Remove this Banner Ad

The Case for Tasmania

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Having finally finished editing this, I thought Id throw this up for your perusal and comment, Im always keen for feedback. Im aware theres a thread along these lines already, if Mods want to merge it go ahead.

The Case for Tasmania
Background
Some form of football was played in Tasmania in the 1850s, some people believe that this was actually a form of rugby rather than Australian football due to mentions of cross bards and offside rules.

Australian football was first documented in Tasmania in 1866. The Tasmanian Football league, centred on Hobart began in 1879 and the Northern Tasmanian Football Association began in 1886. A third league, the North West Football Union would not begin until 1910.

The First statewide premiership was awarded in 1909 with the Tasmanian State Premiership. These matches were discontinued in 1978. The State premiership would next be contested under a different format in 1980 - the WInfield State Cup, However Northern leagues refused to participate again after percieved favoritism towards the Hobart league.

In 1986 and 1987, A statewide league was proposed when 5 northern league clubs left tol join the TFL Statwide League. The NTFA and NWFU merger to form the NTFL.

The formation of the state league seems to have been the catalyst for teams to begin to lose money with increase travel costs being a large factor. Teams relegated themselves back to local competitions and other clubs folded entirely. The league collapsed after the 2000 Grand Final.

With the TFL disbanded, the Tasmanian Devils were formed in 2001 and bega playing in the VFL the next year. They were aligned with North Melbourne.The Devils played in both ends of the Apple Isle and had a reasonable following before they were disbanded in 2008 to make way for the re introduction of the TFL.

The game presently has the second highest participation rate of any Australian Football state in the country, behind only the Northern Terriotry.

The VFL/AFL in Tasmania
Many exhibition matches were played in Tasmania over the years, and it became something of a panacea for the problems of several Victorian clubs including Fitzroy (91-92, 4 games), St Kilda (03-06, 3 games). Hawthorn have the longest lived presence in Tasmania begining in 2003 and now not expected to end before 2017, in a deal worth 17 million over 5 years. North melbourne began playing at Bellerive in 2012.

For many years Tasmanian football talent left the Apple Isle for the brighter lights of Melbourne. More than 300 Tasmanians have played VFL/AFL over the years including Darrel Baldock, Royce Hart, Laurie Nash, Peter Hudson and Ian Stewart.

Players of a more recent vintage include Garry Lyon, Brendon Gale, Alistair Lynch, Matthew Richardson, Grant Birchall, Brad Green, Jack Riewoldt and David Neitz.

The 1994-1997 Bid
Between 1996 and 1998 a bid was prepared that involved the construction of a 30,000-capacity stadium in the Hobart showgrounds in Glenorchy, at the cost of $34 million. The stadium would have been the team's only home ground, but the appeal was unsuccessful and the stadium was not built. The bid ultimately failed when Port Adelaide and Fremantle were granted entry instead.

The 2008 Bid
With the announcement of teams for Gold Coast and Western Sydney, Tasmania again launched a bid for the AFL with the full backing of the Tasmanian Government. The Tasmanian Bid had reportedly secured 20,000 potential members and a $4 million major sponsorship from Mars before Gold COast and Western Sydney had even got off the ground. Andrew Demetriou, AFL CEO, is reported to have told the Tasmanian premier "not now, not ever", and recently told Foxfooty that it will not happen while he is CEO but may happen while he is alive. [See Video]
The bid had the support of then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.
"In terms of how we make all that possible, I've been talking to various folk in the AFL about that for some time."
The Arguments against a Tasmanian Team
Opponents of the Tasmanian Bid have assumed
  • a lack of corporate support would be a major stumbling block
  • the long running divide between the North and South of Tasmanian football is a key reason why any AFL team would fail.
  • Some cite a percieved lack of popular support and others believe there are forces at AFL House that will never allow a Tasmanian team.
  • its a captive market - already an Australian Football territory
  • its being held for victorian club relocation
The Corporate Argument
Saul Eslake, a Tasmanian born, respected Economist says the lack of corporate support argument is a just plain wrong
''First … the stadium deal that a Tasmanian club would have at Aurora Stadium would be about the fourth best in the league. The second thing is we had sponsors. Mars said they would be our major sponsor, and the Tasmanian government would only need to pay $1 million less than they're contributing to the Hawthorn deal.
Eslake went on to query the isolation of the state in regard to its sponsors.
''People say, 'where are the major corporations in Tasmania?,' but look at Collingwood, whose major sponsor Emirates is based in Dubai.''
When all was said and done, he came to the conclusion that
"''I think the exercise proved beyond any doubt that the commercial arguments used as to why Tasmania couldn't have a team - that there weren't the big companies there to sponsor it, that there wouldn't be the support or the ground couldn't cope with it - all those arguments were demonstrated to be false.''
In addition Mars Snackfoods General Manager Peter West, who signed a deal to sponsor the proposed team worth $4 million, said
"Not only is there a traditional affiliation with the sport among the Tasmanian people, but the state's burgeoning economy makes us confident that the club would be financially viable and would attract strong corporate support, so we wanted to be the first business on board."
The Tasmania Divided argument
Scott Wade, head of AFL Tasmania says the football divide was a big reason an AFL team didnt go earlier.
"In the halcyon days of Tasmanian footy back in the '60s and '70s, if Tasmania could've found a way to work together, rather than be so parochial and so divided, we'd already have a team of our own by now"
Saul Eslake believes that a Tasmanian AFL side would prove to be a great unifier.

