Statewide League 2008

[kenrosewall]

Or, the AFL's push into Western Sydney and the Gold Coast has hit more snags than has been elaborated on, and Tasmania have been put on notice about getting a team included in the competition and have been given a set of guidelines to put in place (IE: a proper State League).

I agree Kingpin, there is definately some alterior motive behind fast-tracking the new SWL, and I think the above point is close to the mark. While I don't necessarily believe the 2 new clubs have hit a snag (although I highly doubt the viability of a 2nd Sydney team), I feel perhaps the state government have put the blowtorch on AFL Tas so as to get their ship in order ahead of the business plan submission to the AFL. Any business case would look very week with out the game being sorted at grassroots level (or at least showing potential to develop).

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Or if it does rise during the 'honeymoon period' they'll have to prepare for future tight economic conditions whereby crowds will drop again.

That appeared (from the outside, I had no knowledge of any club) to be the big problem for some clubs; especially Hobart and North Hobart; last time. The crowds did initially shoot up when statewide happened, and clubs started budgeting on those numbers. When the crowds fell away again those clubs were stretched, and after being successful in the early years found themselves unable to afford to remain competitive.

 

[Gibbke]

1) I remember going to West Park in 1994 for Hobart's last game of the season against the Burnie Hawks (it was their final game as the Hawks prior to the merger).

2) Something's odd here - you don't just rush things through in such a slipshod, dictatorial manner with a crucial lack of foresight and longterm planning, potentially threatening the longterm futures of established football clubs across the state without an ulterior motive.

1) 1993, actually. They merged and played a couple of years as the Hawks, before changing to the Dockers from 1995...

2) Yeah - Scott Wade's resume. I can (and did once here) recite an example in my job at school of a policy with accompanying expenditure and training, that has been used to further the careers of admin personnel who've since indeed been promoted, while the rest of us pick up the pieces...galvanising an entire state's football structure into a unit that only has to last as long as Wade's job interview...looks good to future employers when going for that million dollar job (including the AFL itself), doesn't it...?

 

[Gibbke]

How's the interest in the rep game today?

Are footy fans pumped, ambivalent, openly condescending - or secretly hoping for a bit of chest thumping local pride restoration while openly stating they won't back the concept because Scott Wade's running it (much like that Devils conversation between me and a few others after they beat Coburg...!)...?

For the record - smash the b a s t a r d s, North...!

 

[roorat]

Scraping the barrel now

Thrift is key to success
JAMES BRESNEHAN
June 30, 2008 12:00am
FORMER Tasmanian football chief Barry Breen believes the new State League competition could work if clubs resisted spending money they did not have on players they could not afford.
Breen, who was general manager of the Statewide League in the mid-1990s, said yesterday it was deja vu when he heard about plans to reinvent statewide football for 2009.

The former St Kilda big man, famous as the player who scored the point that gave the Saints their only premiership in 1966, said big spending clubs caused their own financial woes in the first statewide league, which ran from 1986 to 2000.

He said travel expenses were erroneously blamed for massive club debts.

"Most of the problems with the old Statewide League were club-based and revolved around their financial viability and the way they were run at that time," Breen said.

"Some did well and some struggled, as they do in all competitions these days, including the AFL. Melbourne is a perfect example.

"Some were more successful than others, some paid too much for players and that generally gets you into trouble if you are paying beyond your means.

"It wasn't the travel, the Tasmanian Football League paid for the travel in those days."

Breen lives in Sydney.

He visits Tasmania several times a year to visit clients in the oil industry.

"I came across it the state league push when I was in Tassie and it revived a lot of memories," he said.

"It's interesting, it's deja vu."

Asked if he would be interested in returning to a football administration role in Tasmanian football, Breen said: "No. I'm pretty right, thanks."

Breen said the 10-team set-up was a good balance.

"It seems like the right number," he said.

"There are a couple of teams mentioned that were not previously in the competition, like Lauderdale.

"I'm not close enough to know whether they would be viable, but 10 seems about right."

Breen believes a state league would improve the standard of Tasmanian football.

"There weren't many Tasmanian players drafted last year, one in the National Draft, so a statewide competition would create a pathway and give more players the opportunity, and that's not a bad thing," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23944037-13222,00.html

 

[MarkyMark]

Just in case there's someone who hasn't seen the visionary document that is AFL Tasmania's State League Business Plan, you can find it here.

State League Business Plan

Page 33, where the budget is listed, makes for some interesting reading. I'm not sure how "advertsing" counts as both an expense AND income, but they probably know more than I do about such financial matters.

