TAS Will a team go to Tassie

[BallaratBulldog]

Hope not.

 

[paulg99]

The Tamanians don't want North Melbourne. They want their own team. North should have gone to Gold Coast a decade ago. Biggest mis step the league ever made.

History may repeat. In 1986 Fitzroy declined to move to Brisbane and a new team was formed there. 10 years later, Fitzroy was forced into a merger with the Bears, and a new powerhouse was born (tho a short-lived dynasty). That gave the AFL a license to hand to Port Adelaide to enter the league in 1997.

North Melbourne could be merged with Gold Coast, thus getting rid of two problem birds with one stone. Tasmania then becomes team #18.

 

[Roylion]

North should have gone to Gold Coast a decade ago. Biggest mis step the league ever made.

The league didn't own North Melbourne and as such couldn't force them to the Gold Coast. Nor can they make North (now a member owned club) merge. Hell the AFL couldn't even make Fitzroy merge and that was (and still is) a club owned by shareholders.

North Melbourne made a operating profit of $1,088,941 in 2008 and a net profit of $6,033,136. The Club also received government grants in relation to the Arden Street redevelopment of $5,150,000. The Club was to receive $12.5 million between 2008-2010 from the Federal and State governments. Why would they go?

Why would North go now (over some other clubs) when they were / are almost debt free?

 

[telsor]

Exactly, AFL can't afford to expand and can't afford to rationalise either.

It can't afford the bad PR of trying to force a club down there.

So its only hope (if it really wants a team down there of which I'm hmmmmmmm) is to hope/allow a club that's not a golden child to become insolvent and send them down there in a "it is this or death" deal.

I agree with the can't expand point, but rationalising? If that is ever going to happen, now would be the time.

"We're massively in debt and just can't afford the keep propping this club up every year" along with evidence that when times were better, they've given them all the support they reasonably could would be about as good an argument as they're ever going to get.

Not saying I support it, but while killing off clubs when the league is flush with cash would be an impossible sell. Killing one off when they're skint would be a LOT easier.

The only tricky bit would be justifying keeping some teams and ditching others (small Vic clubs Vs other small Vic clubs, and/or Vs GWS/GC/Brisbane/Port).

 

[Del191229]

History may repeat. In 1986 Fitzroy declined to move to Brisbane and a new team was formed there. 10 years later, Fitzroy was forced into a merger with the Bears, and a new powerhouse was born (tho a short-lived dynasty). That gave the AFL a license to hand to Port Adelaide to enter the league in 1997.

North Melbourne could be merged with Gold Coast, thus getting rid of two problem birds with one stone. Tasmania then becomes team #18.

Talk me through the process of how this happens.

 

[Del191229]

I agree with the can't expand point, but rationalising? If that is ever going to happen, now would be the time.

Oh man, stick to bragging about crowd numbers (not something that will mean anything very soon)

With revenue falling across the league, and the media companies struggling for cash, the AFL literally is not going to offer LESS product.

"Oh, you can only give us 75 per cent of last times TV rights, well get this, we've cut teams and will only be able to offer 8 games a week now!!!!!!!! What's that, oh, we can wipe another 20 per cent off the offer? Maybe those Richmond supporters on BigFooty don't actually understand much after all!"

 

[telsor]

Oh man, stick to bragging about crowd numbers (not something that will mean anything very soon)

With revenue falling across the league, and the media companies struggling for cash, the AFL literally is not going to offer LESS product.

"Oh, you can only give us 75 per cent of last times TV rights, well get this, we've cut teams and will only be able to offer 8 games a week now!!!!!!!! What's that, oh, we can wipe another 20 per cent off the offer? Maybe those Richmond supporters on BigFooty don't actually understand much after all!"

So if club A earns $15M as their share of TV rights and costs the league $20M, can you see why they might be cut?

Not to mention that the 9th game doesn't make nearly as much revenue as the 1st, so while you might only have 88.9% of the product, it might still be worth 95% of the revenue.

 

[Del191229]

The league didn't own North Melbourne and as such couldn't force them to the Gold Coast. Nor can they make North (now a member owned club) merge. Hell the AFL couldn't even make Fitzroy merge and that was (and still is) a club owned by shareholders.

North Melbourne made a operating profit of $1,088,941 in 2008 and a net profit of $6,033,136. The Club also received government grants in relation to the Arden Street redevelopment of $5,150,000. The Club was to receive $12.5 million between 2008-2010 from the Federal and State governments. Why would they go?

Why would North go now (over some other clubs) when they were / are almost debt free?

