threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Yes, but they also would have communicated and briefed the terms of the signed contract with such people involved in Tasmanian politics.The afl knew when they signed the agreement that rockliff wouldnt last the full term. They also knew it was highly likely (anyone that understood tas politics predicted this a while ago) any new govt would be a minority and any such minority would push for changes to the contract.
So unless the afl are absolute morons there is no change of circumstances that isnt predictable.
The terms of the signed, binding agreement was a 23,000 seat, roofed stadium at Macquarie Point. That's the specific wording. If the stadium is different to those three elements (capacity, roof, location), then they did make a commitment to the latter - that the agreement can be voided if that is not the nature of the stadium.Secondly theres a difference between 'no new stadium no team' and 'a new stadium at a different price to the negotiated deal'. The afl may have been clear on the former but they never ever made any commitment to the latter being their position.
Yes, yes they would. They would walk away if that wasn't the stadium. Everyone who thinks about the Tasmanian team for more than 90 seconds and has more than half a brain can understand the fact that the AFL does not want to have a team that will not be able to self-sustain enough revenue through the main operations that teams do by selling tickets, memberships, and sponsorship.So if youre saying the afl would refuse that offer and walk away then they were never really genuinely committed to getting this done
I agree they were never really committed to getting an AFL team absent the conditions of that stadium done. But claiming that they were is not a claim that anyone understanding the situation was making. The fact that various political leaders e.g. were is just fundamentally mishandling the truth.
I think you're overstating the reputational damage that would be done to the AFL if they were to walk away from a team if they didn't have a stadium. It would be minimal. And even if the AFL were committed, it can be vetoed by two-thirds of the clubs anyway (believe me as an Western Bulldogs member I would be encouraging my club, as a voting member, to not vote in a full-time Tasmanian team if the AFL were to give it tens of millions of dollars of extra funding a year. I'm entirely fine and agree with that my club voted yes, as did all clubs unanimously, to a Tasmanian team playing the roofed, 23,000 seat stadium located at Mac Point).
Of course they can, but their past actions (like the demand for the stadium in the first place) suggest that they don't want to.They absolutely can build the stadium under different contractual terms if they choose to.
You're also missing the key point that the AFL clubs would also have to re-vote on the new team there was a new contract.