Tasmania

[eastfreo75]

http://www.roymorganonlinestore.com/News/1424---Swans,-Magpies-and-Lions-have-most-supporte.aspx

North Melbourne have a total of 191,000 supporters in Australia, down from 271,000 in 2001.

A tassie team would have a better following, have a better stadium deal, and have government backing and get 22 games free to air in Tasmania.

Sure, the AFL would need to support an AFL team in tassie but it would be far less than North Melbourne or any of the least supported Melbourne clubs.

 

[blaze036]

And WA has the highest population growth and the highest avergae income.
So lets have teh AFL as an expanded WAFL with an Adelaide team and the big 4 (to get 16 teams). Collingwood and Essendon can change their jumpers.

Btw
Income tax goes to the federal government and not the state. Also how does Geelong get sponsorship money?
What sponsorship is there in the suburb of North Melbourne (at least the other Melbourne clubs represent an area of Melbourne or have a significant support everywhere)?

The problem with WA is most of the pop growth is going to mining areas and not actually cities where they can go/watch afl games.

BTW state governments get nearly all their revenue from the federal government, meaning income taxes go back there.

Geelong gets sponsership money as obviously they play a lot of games in geelong AND melbourne.

The people who sponser north melbourne do it for exposure to the whole area not just one suberb or one section...

 

[blaze036]

http://www.roymorganonlinestore.com/News/1424---Swans,-Magpies-and-Lions-have-most-supporte.aspx

North Melbourne have a total of 191,000 supporters in Australia, down from 212,000 in 2006.

A tassie team would have a better following, have a better stadium deal, and have government backing and get 22 games free to air in Tasmania.

Sure, the AFL would need to support an AFL team in tassie but it would be far less than North Melbourne or any of the least supported Melbourne clubs.

That survey is so ridiculasy inaccurate theres no point using it as evidence. The swans have double the supporters as Carlton?... okay

 

[The_Reaper]

The problem with WA is most of the pop growth is going to mining areas and not actually cities where they can go/watch afl games.

Incorrect. The vast majority of the population growth is in Perth- which is the capital of Western Australia. Most people fly in to the mining areas from Perth and back after their shift ends. [/quote]

BTW state governments get nearly all their revenue from the federal government, meaning income taxes go back there.

The federal government doesn't go - WA earnt x amount of revenue therefore WA should get x amount of money from the government. It spreads it as evenly as possible amongst the states. I know this, because at the moment this is causing tension in WA.

Geelong gets sponsership money as obviously they play a lot of games in geelong AND melbourne.

An Tasmania will play games in Tasmania and Melbourne (and the rest of Australia). Sponsors want exposure and they will still get national exposure. Hell even Bellerive Oval got a naming rights sponsor- and on average there is less than one test a year there.

The people who sponser north melbourne do it for exposure to the whole area not just one suberb or one section...

See previous comment.

 

[The_Reaper]

That survey is so ridiculasy inaccurate theres no point using it as evidence. The swans have double the supporters as Carlton?... okay

Go to person in Sydney.
What AFL team do you support?

Sydney.

So twice as many people would say that they support Sydney over Carlton. Won't directly translate to bums on seats but will affect sponsorship.

 

[blaze036]

The federal government doesn't go - WA earnt x amount of revenue therefore WA should get x amount of money from the government. It spreads it as evenly as possible amongst the states. I know this, because at the moment this is causing tension in WA.

Its spread proportionally to persons per capita. Its causing tension in WA because WA wants more then their fair share but thats another topic all together

 

[The_Reaper]

Its spread proportionally to persons per capita. Its causing tension in WA because WA wants more then their fair share but thats another topic all together

It's sort of spread proportionally per capita. Victoria and NSW get around per capita basis. QLD is slightly subsidised. SA, TAS and NT are heavily subsidised.

 

[blaze036]

Go to person in Sydney.
What AFL team do you support?

Sydney.

