Tassie only wants one team!

[LT Smash]

Scott Wade claiming to speak for all Tasmanians in saying Tasmanians have rejected Hawthorn and North Melbourne when in fact substantial numbers of Tasmanians have joined as members of both clubs.

By 2016, we are within spitting distance of an AFL buyout of Etihad. So long as our footy department hasn't completely screwed up, we should be supremely competitive and off field, our membership will be hovering around 40,000. If Tasmania wanted to convince us to play 8 games in Tasmania, it would cost the tax payers at least $2 million per game. They will have to discover a dirty great oil field in the middle of the island to pay the bill. At which point, we can offer them directions to Seaford.

 

[Quivorir]

Good. We should never be there anyway. We are not going to fold if we stay purely in Melbourne.

 

[Deep We11s 1]

I'm still punting that we'll play 6-8 games in Ballarat by 2020. Tas can GAGF.

 

[Only Forwards]

I'm still punting that we'll play 6-8 games in Ballarat by 2020. Tas can GAGF.

It'll be based fairly heavily on the Geelong Model.

 

[Saintly31]

Scott Wade claiming to speak for all Tasmanians in saying Tasmanians have rejected Hawthorn and North Melbourne when in fact substantial numbers of Tasmanians have joined as members of both clubs.

That is a not was Wade is saying at all, yuo've made that up.

He is talking about Tasmanians embracing a club as 'their own', it is obvious that both Hawks and Nth have been well supported by either end of the island.

Good. We should never be there anyway. We are not going to fold if we stay purely in Melbourne.

The $$ coming from the current deal are invaluable to our future as a Melb based team. It is pretty obvious I would have thought.

 

[GarnerSmash]

The $$ coming from the current deal are invaluable to our future as a Melb based team. It is pretty obvious I would have thought.

Absolutely.

We had to have a fundraiser so that we could pay to the salary cap limit from next year. That should put into perspective how important the extra $2mil or so per year the Tassie market is to us.

 

[Saintly31]

They want a current team to virtually relocate, which is not going to happen, or they want their own start-up team, which is not going to happen.

If they crack the sads they will be left with no AFL footy on the Apple Isle.

Its not a case of be happy with what you have got, but moreso be realistic with what you want.

I don't think that is the way it will play out. The offer than will be agreed upon will probably be nothing near what Wade is talking about.

There is pressure within Tas community to keep pushing for it's own AFL team, which would explain the statements to keep the candle burning.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hawks do not get extended and Nth pick up the slack - somewhere around 4 games, two at each end of state would be my guess. But yep, if he pushes for too long on this angle and ruins future negotiations then indeed that is a possibility.

 

[Big_H]

This kind of scenario is what the constitutional amendment was supposed to protect the members from. Brayshaw has already showed a willingness to play far too many games interstate, who knows what he (or future presidents) might do if the right offer was put on the table. We know what AFL Tasmania is trying to do now; playing more games there just encourages them.
This is the reason we need a constitutional amendment to protect ourselves from ourselves. There’s no reason why it shouldn't have been adopted.

 

[Limerick]

A Tasmanian team is not likely in the near future but they will keep pushing. No doubt that AFL would support a Melbourne based Club "relocating" [read dying to enable a similar new Club being created in Tasmania]. At this point the AFL couldn't provide significant financial support for such a move. We do need constitutional protection to prevent a quick move by a Board.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

The only thing that matters is if North's next deal is renewed or not and for how long. Hawks there 2016.

Anything else is just dramatics at this point.

 

[Daz]

This kind of scenario is what the constitutional amendment was supposed to protect the members from. Brayshaw has already showed a willingness to play far too many games interstate, who knows what he (or future presidents) might do if the right offer was put on the table. We know what AFL Tasmania is trying to do now; playing more games there just encourages them.
This is the reason we need a constitutional amendment to protect ourselves from ourselves. There’s no reason why it shouldn't have been adopted.

Take the right offer?

 

[Deep We11s 1]

It'll be based fairly heavily on the Geelong Model.

correct

 

[Big_H]

Take the right offer?

To play 8 games in Tassie? That's relocation in my book.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Tas can GAGF.

Mate, as he's stated himself many times, if you find his posts tl:dr then don't read them. No need for the harsh book review! : onlybeingserious

 

[Shinboner Schem]

This is all just posturing themselves to appear in a better position to negotiate the next deal.