Papa G was humiliated as much, if not more, than Caro Wilson in the "Will North go to the Gold Coast" period, posting dozens of times a day laughing at us inevitably being sent there, gloating in the misery of others.

Interestingly, not only was he wrong but then his own beloved Port fell into massive financial shit. There's a lesson there.

As I keep saying, no club will be cut at the end of this year, or even next year.

BUT if there were a club that is extremely financially stretched, say with existing massive debt that just increased again this year, that already got the biggest distribution of any Vic club, and it kept going downhill off field and had no success onfield, then that club is very vulnerable to an AFL squeeze lie was done to the Roys in terms of refusing to guarantee debt.

It is very easy to see a situation where the St Kilda board have a gun pointed at their head and the AFL says we're withdrawing our guarantees (with majority support from the other clubs) and the choice is go under/trade insolvent or hand us the keys and St Kilda now becomes AFL owned and operated.

Then do you think the AFL run St Kilda does what is in the best interests of its members or the AFL.

Then St Kilda are playing in Tassie, North are cut off (as the AFL tries to begin a process where we rack up debt and reliance and are thus vulnerable when the next crisis comes)

This stuff has always been musical chairs for some Melbourne clubs.

When the music stops if you're carrying big debt you want to be good onfield. Because if you're broke and shit in the eyes of the general footy public, you're right in the gun.

 

[Del191229]

So if club A earns $15M as their share of TV rights and costs the league $20M, can you see why they might be cut?

Not to mention that the 9th game doesn't make nearly as much revenue as the 1st, so while you might only have 88.9% of the product, it might still be worth 95% of the revenue.

I've been through the LSD laced tunnel that is Richmond footynomics on other threads.

I cbf doing it here.

Suffice to say, you're wrong and I'm right.

(EDIT - as I keep saying, I can see a situation where a club effectively folds, but they won't be cut, they'll be taken over by the AFL)

 

[BF Tiger]

herculez09

The bizarre Richmond insecurity about North rears its ugly head in yet another thread.

Hook, line and sinker... don’t even have to chum the waters.

 

[telsor]

I've been through the LSD laced tunnel that is Richmond footynomics on other threads.

I cbf doing it here.

Suffice to say, you're wrong and I'm right.

(EDIT - as I keep saying, I can see a situation where a club effectively folds, but they won't be cut, they'll be taken over by the AFL)

What's the difference?

OK...not 'killed', but "left in a financial state where they can no longer continue in the AFL."

Better?

 

[Papa G]

Papa G was humiliated as much, if not more, than Caro Wilson in the "Will North go to the Gold Coast" period, posting dozens of times a day laughing at us inevitably being sent there, gloating in the misery of others.

Interestingly, not only was he wrong but then his own beloved Port fell into massive financial shit. There's a lesson there.

As I keep saying, no club will be cut at the end of this year, or even next year.

BUT if there were a club that is extremely financially stretched, say with existing massive debt that just increased again this year, that already got the biggest distribution of any Vic club, and it kept going downhill off field and had no success onfield, then that club is very vulnerable to an AFL squeeze lie was done to the Roys in terms of refusing to guarantee debt.

It is very easy to see a situation where the St Kilda board have a gun pointed at their head and the AFL says we're withdrawing our guarantees (with majority support from the other clubs) and the choice is go under/trade insolvent or hand us the keys and St Kilda now becomes AFL owned and operated.

Then do you think the AFL run St Kilda does what is in the best interests of its members or the AFL.

Then St Kilda are playing in Tassie, North are cut off (as the AFL tries to begin a process where we rack up debt and reliance and are thus vulnerable when the next crisis comes)

This stuff has always been musical chairs for some Melbourne clubs.

When the music stops if you're carrying big debt you want to be good onfield. Because if you're broke and shit in the eyes of the general footy public, you're right in the gun.

Not sure I was humiliated Sweet Left Foot. I maintain get rid of North Melbourne is and always will be in the best interests of a national league. The abomination that is the current Gold Coast could have been averted, GWS wouldn't have been rushed, we wouldn't have seen half a decade of compromised drafts, there would have been a rightful spot for Tasmanian team to come in the competition and the eternal problem of North Melbourne and their inability to find more than 3 supporters/too many teams in the one place would have been somewhat solved. I never gloated, it was just the right thing to do. Demetriou was too spineless to go through with it and the league just sits in a holding pattern of pampering the Big Victorian clubs interests with the little Vic clubs fighting for the scraps.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Not going to happen. Any Tassie team will be financially unviable and without the growth factors that GWS/Gold Coast have. At best it'll be another St Kilda/North Melbourne, so any future Tassie team (which I do support) should be a 19th team.