The Popular Support Argument
Generally based around the size of the population, and its decline or growth, it argues that there isnt enough people to sustain a team.
A survey conducted in 2008 by the State Government found that
  • 48% of Tasmanians support a Tasmanian bid
  • 23% of Tasmanians would consider becoming members
  • 41% of Tasmanians would consider attending games
This would have given the club a theoretical support base of 100,000 members.
In 2012, Hawthorn had 8,500 Tasmanian Members, and in 2012 North Melbourne were reportedly at 2,000 in January.

The Andrew Demetriou Roadblock Argument
Many believe that the AFL CEO, Andrew Demetriou was/is the major stumbling block to a Tasmanian team. The Age quoted Paula Wriedt (former Tasmanian Minister for Economics and Tourism) as saying that


The Captive Market argument
Australian football has been a major part of the Tasmanian sporting landscape sine the late 19th century and it seems unlikely that this will be challenged soon. There is however a lack of a national league side in any competition for Tasmania in any Australian major sport at the moment.

Rugby League have recently played a trial at North Hobart Oval, paid for by the Australian Football Club there, and there is apparently an Aleague bid by Tasmania United.

The Relocation Argument
Some believe Tasmania is being held to have somewhere for an established Victorian team to relocate. This was denied by Andrew Demetriou following the rejection of the Tasmanian bid who said that he planned on 10 clubs being in Victoria for the foreseeable future.

Bid Assessment
"The amount of work and research is comprehensive and first-class. We were incredibly impressed by the level of detail in the submission," Demetriou said. The AFL however reaffirmed its commitment to establishing teams in Queensland and New South Wales.

Bartlett said Tasmania already had 60 per cent of corporate sponsorship required for an AFL club, would easily meet the required target of 25,000 members and projected stadium revenues would put them in the top four performing stadia in the league.

"The commitment Andrew's given me today is he'll take the business case we've provided very seriously," Bartlett said.

Andrew Demetriou appeared to give Tasmania assurances it was the next cab off the rank for a license.

The Senate Inquiry
Unsatisfied with the AFL response, Tasmanian senator Kerry O'brien convinced the Senates Regional Affairs Committee to undertake an enquiry into the AFL, supported by Family First Senator Steven Fielding.

The inquiry's draft terms of reference included an investigation into "whether the AFL commissioners' obligations to current supporters of the game override their desire to promote larger television audiences for it".

The inquiry was opposed by the Liberal Party, with Pat Farmer saying it was a waste of time since the Senate had no power to make the AFL do anything with its expansion policy.

AFL CEO, Andrew Demetriou and Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick both declined to appear before the enquiry, but Chief Operations Manager Gillon Mclachlan did, confirming the league saw Sydney and Gold Coast as greater priorities for expansion, and wasnt sure a Tasmanian team could ever happen. He added information such as future population growth, size and scope of the local business community, current and future, community participation in the game and other code and the significance of the regions as media markets, determined that priority.

Further issues and notes from the inquiry can be found here.

Today
It should be noted that the Tasmanian Government is directly sponsoring Hawthorn to the tune of $17.6 million over 5 years (following on from a $16 million deal in the previous 5 years), and the Government owned TTlines is sponsoring North Melbourne for another 1.5 million over 3 years. The AFL Bid team was able to secure another $4 million sponsorship from Mars pending AFL entry. (That sponsorship later went to Carlton). Thrown in the 10,000 Tassie Hawks and 8,000 targetted North Tassie memberships, and you've got an excellent begining that would dwarf both of the AFL's new sides on the Gold Coast and New South Wales.