So twice as many people would say that they support Sydney over Carlton. Won't directly translate to bums on seats but will affect sponsorship.

Actually what would happen is...

"piss off rugby is awesome AFL sucks"... but if i HAVE to give u something (as you want to fill in all sectiosn of the survey) i guess ill say sydney because i live here.

Which doesnt mean they are supporters

 

[The_Reaper]

Actually what would happen is...

"piss off rugby is awesome AFL sucks"... but if i HAVE to give u something (as you want to fill in all sectiosn of the survey) i guess ill say sydney because i live here.

Which doesnt mean they are supporters

But given that this survey is used by companies to determin sponsorship...

And whilst the Sydney and Brisbane figures are drastically inflated- the other clubs are relatively accurate.

 

[eastfreo75]

Go to person in Sydney.
What AFL team do you support?

Sydney.

So twice as many people would say that they support Sydney over Carlton. Won't directly translate to bums on seats but will affect sponsorship.

That's right. Sydney would have alot of non committed fans but Tassie would have alot more committed fans just like Green Bay packers and Geelong.

The roos attendance's at home games will get less due to playing at least 4 home games against interstate teams.

Also, Tassie has only one major sporting team which is their cricket team, while Melbourne have AFL, basketball, cricket, netball, union, league and soccer.

An AFL tassie team only competition for sponsorship is Cricket. Which is a summer sport.

 

[blaze036]

But given that this survey is used by companies to determin sponsorship...

And whilst the Sydney and Brisbane figures are drastically inflated- the other clubs are relatively accurate.

How on earth did they get those figures? i never told anyone from their company who i supported.


Also how do u know companies use that to determine sponership?

 

[The_Reaper]

How on earth did they get those figures? i never told anyone from their company who i supported.


Also how do u know companies use that to determine sponership?

They survey a significant sample size and extrapolate to the total population. I assume they would use the relevant Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for normality and use a normal distribution for the extrapolation. It will be accurate to about a 0.005 degree of significance.

Ray Morgan is a specialised and reputable organisation for statistical analysis. Companies do not make decisions with out data from a reputable source- hence these Ray Morgan surveys would have an influence.

 

[___ccroo___]

Yes Tasmania does deserve a team we all know it, u dont have to say it 20 times over the pages.

That aside, whilst isn't doesnt make logical/business sense to put a team there, its a case of the head says no but the heart says yes. Hopefully things improve and the comp can increase to 20 teams down the track(or stay at 18 if somone collapses)

err, you are the one repeating yourself with this sheepish brainwashed AFL agenda going on.

Many on here put a valid pro TAS point or 20 and you conveniently go off on another tangent.

 

[BarneyBent]

Actually what would happen is...

"piss off rugby is awesome AFL sucks"... but if i HAVE to give u something (as you want to fill in all sectiosn of the survey) i guess ill say sydney because i live here.

Which doesnt mean they are supporters

Actually, not in my experience. A tolerance of and even mild interest in AFL is actually the norm now, I'd say. Obviously it's still foolish to say that Sydney have more supporters than Carlton, but in terms of sponsorship, the largest number of people are exposed to the Swans in a positive light, the largest number of people will see a QBE logo or a VW logo associated with a team they have a neutral-positive association with.

 

[Kwality]

err, you are the one repeating yourself with this sheepish brainwashed AFL agenda going on.

Many on here put a valid pro TAS point or 20 and you conveniently go off on another tangent.

blaze is not that well read, not sure whether he turns to the AFL web site to see what his views are ...

What about this claim:
The problem with WA is most of the pop growth is going to mining areas and not actually cities where they can go/watch afl games.

Fly in, fly out blaze - not across it, read hear for edumecation :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/fly-in-fly-out-inquiry-told-one-size-doesnt-fit-all/3593078
Widen your horizon.

 

[madmug]

They survey a significant sample size and extrapolate to the total population. I assume they would use the relevant Kolmogorov-SMIRNOV tests for normality and use a normal distribution for the extrapolation. It will be accurate to about a 0.005 degree of significance.

