the kids need GOALS and direction.
Also better prepares the boys for if or when they do get drafted..... mixing it with men and matured bodies not to mention the speed of senior footy.
To many young guys take to long to mature once they get drafted, you will find the ones that have a season or two under their belts are better prepared.
We still need the program to a certain extent though, the kids need GOALS and direction.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #238
bakerman
Team Captain
Re: Mariners should stay but delete Devils?
Statewide GONE
Statewide GONE
I'll go against the grain here, nothing new...
The Mariners were axed by the AFL because there weren't enough draftees produced. So to say "why not just reinstate the Mariners" is a bit misleading - it ain't that simple, and it isn't Tasmania in control of it...
And the Devils are seen as a stepping stone, not a state rep side...
All of this to me, to quote the bilinguists above who used the word in other contexts, is schizen. We are sending out the wrong message, going down the wrong path, and selling ourselves short.
Tasmania should axe the SW concept (2 Southern powerhouses have already come to their senses), and any such SW move should be limited only to draft age players - a SW junior league if there's one at all. Here in Qld, on a limited basis, they don't just have a few Qld games and the AFLQ - there's also several teams spread across the state who play each other for the purpose of selecting the Qld side. We should do the same, and in the same way the focus of most underage teams isn't moneymaking, all of a sudden you relieve a few expectations put on senior SW clubs. The kids aren't big enough? Then start spending some of this saved cash on bodybuilding programs! Whatever!
So what's left? Two regional leagues who should be playing each other more regularly. North v South as a regular grudge, intra-regional rivalries as the roster. Let's get back to the core - people watch and play footy to beat the c###s up the road, not to be able to say "I saw xxx when he was a 16yo and now he's playing in Melbourne"...AFL Tas is selling everyone short if they pander to the AFL as they do...
The Devils? Put Tassie's best players in, make them want the job, and f### off this notion that the Devils are there for the draft and aren't there for flags, as is stated in the SW document. This attitude is offensive, self-defeatist, boot licking, and self-destructive.
The end result - put some insular pride into Tasmanian footy, and not only will it stir a few things up, you might find that we start pushing out more drafted players, simply because they come from a fiercer and more competitive environment...
I could have phrased some of this better, but yes, we are going down the wrong path - the first thing Tasmanian footy needs is to deconstruct its attitude to itself...
The Mariners were axed by the AFL because there weren't enough draftees produced. So to say "why not just reinstate the Mariners" is a bit misleading - it ain't that simple, and it isn't Tasmania in control of it...
And the Devils are seen as a stepping stone, not a state rep side...
All of this to me, to quote the bilinguists above who used the word in other contexts, is schizen. We are sending out the wrong message, going down the wrong path, and selling ourselves short.
Tasmania should axe the SW concept (2 Southern powerhouses have already come to their senses), and any such SW move should be limited only to draft age players - a SW junior league if there's one at all. Here in Qld, on a limited basis, they don't just have a few Qld games and the AFLQ - there's also several teams spread across the state who play each other for the purpose of selecting the Qld side. We should do the same, and in the same way the focus of most underage teams isn't moneymaking, all of a sudden you relieve a few expectations put on senior SW clubs. The kids aren't big enough? Then start spending some of this saved cash on bodybuilding programs! Whatever!
So what's left? Two regional leagues who should be playing each other more regularly. North v South as a regular grudge, intra-regional rivalries as the roster. Let's get back to the core - people watch and play footy to beat the c###s up the road, not to be able to say "I saw xxx when he was a 16yo and now he's playing in Melbourne"...AFL Tas is selling everyone short if they pander to the AFL as they do...
The Devils? Put Tassie's best players in, make them want the job, and f### off this notion that the Devils are there for the draft and aren't there for flags, as is stated in the SW document. This attitude is offensive, self-defeatist, boot licking, and self-destructive.
The end result - put some insular pride into Tasmanian footy, and not only will it stir a few things up, you might find that we start pushing out more drafted players, simply because they come from a fiercer and more competitive environment...