In addition, the Tasmanian Government would own and operate Aurora Stadium, which with upgrades would make it one of the best in the league and guarantee a decent return for the club based there. The Federal Government has also committed 15 million to the upgrade of Bellerive Oval, giving the state two reasonable stadiums to play footy at.

References
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
To give the question its due:
1. There are too many teams in Melbourne
2. Tassie taxpayers support Merlbourne teams
3. Whilst Tas taxpayers support Melbourne teams, there is no room for a team from Tas

Move the pieces around as you will >

The first question is not necessarily relevant if teams spend within their means. There is ample support for teams if they arent all hellbent on getting facilities that are "leagues best". It might have also helped if clubs werent forced to spend 97.5% of the salary cap whether players deserve the wages or not.

Clubs have spent beyond their means since the 70s, a trend that may have been started by North Melbourne and its recruitment of the likes of Blight, which lead to massive inflation of player salaries.

As for the other two, completely agree.
 
what an arseh*le demetriou is, they clearly wanted it more than blacktown did, can't wait until he's gone
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Tv, tv, tv...the AFL is not going to come out and say "We're putting in two dummy franchises in the two rugby league states to ensure that 7,9 and 10 will be able to offer secure and regular commercial opportunities to their sponsors, and then we can charge them through the roof and get a dividend that will protect the existing clubs. All we have to do is spend millions on the new sides to make billions"...but this is exactly what's happened, people...and Tasmania can't match it. End of story. The AFL will do nothing to promote a Tasmanian bid, no matter how RIGHT a Tasmanian team would be...!

Guys, regardless of whether we agree with his standpoints, Demetriou is qualified to do his job. You don't get that job unless you've jumped through some pretty big hoops. The AFL has succeeded spectacularly in nearly everything it has set out to do, and it's all gone according to a grand plan...whether we all want to equate that plan to the achievement of world peace, or alternatively to the level of success Hitler enjoyed until he took on England, well, that's up to us as individuals, but don't make the mistake of thinking that Demetriou, in league with the AFL Commission and all of the club presidents, hasn't thought through the ramifications of every decision they've made between them...

THAT is what Tasmania is up against - a CEO of a massive business who's made up his mind...the closest thing you will find to an immovable object...
 
West Coast have played in front of 457043 people this year at an average of 32646 a game.
Melbourne has played in front of 477268 people this year at an average of 34091 a game.

Melbourne's lowest crowd H or A this year was 18000 at Kardinia, which is missing half its grandstands. The second worst was the 20000 it managed for the GWS match. West Coast have managed 15000 v Brisbane and 6700 v GWS. Melbourne also have had 4 home games that have drawn 40000 plus, including a 64000 crowd which is bigger than any HA crowd WC have EVER played in front of...

Maybe the big problem isn't lowly Melbourne's drawing power at home...they'll get 20000 if their GWS match is any indication...I'd be more concerned with the disdain the average footy fan shows West Coast outside Perth even when they're on top of the ladder...
 
West Coast have played in front of 457043 people this year at an average of 32646 a game.
Melbourne has played in front of 477268 people this year at an average of 34091 a game.

Melbourne's lowest crowd H or A this year was 18000 at Kardinia, which is missing half its grandstands. The second worst was the 20000 it managed for the GWS match. West Coast have managed 15000 v Brisbane and 6700 v GWS. Melbourne also have had 4 home games that have drawn 40000 plus, including a 64000 crowd which is bigger than any HA crowd WC have EVER played in front of...

Maybe the big problem isn't lowly Melbourne's drawing power at home...they'll get 20000 if their GWS match is any indication...I'd be more concerned with the disdain the average footy fan shows West Coast outside Perth even when they're on top of the ladder...

Any bean counter knows how to use averages to disguise a revealed weakness. Its a red flag in any due diligence.

As for the disdain of the average footy fan for the Eagles, it does demonstrate a section of fans unable to accept the national comp, the same group who hold back a team from Tas ...
 
What revealed weakness? You specify no issue that has actually happened, seeing as Melb v Freo hasn't been played yet...

Come on, be duly diligent...obviously noone else is...
 
West Coast have played in front of 457043 people this year at an average of 32646 a game.
Melbourne has played in front of 477268 people this year at an average of 34091 a game.

Melbourne's lowest crowd H or A this year was 18000 at Kardinia, which is missing half its grandstands. The second worst was the 20000 it managed for the GWS match. West Coast have managed 15000 v Brisbane and 6700 v GWS. Melbourne also have had 4 home games that have drawn 40000 plus, including a 64000 crowd which is bigger than any HA crowd WC have EVER played in front of...