Ray Morgan is a specialised and reputable organisation for statistical analysis. Companies do not make decisions with out data from a reputable source- hence these Ray Morgan surveys would have an influence.

I like Smirnov, especially with Lime & lemonade & after a shed full of Cascade pale ale

 

[sherb]

And as already mentioned, a Tasmanian team wouldnt grow the game, just weaken pre-existing clubs who go there for much needed revenue (sad but true, dont be hating on me)

Also as already mentioned, going into WA and SA didn't "grow the game" either. They were already totally Australian Football states before sides from each state entered the AFL.

(And there is a big difference between "growing the game" and growing the competition, which undoubtedly the entry of the SA/WA clubs did).

Maybe the clubs who bleed money from Tassie under the condescending pretence of "giving the locals football" should find other ways of generating the revenue.

 

[Beesto]

Also as already mentioned, going into WA and SA didn't "grow the game" either. They were already totally Australian Football states before sides from each state entered the AFL.

(And there is a big difference between "growing the game" and growing the competition, which undoubtedly the entry of the SA/WA clubs did).

Maybe the clubs who bleed money from Tassie under the condescending pretence of "giving the locals football" should find other ways of generating the revenue.

Well said.

 

[Oakland Raider]

Also as already mentioned, going into WA and SA didn't "grow the game" either. They were already totally Australian Football states before sides from each state entered the AFL.

(And there is a big difference between "growing the game" and growing the competition, which undoubtedly the entry of the SA/WA clubs did).

Maybe the clubs who bleed money from Tassie under the condescending pretence of "giving the locals football" should find other ways of generating the revenue.

Sums it up nicely.

 

[blaze036]

Also as already mentioned, going into WA and SA didn't "grow the game" either. They were already totally Australian Football states before sides from each state entered the AFL.

(And there is a big difference between "growing the game" and growing the competition, which undoubtedly the entry of the SA/WA clubs did).

Maybe the clubs who bleed money from Tassie under the condescending pretence of "giving the locals football" should find other ways of generating the revenue.

Condescending pretence??? the clubs want the money and tasmania wants the footy, an equal win-win. Ur making it sound like some evil plan and Tasmanian's hate them comming there

Would u rather they didnt go to Tassy?

 

[Tassieboy]

Would that have been around about 1997-1998, when there was also some discussion on a VFT network ?

Yep, you're right mate. 1997 I think

 

[madmug]

Condescending pretence??? the clubs want the money and tasmania wants the footy, an equal win-win. Ur making it sound like some evil plan and Tasmanian's hate them comming there

Would u rather they didnt go to Tassy?

Yes I would rather that all busted arse Victorian clubs go back & join the VFL again.
The AFL is supposed to be a national competition. It seems that it is really designed mainly as life support system for suburban Victorian clubs.
The fact that Tassie has two Victorian financial leaches down here BUT keeps getting told we couldn't possibly support a team is nothing but a bloody disgrace.
But of course I'm just condescending. Having Two renta clubs in Tassie MUST be good for Tasmania.
If so then Why wasnt sending renta clubs to the gold coast or GWS good for them too?????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Beesto]

Someone should start a new thread on which Melbourne team should get the chop so that Tassie can get a team. And not a relocation of one of the busted useless Melbourne sides either.

 

[blaze036]

Someone should start a new thread on which Melbourne team should get the chop so that Tassie can get a team. And not a relocation of one of the busted useless Melbourne sides either.

How about merge North Melbourne and Bulldogs? make two small clubs starved for succes and in financial issues, into one strong big club who doesnt get embarrassingly small crowds.

I think that would be the best idea rather than killing off one of them.

 

[The_Reaper]

How about merge North Melbourne and Bulldogs? make two small clubs starved for succes and in financial issues, into one strong big club who doesnt get embarrassingly small crowds.

I think that would be the best idea rather than killing off one of them.

Or alternatively send them to the VFL.