I could have phrased some of this better, but yes, we are going down the wrong path - the first thing Tasmanian footy needs is to deconstruct its attitude to itself...
Tim_in_Philly
Team Captain
Given recent developments, this is old news (sorry for the slow reply but I've been in Asia on business).
Your scenario above needs to be followed through to completion to show the problem. Suppose you are correct exactly as you have said. Then, each Hobart side gets 14 home games, 4 against N/NW opponents (a total of 20 matches). As each NW side only plays "two or three" times in Hobart - let's say 5 in total between the two teams that leaves 15 matches between Hobart teams and Launceston teams to make up the 20. Thus each of the three Launceston teams must play out of region (in Hobart) 5 times, not 4. In effect, the 8 matches that should be away games in Hobart for the two NW teams are made up for by the Launceston teams. This doesn't seem to fit the schema. If we assume the Launceston teams are not compromised as they don't have the travel problem and they keep their 4 matches each in Hobart then EITHER the NW teams have 4 matches each in Hobart too (contradicting point 4 above) OR your assumption of 14 home games for each Hobart team is wrong.
If we relax the assumption of 14 home games for each Hobart team then we can get 5 S/NW matches in NW region, 5 S/NW matches in Hobart plus 6 S/NW matches in Launceston - three where a NW team is nominally home and 3 where a S team is nominally home. This is where the 13.4 comes from as three southern teams have 13 home games and two have 14.
The reality is that if the 2 NW teams play "out of region" only 2 or 3 times each instead of 4 times each then someone else (likely 3 teams) has to play out of region 5 times. They might mix it up between the N and S teams rather than it always being the S teams but I'd be surprised if the Launceston teams would agree to it ALWAYS being them as is required for a 14 home game for each Hobart team scenario as you describe.
July 16th 2008: Magpies Opt Out Of Statewide Plan - Link
Southern football powerhouse and reigning SFL premier Glenorchy has rejected AFL Tasmania's State League proposal.
The Magpies have been tight-lipped on their thoughts regarding next season but at a special meeting on Monday night 100 members voted unanimously against the concept.
The club could also be absent from the first meeting between the 10 proposed clubs and AFL Tasmania tonight.
It continues to appear the northern clubs - Burnie, Devonport, Launceston, South Launceston and North Launceston - support a State League more than their southern counterparts.
Glenorchy's decision follows Clarence president Richard Mulligan's apprehension in his comments last month, while North Hobart has also shown reservations.
Magpies' president Colin Gardner declined to comment on the reasoning behind the decision to reject the State League proposal yesterday.
He did however provide details from the meeting's motion which was sent to the other seven Premier League club presidents, the Regional League and AFL Tasmania.
"From this meeting the Glenorchy Football Club rejects the notion of a statewide league as outlined in the business case," Gardner said.
"It also calls on AFL Tasmania to enter into meaningful discussions with the clubs.
"This motion has been relayed to all other SFL clubs... it was moved by one of the members, seconded by another and carried unanimously by all the members who were present.
"I would rather not go into any more detail as we still need to discuss the issues leading to this motion. At this stage, given the views of the members and the motion, it tonight's video conference is something we need to decide upon but we believe we may not be attending.
"This wasn't a decision taken lightly, the discussion was passionate, not unruly and the end result is the club believes it may not want to be involved in a statewide league at this stage."
AFL Tasmania chairman Dominic Baker confirmed he had received the motion from Glenorchy via email, but was looking to contact Gardner.
He also didn't rule out looking at alternatives should the Magpies not wish to enter a State League."We are seeking some clarification on their motion, it's a bit ambiguous," Baker said.
"They say they reject the statewide notion as outlined in the business plan, but what does that mean?
"If we present changes would they accept that, or are they saying no to a statewide league altogether? We don't know that.