I'm sure the deal will be extended beyond 2014 at the end of this year.

Here's my summation of the events:

- Tassie raise their desires, discussion ensues.
- Contract talks start (probably end of this year), Tassie push for a commitment to their model
- Contract is agreed for 2 more games per year (4 in total)
- North board can respond to criticism by pointing at Tassie's 8 game demand

Then further down the track...
- AFL does not buy out Etihad early (this is not our financial savior anyway)
- North become dependent on Tassie money to keep up with the joneses in footy dept spend
- next contract ending, Tassie again push for own team
- North increase commitment again

 

[Limerick]

I think that we are limited to 3 games until 2016 due to the AFL/Etihad commitment. After that we need to be on our guard and have made a start on Ballarat
.

 

[Jimmy's Hot Dogs]

My favourite part of the article.

The AFL declined to comment when contacted by AFL.com.au.

Hey Vlad?

(Wipes lobster from oversized bonce. )
Yea?

Are we pushing for 8 games in Tassie?

(Stuffs more caviar into gob)
No comment.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A Tasmanian team is not likely in the near future but they will keep pushing. No doubt that AFL would support a Melbourne based Club "relocating" [read dying to enable a similar new Club being created in Tasmania]. At this point the AFL couldn't provide significant financial support for such a move. We do need constitutional protection to prevent a quick move by a Board.

Bunch of Tasmanians take over the board. Colors change to green, yellow, red. Death of the relocated club. North becomes some poxy "NMFC 1869" thing on the back of a jumper.

I'd rather stay in the VFL and play out of Arden Street.

 

[Egga]

This kind of scenario is what the constitutional amendment was supposed to protect the members from. Brayshaw has already showed a willingness to play far too many games interstate, who knows what he (or future presidents) might do if the right offer was put on the table. We know what AFL Tasmania is trying to do now; playing more games there just encourages them.
This is the reason we need a constitutional amendment to protect ourselves from ourselves. There’s no reason why it shouldn't have been adopted.

 

[The Cats Teeth]

Re the hillbilly north south thing never going to happen until tasmanians insist on it-not likely; read the pathetic political history of tasmania. If tasmanians unified just maybe; pick up one of the diseased melbourne clubs with corporate sponsorship from err errr ahhh gunns, cascade - not happening. Such a disappointment. The ghosts of baldock cazaly gorringe bingley deserve better

 

[Boozeroo]

This stinks of Vlad calling Wade-

"Howzabout we clear out the fat leeches and put a club down there that needs some work Scotty?

Put forward an offer neither north or hawthorn can swallow, and we'll get the dees down there quicker than I can say extra afl funding"

MARK MY WORDS.........

 

[Uncle_Leo]

2016

We will be playing 8 home games a year in Tasmania.

Don't blame James, he knocked back that vote this year so that "future" boards could investigate this kind of opportunity.

 

[Event Horizon]

More Tassie ONE TEAM talk from the daughter of the biggest Tassie team advocate:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tasmania-pushes-afl-relocation-20130627-2p06d.html

She better research the topic some more...

The AFL, in 2010, tried to broker a deal for North to play seven games a season shared between Launceston and Hobart. This was rejected by North's James Brayshaw-led administration.

 

[Only Forwards]

The walkley award winning chicken writer has signaled a shift in perception in that article;

AFL Tasmania director James Henderson has raised the cash-strapped Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and St Kilda as the best fits for the state. Tasmanian Sports Minister Michelle O'Byrne has welcomed the one-team proposal.

It ain't us no more.

 

[GazzaRoo]

2016

We will be playing 8 home games a year in Tasmania.

Don't blame James, he knocked back that vote this year so that "future" boards could investigate this kind of opportunity.

This will never happen. Did anyone take notice or mention collingwood v dogs at etihad 32 thousand or essendon v gold coast 31 thousand how about st kilda v west coast 23 thousand. these are the numbers the so called big clubs are getting at etihad. Being as there are a minimum number of games that have to be played at etihad every year which of the mcg teams do we think will want to play more money losing games at etihad like we do. Good luck with that. We wont be going anywhere till etihad is payed off. Hope by then were soughted financially to make our own call.