 

[Duff TV]

Statewide League 2010

It won't happen in 2009

 

[MarkyMark]

Re: Statewide League 2010

And another thing...

The budget counts on $100,000 from gate receipts from promotional and finals games, $60,000 from hospitality at those games, and $30,000 from bar/kiosk sales at those games.
That's $190,000 out of the $460,000 budget that AFL Tas is counting on getting from people coming to the games.

BUT... they've already said the games are unlikely to attract any more spectators than currently go. I would like to see a breakdown of these very very very round figures and see just how many people AFL Tas is projecting will come to the games.

 

[roorat]

Just in case there's someone who hasn't seen the visionary document that is AFL Tasmania's State League Business Plan, you can find it here.

State League Business Plan

Page 33, where the budget is listed, makes for some interesting reading. I'm not sure how "advertsing" counts as both an expense AND income, but they probably know more than I do about such financial matters.

Thanks MarkyMark, makes interesting reading. They use the old report writing standby..if you don't want someone to read something fill it up with useless information. One thing I found interesting though was one of the main reasons for the league, if they don't do it, it will " De-motivate AFL TAS staff
& De-motivate AFL TAS Directors". Well that's it! We can't have Wadey all depwessed now can we.

 

[roorat]

One point the clubs might query - the 'chosen ones' and those of us not in the 'big league' regarding the zones. Will the 'elite' clubs have the same powers as the devils and be able to select their team from the clubs in their zone or do they have to have a set squad to choose from?

 

[sportstalk07]

Re: Statewide League 2010

And another thing...

The budget counts on $100,000 from gate receipts from promotional and finals games, $60,000 from hospitality at those games, and $30,000 from bar/kiosk sales at those games.
That's $190,000 out of the $460,000 budget that AFL Tas is counting on getting from people coming to the games.

BUT... they've already said the games are unlikely to attract any more spectators than currently go. I would like to see a breakdown of these very very very round figures and see just how many people AFL Tas is projecting will come to the games.

I would say that advertising would be classed as an expense...normally...that's how 99% of companies would class advertising in their accounting P&L's...

I'll have a crack at the budgeting figures, probably say that it's based on last years finals gate figures ($70K at top end of estimate for 6 games + say $10-15K for opening round double header and $10-15K for any other double header's during the season), plus most of the bar sales would be at finals and hospitality...hmm, AFL Tas will be running that too by the look's of it...
The only two times you'll get a crowd (or three or perhaps four) are:

1. Opening game of the season (for the curiousity factor)
2. Rivalry Matches (and I should say Deloraine and Longford pulled a crowd too yesterday )
3. Public Holiday matches (Easter, Anzac Day, Queens Birthday)
4. Finals and Grand Final

And P.S. that's only my way of thinking!

 

[Gibbke]

That will be an issue...my old side East Launceston was given free run by the TANFL to draft from Longford, City and Deloraine when chosen to join in 1986, and considering the first two made the finals ahead of East in 1985, you can imagine the narkiness when the discussions were going on...

I'd imagine AFL Tas would give the elite clubs the power to choose players, and introduce some sort of nominal compensation for the now-lesser original clubs...or take all their rights away...

I like South Launceston's census count of playing-age blokes in their area - bigger than L'ton and North - our first win....!

The south's is really small by comparison, but there are a few unnassigned areas - one of them is as big as Launceston's...

One thing that really grates though, and I will never ever reconcile this - the statement on p.13 (?) where it's agreed that the Devils should aim to play at a high standard, but not be fussed if they ever win a flag, and finals would "be nice"...F### THAT!!! - the Tasmanian football team should be in existence only for the bloody dismemberment of mainland opposition sides on a weekly basis, and aim for nothing less than every flag it can take...if we're developing players for higher honours, surely they should be aiming to win the frigging comp (they will end up being supposedly good enough, that is the point of the new SWL is it not, judging by several pages outlining our "standard v the mainland"...?!?), and furthermore, I can't see how a team that demands success at all times could not be a good environment for a young footballer who wants to go to the top...if such an attitude is good enough for a team like Port Adelaide, the only club to join the AFL on the strength of its history, it should be our mandate too...

The NTFL becomes the NWFU...hmm...does that mean South Burnie can make a comeback, seeing as they don't have to travel to Launceston anymore? How about those overtures made to the West Coast way back...?

And the ground centralisation bit (read: the South won't travel past Launceston, so the NW clubs have to play home matches at York Park) - and yet, there is a big heading in there somewhere saying that AFL Tas doesn't see travel as a big issue...?!? So which is it, southerners? Can you get your juniors out of bed for a long trip (apparently they only have to make 1!), or do we play 5 games a week at York Park...? Apparently, it's "in the culture" for NWesterners to drive a long way to the footy, so is that just being used as an excuse to make them drive a long way to their own home games as well...?