"If Glenorchy aren't keen to pursue we do have other options. We are prepared to go with a competition with less than 10 teams. There is also the alternative for us to give the Northern Suburbs territory to another club."
More time for clubs to make up mind on statewide league
The teams approached to join AFL Tasmania's proposed statewide league have been given extra time to make up their minds.
The initial deadline was for August the 15th, but pressure from the clubs has forced the date to be pushed back to September the 23rd.
The decision has just been announced after a meeting in Hobart of the clubs and AFL Tasmania.
Glenorchy has already rejected AFL Tasmania's proposal for it to be part of a statewide league next year, due to financial concerns.
More than 100 of its members voted unanimously against the proposal at a meeting on Monday night.
The club says its members are worried the club might go under if it takes part in the league, due to increased costs and reduced income.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/16/2305854.htm
Thats great news. Now the people running football in Tassy might realize that they don't run the game the people do. State wide will never get up while Wade is still involved. If he reckons he has Tassy football at heart then he should stand down. Then there might be a slim chance that it will go ahead in 2010. It will not go ahead while he is still at the helm. His divide and conquor tactics will not work because at the end of the day the members or the people of the clubs will decide. Once bitten twice shy!!!!!
DOSACHOKER
Senior List
Heard a vicious rumour that Wade has been telling NTFL clubs that all southern clubs on board and then telling southern clubs likewise about NTFL clubs surely this is somewhat dishonest??
Media should dig a little deeper, maybe start interviewing some of the NTFL clubs and finding out what is really happening. Also why is Brighton not included in original plan, best facilities for night footy and getting better, Lauderdale? their superfools team is better than seniors and the ground is a heap of s#&t, imagine travelling from Burnie to play at Lauderdale??
surely this is somewhat dishonest??Media should dig a little deeper, maybe start interviewing some of the NTFL clubs and finding out what is really happening. Also why is Brighton not included in original plan, best facilities for night footy and getting better, Lauderdale? their superfools team is better than seniors and the ground is a heap of s#&t, imagine travelling from Burnie to play at Lauderdale??
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #246
Lauderdale & Statewide League
Lauderdale have plans to improve their ground (no doubt it needs another 20 metres)and if you look at their progress over the past 4 years are clearly going to be a power.
Their Underage sides are strong, have won recent grand finals and their senior side is knocking on the door.
Lauderdale have plans to improve their ground (no doubt it needs another 20 metres)and if you look at their progress over the past 4 years are clearly going to be a power.
Their Underage sides are strong, have won recent grand finals and their senior side is knocking on the door.
Quite possible. The Mercury would never ask a northern club, likewise the Examiner and Advocate would never ask a southern club. So the media would never pick up on the fact that the "other half" aren't thinking exactly as Wade says they are.Heard a vicious rumour that Wade has been telling NTFL clubs that all southern clubs on board and then telling southern clubs likewise about NTFL clubs
Now that I'm not a parochial Northerner, I'll be nicer. I must point out the one fundamental flaw in your post:
14 + 4 = 18. For some reason, you're obsessed with the number 20...!
And all I've done is point out the wording of the document...points 1-4 above spell it all out as a direct cut and paste quote...
bakerman
Team Captain
Why was Kingborough left out. The population is just over 33.000 and the fastest growthin Tassie. Sorell and Brighton also booming. I know Kingborough has the worst round in the state but there is a strong chance that there is going to be a new ground built when the High School is built. I feel for Kingborough, they have been pushing for years to get a new ground but the shithouse council wont listen. The council have to learn that the current ground is an eysore and shows that the current council members are crap.
But in light of Glenorchy pulling the plug, Kingborough should be included with the provision a new ground be built and once it is built and ready, the tigers can then join.
But in light of Glenorchy pulling the plug, Kingborough should be included with the provision a new ground be built and once it is built and ready, the tigers can then join.
whisper...
Senior List
- Mar 26, 2007
- 185
- 0
- AFL Club
- Richmond
theres been a strong chance of a new ground down there for how many years now??