Maybe the big problem isn't lowly Melbourne's drawing power at home...they'll get 20000 if their GWS match is any indication...I'd be more concerned with the disdain the average footy fan shows West Coast outside Perth even when they're on top of the ladder...

Take out the Queens Birthday
 

Remove this Banner Ad

A relocated team will take 20 years to establish itself, and even then still wont be seen as a true Tasmanian team.
It needs to be a true green Tassie football team.

Would a merger and relocation of two teams to North Queensland free up a Tassie spot?
 
A relocated team will take 20 years to establish itself, and even then still wont be seen as a true Tasmanian team.
It needs to be a true green Tassie football team.

Would a merger and relocation of two teams to North Queensland free up a Tassie spot?

Strip a club from Melbourne of its licence would solve your perceived problem, then relocate the licence.

Melbourne cant pull a crowd after 150+ years, how long have they got to perform?
 
Picking clubs to be forced into merger or booted is very dangerous. While its easy to target clubs such as Nth and Melb, remember a while ago geelong and collingwood were both bottom dwellers. Times change, and coming froming a league background i have seen the damage it can cause to the competition and code.
 
Picking clubs to be forced into merger or booted is very dangerous. While its easy to target clubs such as Nth and Melb, remember a while ago geelong and collingwood were both bottom dwellers. Times change, and coming froming a league background i have seen the damage it can cause to the competition and code.

So we can never change the league then? The South Melbourne/Sydney thing shouldnt have happenned? Clubs that clearly struggle, either on the ladder, with memberships, with club facilities should be given social welfare payments to stay where they are & continue to struggle? Victorian clubs should continue to sell games interstate to survive?

The question remains, is this a national league called the AFL?, or is it still the VFL & the Victorian teams must be left alone & stuff everyone else!
 
So we can never change the league then? The South Melbourne/Sydney thing shouldnt have happenned? Clubs that clearly struggle, either on the ladder, with memberships, with club facilities should be given social welfare payments to stay where they are & continue to struggle? Victorian clubs should continue to sell games interstate to survive?

The question remains, is this a national league called the AFL?, or is it still the VFL & the Victorian teams must be left alone & stuff everyone else!

Absolutely not, hell I follow the Giants so am all for expansion/change. All im saying is the league has to be carefull, even dodgy with the way they sell mergers and relocations. Make it so enticing that clubs who are in the bottom rung of vic will find it impossible to say no.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Absolutely not, hell I follow the Giants so am all for expansion/change. All im saying is the league has to be carefull, even dodgy with the way they sell mergers and relocations. Make it so enticing that clubs who are in the bottom rung of vic will find it impossible to say no.

I dont know whether you are a long term Aussie rules person or not, But the AFL tried that with Melbourne & Hawthorn. Also the word was for a Footscray Fitzroy merger before the AFL destroyed Fitzroy & sent the carcas to Brisbane. Then we had the North Mellbourne to the GC mess.
I think a sensible expansion program is the way to go. But Tasmania is left to rot in preference to everyone else. Its ok for us to PAY for two different clubs to come down & suck up the cash. But we get treated like shyte by the AFL.
The GWS is a 'logical' move. However the locals never agitated or worked for it. It was shoved in their face & their is no garantee that it will stand on its own two feet in the next 30 years or so.
The GC has a terible record for professional sports franchises. Most fail. So good luck.
Every major traditional Aussie rules area, & others, have a team of its own, except Tasmania.
The economic arguement is a valid discussion. But the finance thing is never applied to a number of busted arse Victorian clubs.
Go figure.
VFL Bias.
 
The GWS is a 'logical' move. However the locals never agitated or worked for it. It was shoved in their face & their is no garantee that it will stand on its own two feet in the next 30 years or so.

True, it has been great, except the results, we got great colours, name (the "greater" part is growing on me) a new stadium all to ourselves. It will be a success which i have no doubt. I give it 10 to 15 until we are standing as well as if not moreso than South.
 
Perhaps if the VFL is promoted and grown into a large enough entity..................................then we can simply demote the underperforming Victorian teams permanently. ALOT of people here seem to like the idea of the VFL, so it they would at least keep some support.
 
Perhaps if the VFL is promoted and grown into a large enough entity..................................then we can simply demote the underperforming Victorian teams permanently. ALOT of people here seem to like the idea of the VFL, so it they would at least keep some support.

I dont think you realise the enormity of what you said. The Vic teams will fight to stay in the AFL. They dont care what might be best for a national competition.
Its called having your cake & eating it as well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Case for Tasmania

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top