 

[roorat]

However, the reality also is that AFL TAS has no direct control or influence over any competition in Tasmania, apart from a small youth age competition on the north-west coast.​

Therefore, AFL TAS has limited capacity to make an impact on the way in
which Australian Football in Tasmania is developed and promoted on a whole of state basis.
The current affiliation agreement with the SFL provides AFL TAS with the
authority to ‘manage and administer’ the bulk of open age football in the
southern region. However, this arrangement does not provide the opportunity
for AFL TAS to significantly influence the way the competition is structured or
promoted.
In summary, the state of Tasmania does not have a ‘signature competition’​

that our peak football body can truly manage and promote.


If this is the case why the F*** are we letting them dictate what we can or cannot do?

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

And the ground centralisation bit (read: the South won't travel past Launceston, so the NW clubs have to play home matches at York Park) - and yet, there is a big heading in there somewhere saying that AFL Tas doesn't see travel as a big issue...?!? So which is it, southerners? Can you get your juniors out of bed for a long trip (apparently they only have to make 1!), or do we play 5 games a week at York Park...? Apparently, it's "in the culture" for NWesterners to drive a long way to the footy, so is that just being used as an excuse to make them drive a long way to their own home games as well...?

Read it again before you get on your parochial high horse.
There are 5 southern teams and 2 coastal teams. Normally there would be 20 matches between teams from those two different regions - each combination home and away. However, each team will play an extra two teams in its zone (Launceston teams being in the coastal zone) and two less against teams in the other zone. So there will only be 16 matches between the NW and S teams (the Launceston teams will not be affected by the Aurora neutral games). Of the 16 matches, 5 will be in Hobart (a 2/3 split between the two coastal teams), 5 will be on the coast (one each for each southern team) and 6 will be in Launceston - 3 as nominal home games for a coastal team and 3 as nominal home games for a southern team.

Net result from all this is that the NW and S teams will visit each other half as many times as would be normal in a full H&A 18 rounds with no adjustment.

So, a typical fixture will see Burnie/Devonport play 3 derbies, 2 or 3 home games each against Hobart teams (total 5 between them), 3 or 4 home games each against Launceston teams (total 7 between them), 1 or 2 nominal home games against Hobart teams in Launceston (3 between them), 1 or 2 nominal away games in Launceston instead of Hobart (3 between them), 2 or 3 away games each against southern teams in Hobart (total 5 between them) and 3 or 4 away games each against Launceston teams (total 7 between them).

They will thus each play 9 games on the coast (3 + 2.5 + 3.5), 6.5 games in Launceston (1.5 + 1.5 +3.5) and 2.5 games in Hobart.
In a normal H&A unadjusted it would be 10 on the coast, 3 in Launceston and 5 in Hobart.
The net change is one home game to Launceston, 2.5 away games in Hobart to Launceston.

For completeness, Launceston teams will have 11.67 games in Launceston, 4 games in Hobart, and 2.33 games on the coast (normally 11, 5 and 2). Hobart teams will have 13.4 in Hobart, 1 on the coast and 3.6 in Launceston (normally 13, 2 and 3).

 

[Duff TV]

Statewide League 2009 or never??????

I really don't know why you guys are even talking about a comp that ain't gunna happen. Not in 2009 anyway.

Ok its good to examine the nitty gritty but as you have revealed there is a lot of detail to go through.

No way an educated decision can be made on this in the time frame.

So is AFL TAS saying its 2009 or never?

 

[Gibbke]

Read it again before you get on your parochial high horse.
There are 5 southern teams and 2 coastal teams. Normally there would be 20 matches between teams from those two different regions - each combination home and away. However, each team will play an extra two teams in its zone (Launceston teams being in the coastal zone) and two less against teams in the other zone. So there will only be 16 matches between the NW and S teams (the Launceston teams will not be affected by the Aurora neutral games). Of the 16 matches, 5 will be in Hobart (a 2/3 split between the two coastal teams), 5 will be on the coast (one each for each southern team) and 6 will be in Launceston - 3 as nominal home games for a coastal team and 3 as nominal home games for a southern team.

Net result from all this is that the NW and S teams will visit each other half as many times as would be normal in a full H&A 18 rounds with no adjustment.