Nonsense.
They'd have a clean stadium that'd return nearly 1mil per game (based on averages of hawthorn, North Melbourne, and Geelong- only 3 with clean stadium deals)

Their sponsorship wouldn't be great, but 11 home games with a solid return, they'd be far from unviable.

 

[SeanM]

I am not sure what the financial advantage of a 19th team would be. 20 teams would mean an extra game per round so more chance of a higher future broadcast deal. So I don't think they would introduce a 19th team unless a 20th team was following. Maybe better to introduce two Tasmanian teams in one go so we don't have to worry about a team having a bye every round.

 

[Del191229]

What's the difference?

OK...not 'killed', but "left in a financial state where they can no longer continue in the AFL."

Better?

But they would continue in the AFL.

 

[Mr north man]

The Tamanians don't want North Melbourne. They want their own team. North should have gone to Gold Coast a decade ago. Biggest mis step the league ever made.

Like your club living off your SANFL club history and how’s your SANFL club going these plenty of coin in the bank or they going to create a new type of history and that is no History

 

[Mr north man]

Nonsense.
They'd have a clean stadium that'd return nearly 1mil per game (based on averages of hawthorn, North Melbourne, and Geelong- only 3 with clean stadium deals)

Their sponsorship wouldn't be great, but 11 home games with a solid return, they'd be far from unviable.

Well it’s like this TV revenue is about to go down so the AFL would need to consider the following 17 games per season from next TV rights with finals with maybe state of origin carnival thrown in to keep the masses happy

 

[Senor M]

So training in groups of 10 is construed as an advantage that must be banned, against the advice of WA state health officials, whilst playing 10 games in a row at your home ground is hunky dory. Riiiiiight...

What does this have to do with an AFL team going to Tasmania??

Not every thread is about #VICBIAS & how WA clubs are screwed.

 

[Roylion]

BUT if there were a club that is extremely financially stretched, say with existing massive debt that just increased again this year, that already got the biggest distribution of any Vic club, and it kept going downhill off field and had no success onfield, then that club is very vulnerable to an AFL squeeze lie was done to the Roys in terms of refusing to guarantee debt.

But even then the AFL couldn't force a merger.

And no merger took place, despite AFL propaganda that it did. To put it very simply, when the AFL deiberately (and with North Melboune's connivance) refused to guarantee that Nauru Insurance Company as the only secured creditor of Fitzroy would not be paid $1 million out of the merger monies promised to the merged "North Fitzroy Kangaroos", the Nauru I.C. facing the loss of their loan struck first and appointed an administrator to recover what was owed. All the administrator did then was surrender Fitzroy's licence to compete in the AFL. However at no stage (and I am a shareholder of Fitzroy) did the AFL own Fitzroy.

That's why we're still in Melbourne in our own right to this day (having entered the VAFA for the 2009 season)

It is very easy to see a situation where the St Kilda board have a gun pointed at their head and the AFL says we're withdrawing our guarantees (with majority support from the other clubs) and the choice is go under/trade insolvent or hand us the keys and St Kilda now becomes AFL owned and operated.

Under the terms of St Kilda's constitution that may be legally impossible to do, if the members own the club. St Kilda holds a licence to compete in the AFL competition, but that does not give the AFL ownership. In 2008, the AFL tried to buy North Melbourne's shares in which case had they succeeded they could have relocated the club to the Gold Coast as the AFL would have owned it.

 

[Roylion]

Demetriou was too spineless to go through with it

Demetriou had no power to force such a move and he knew it. Once North rejected the move, the AFL moved quickly to establish a new 17th team.

 

[telsor]

But they would continue in the AFL.

Not if they can't meet the minimum requirements and field a competitive team.

 

[simba_]

who exactly wants some shit vic club sent to tassie? do the fans of that vic club want that? do tasmanian's want that?

 

[Jiggyman]

What does this have to do with an AFL team going to Tasmania??

Not every thread is about #VICBIAS & how WA clubs are screwed.

Wrong thread. Don't ask me how it ended up here, was sure it was posted in the groups of 10 thread.

 

[Papa G]

Demetriou had no power to force such a move and he knew it. Once North rejected the move, the AFL moved quickly to establish a new 17th team.

He could have easily removed all the extra funding North were getting. They would have fallen over and been forced to accept. The Fabled White Knights never existed. James Brayshaw bluffed him. James ****ing Brayshaw.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

No.
If Tassie gets a team it will be a new one, probably with a 3rd WA side at more or less the same time.