So, a typical fixture will see Burnie/Devonport play 3 derbies, 2 or 3 home games each against Hobart teams (total 5 between them), 3 or 4 home games each against Launceston teams (total 7 between them), 1 or 2 nominal home games against Hobart teams in Launceston (3 between them), 1 or 2 nominal away games in Launceston instead of Hobart (3 between them), 2 or 3 away games each against southern teams in Hobart (total 5 between them) and 3 or 4 away games each against Launceston teams (total 7 between them).

They will thus each play 9 games on the coast (3 + 2.5 + 3.5), 6.5 games in Launceston (1.5 + 1.5 +3.5) and 2.5 games in Hobart.
In a normal H&A unadjusted it would be 10 on the coast, 3 in Launceston and 5 in Hobart.
The net change is one home game to Launceston, 2.5 away games in Hobart to Launceston.

For completeness, Launceston teams will have 11.67 games in Launceston, 4 games in Hobart, and 2.33 games on the coast (normally 11, 5 and 2). Hobart teams will have 13.4 in Hobart, 1 on the coast and 3.6 in Launceston (normally 13, 2 and 3).

For all that in-depth analysis (11.67 home games?), the point has still been dodged. All of the rhetoric above is AFL Tas wank.

I now ask a very simple question - will NW sides be compensated for the loss in revenue they undoubtedly will get when they have to play a home game at York Park? I notice that no Southern or Northern side has to worry about this, and I also notice that AFL Tas is making it clear that all sides must make a profit or be axed...bit hard to do when North Launceston will get your bar takings and your supporters don't feel like driving this week again...

I don't think pointing out this inequity is "parochial" at all, considering I'm from Launceston, not the NW...the AFL Tas document says that there's no issue these days with travel (before any mention of these neutral games), so why do we need this above plan? The NW loses home games, simple as that, on the basis that "it's part of the culture to travel"...? WTF is that...? If they could avoid it by physically picking up each town from Smithton to Devonport and lumping them together in one lovely big suburban spread, I'm sure they would - petrol's going up everywhere these days...!

Why not simply remove the double header idea, and make more derbies (while not going as far as they did in 2000 - 5 derbies is waaaay too many) at the expense of the long trips (and get rid of those stupid decimal points while we're at it!)...give NW sides their home games at home...over-complication is not necessarily the road to improvement...

 

[Gibbke]

Re: Statewide League 2009 or never??????

I really don't know why you guys are even talking about a comp that ain't gunna happen. Not in 2009 anyway.

Ok its good to examine the nitty gritty but as you have revealed there is a lot of detail to go through.

No way an educated decision can be made on this in the time frame.

So is AFL TAS saying its 2009 or never?

Well....of course we're going to talk about it! Like you said, lots of nitty gritty...!

Hopefully, the AFL Tas push is exactly that, just to get some urgency in resolution, before a more realistic 2010 set up...

I'm trying to be objective about the whole thing, but every time I think "yeah, I could see how South Launceston would find that aspect a little easier this time", I then think about other sides who aren't in the running and what it will do to them...sorry, AFL Tas, it's just rational numbers culling on your part, and supporting it without a lot more thought would be arrogance on mine ...it's like having 19 people in a room, and 9 of them must die so that the others can live...and the choice is made by an outsider, who acts on this when the chosen 10 agree to the plan! A bit overly dramatic, sure, but what happens to Smithton when they revert to playing in a comp smaller than the one they originally joined, but with nowhere near the profile or the big teams...? What happens to Penguin and East Devonport when their biggest rivals disappear, and what happens to all of them if Ulverstone go - the document says that the NTFL will be unviable if 6 teams leave, and it's not like the NTFL hasn't gone looking for new sides in the past, without success...what would the attraction to this decimated comp be then...?

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

For all that in-depth analysis (11.67 home games?), the point has still been dodged. All of the rhetoric above is AFL Tas wank.

I now ask a very simple question - will NW sides be compensated for the loss in revenue they undoubtedly will get when they have to play a home game at York Park? I notice that no Southern or Northern side has to worry about this, and I also notice that AFL Tas is making it clear that all sides must make a profit or be axed...bit hard to do when North Launceston will get your bar takings and your supporters don't feel like driving this week again...

I don't think pointing out this inequity is "parochial" at all, considering I'm from Launceston, not the NW...the AFL Tas document says that there's no issue these days with travel (before any mention of these neutral games), so why do we need this above plan? The NW loses home games, simple as that, on the basis that "it's part of the culture to travel"...? WTF is that...? If they could avoid it by physically picking up each town from Smithton to Devonport and lumping them together in one lovely big suburban spread, I'm sure they would - petrol's going up everywhere these days...!

Why not simply remove the double header idea, and make more derbies (while not going as far as they did in 2000 - 5 derbies is waaaay too many) at the expense of the long trips (and get rid of those stupid decimal points while we're at it!)...give NW sides their home games at home...over-complication is not necessarily the road to improvement...

You've missed the point again - open the other eye. Southern teams will lose home games to York Park against coastal teams as well as coastal teams losing home games to York Park against southern teams. So when you say "no Southern team has to worry about this" you are wrong. Read it again.

11.67 games at home for three teams means 35 matches in Launceston where the northern team is at home. As 35 doesn't divide evenly by three, two teams will have 12 and one will have 11, an average of 11.67.

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

I'm not sure how "advertsing" counts as both an expense AND income, but they probably know more than I do about such financial matters.

Expense advertising - TSFL spends money advertising upcoming double header on TV, on radio or in newspaper.

Income advertising - TSFL sells rights to put "MacDonalds" logo on the football ground to be seen as advertising on TV coverage.

 

[Still Kickin]

Re: Statewide League 2009 or never??????

I really don't know why you guys are even talking about a comp that ain't gunna happen. Not in 2009 anyway.

Ok its good to examine the nitty gritty but as you have revealed there is a lot of detail to go through.

No way an educated decision can be made on this in the time frame.

So is AFL TAS saying its 2009 or never?

Duff i suggest you get back behind you camera because this really needs to happen. And lets hope it is administered properly. The reason football at the highest level suffers in this state is because country leagues go and buy players at high prices. You can't go and bag a guy who is capable of playing devils footy and getting 800 bucks a game in scrub footy. Thats one problem. Second is last time statewide was going clubs spent more money than they had and thats' why clubs ####ed up. If they are admisitered properly and audited like they should, things will go well.

As for you ya twit. You know shit.

 

[roorat]

Clubs face $5000 transfer fee
10/07/2008
COASTAL football clubs playing in next year's proposed Tasmanian State League (TSL) could be slugged with transfer fees of $5000 or higher if they want to recruit from outside their development zone.
Clubs have yet to see the details of the transfer fee system, but AFL Tasmania general manager Scott Wade last night revealed the fees would be "significant".
http://nwtasmania.yourguide.com.au/news/local/sport/afl/clubs-face-5000-transfer-fee/808055.aspx

 

[roorat]

http://nwtasmania.yourguide.com.au/news/local/sport/afl/clubs-face-5000-transfer-fee/808055.aspx[/URL]

Why the concern now for the clubs who develop local talent, why haven't they received the transfer fees from the AFL. Will they impose a transfer fee to reward the clubs who's players are drafted to the Devils?

 

[roorat]

State zoning `farce'
STATE LEAGUE STORIES: BY MARTIN AGATYN
10/07/2008
NTFL general manager Ian Wotherspoon has labelled the proposed Tasmanian State League (TSL) zoning proposals as "farcical".
AFL Tasmania's draft development grants and zones discussion paper proposes the North-West Coast be split between the Devonport and Burnie clubs.
http://nwtasmania.yourguide.com.au/news/local/sport/afl/state-zoning-farce/808054.aspx

 

[Duff TV]

Personal swipes

As for you ya twit. You know shit.[/quote]


Well mate I may be a twit in your eyes but at least I don't get on here and make personal remarks about people and stir up trouble for individuals.

Reveal your identity will you? Of course not.

I am very opinionated and sometimes get it wrong but I say what I say because I love the game and Tasmania.

Making personal swipes that cross the line about individuals is not what a forum like this is about. You may like to think about not doing this in future mate.

Statewide footy would be great if it was practically possible, but what needs to be understood by you mob up there is that the SFL is pretty happy the way we are.

At Premier level its still got a way to go but for us everything is "just down the road" unlike the huge travel to one sided games that occur up there.

Clubs have only just recovered from what happend 7 years ago so of course there will be no jumping in like last time.

And the problem of course is that its to be administrated by an organization that no-one has faith in.

There's a few problems at hand and I can't see it happening in 2009.

 

[xamol]

Re: Statewide League 2009 or never??????

Duff i suggest you get back behind you camera because this really needs to happen. And lets hope it is administered properly. The reason football at the highest level suffers in this state is because country leagues go and buy players at high prices. You can't go and bag a guy who is capable of playing devils footy and getting 800 bucks a game in scrub footy. Thats one problem. Second is last time statewide was going clubs spent more money than they had and thats' why clubs ####ed up. If they are admisitered properly and audited like they should, things will go well.

As for you ya twit. You know shit.

Are you serious?