TAS Will a team go to Tassie

[BF Tiger]

You still don't understand the basics of that issue.

To this day.

Help me. Supply the documents.

Onus probandi.

 

[telsor]

I don't get how Tassie 'wont be able to pay their own way'. The report proves that they would be more capable of paying their way than a third of the current AFL teams.

And people saying 'they can't do it without government handouts', need to look at the government as a sponsor. Every club has sponsors, and the Tasmanian government are offering themselves up as one to get a team off the ground, and they'd be the most stable and guaranteed sponsor in the whole league.

Will they add more money to the AFL's bottom line than they take?

That their sales document, with it's optimistic assessment, has them taking more AFL money than most clubs doesn't bode well.


Doesn't really matter though...what will it be in 20 years time?

 

[HTT]

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.

A 19th team would mean 11 more games to be sold. It’s just a 20th team makes it logistically easier due to (obviously) no need for byes.

 

[Rich01]

A 19th team would mean 11 more games to be sold. It’s just a 20th team makes it logistically easier due to (obviously) no need for byes.

From a financial viewpoint I can’t see the AFL adding one, let alone two teams.

Adding games to the schedule has a diminishing return. An extra game a week would add little value to a broadcast package and potentially cost the AFL more to sustain these two clubs than the incremental dollars the broadcasts rights would generate.

TV buy even pre covid has been extremely soft as people’s viewing habits are becoming more fragmented.

This means advertising is worth less, broadcasters don’t want to pay as much for content, and ultimately the AFL gets a less than optimal return for its product.

I would not in any way assume the next AFL broadcast deal would be worth as much as the one that is currently in play. The market for advertisers on FTA has been soft and has been for quite some time.

 

[Del191229]

From a financial viewpoint I can’t see the AFL adding one, let alone two teams.

Adding games to the schedule has a diminishing return. An extra game a week would add little value to a broadcast package and potentially cost the AFL more to sustain these two clubs than the incremental dollars the broadcasts rights would generate.

TV buy even pre covid has been extremely soft as people’s viewing habits are becoming more fragmented.

This means advertising is worth less, broadcasters don’t want to pay as much for content, and ultimately the AFL gets a less than optimal return for its product.

I would not in any way assume the next AFL broadcast deal would be worth as much as the one that is currently in play. The market for advertisers on FTA has been soft and has been for quite some time.

Agreed entirely. Also, the AFL can't afford to rationalise as if they cut their product, the rights will be less even again at a time when they need as much revenue as possible.

 

[Rich01]

Agreed entirely. Also, the AFL can't afford to rationalise as if they cut their product, the rights will be less even again at a time when they need as much revenue as possible.

Not entirely sure about that that. They do have an agreement currently in play for a certain amount of games and cutting clubs would jeopardise that and open up the possibility of re-negotiating. The AFL wouldn’t want this.

But, the AFL has shown to be very commercially driven and worked with broadcasters in the past so who knows what they will do.

If there’s an opportunity to optimise the competition by cutting more costs than they would lose in revenue, it might be something they would look at.

Would be risky for them to give broadcasters any reason to renegotiate the current agreement though.

 

[St Plugger]

Yeah North to tassie makes the most sense and i feel would work well for all parties. I'd be getting on the tassie boat now instead of it coming up again when a place like north Queensland is on the radar, and the afl wanna ship off another vic team. They almost went to gold coast a few years ago, tassie is a much better proposition as it's much closer and a footy state which would increase their supporter base substantially and guarantee long term security and viability for the club.

St Kilda are the other option but they have a much bigger latent supporter base already there and have their own area of the south eastern suburbs to continue to expand into. All this works because we don't want uneven numbers in the competition and it doesn't make sense to go to 20 teams in the current climate.

I think that you may be close to the mark here. It's quite possible that a club that's not the usual suspects, [Nth, Saints, GC] that end up in Tassie because they see the "dynamics" of moving there benefitting their clubs long term interest. They can choose when and where rather than getting shunted off!

It could be a team that is close to maxing out its supporter base.
Or a club that no longer has a readily defined geographic area of support.
Could it be a Port Adelaide or a Geelong for instance?
Does the club have to come from Victoria?

 

[Freomaniac]

On the thread topic....

Tas wont get their own team.

By the end of COVID, The AFL is going to be financially stuffed.
They wont be forking out big money for a new club that probably wont be able to pay it's own way.
Nor are they going to dump a financially struggling Vic club with a Tas club whose finances will be at least as bad.

So before a Tas club comes about, the AFL will need to pay off most if not all of it's debts and build up some serious reserves (nothing like an existential crisis to make management prepare for the worst), so we're probably talking 2040 at the earliest before they'd look at it.

Going by the past trends and official predictions, in 20 years time, Tas will be even further off the mark in teams of the population and economy needed to support a team. (a business case that is marginal at best will become just awful).

So yeah, unless something else pretty significant changes, it's not going to happen. Time was always Tas's worst enemy on this one, and Covid will turn a maybe into what will be a pretty clear NO.

Well you are realistic.

I think the corona Virus has pushed back the Tassie AFL side by a good 10 years.

We know the AFL has taken a 600 million dollar loan. But they will pay that back in time though.

I hope the AFL learnt its lession. Next time they get their money, you hope they put away 20-30% of their TV rights money away incase something like this happens again

 

[HardcoreGeelongFan]

They need a bigger population. In 1850 Melbourne had 400, 000 population and it wasn't until their population neared 1 million a team was created.

 

[Hai_Newman]

Heard the Tas Premier pushed the AFL hard for a team.

Question is, whats the likelihood and if yes, who goes

Go on...

Keg on legs

 

[Hai_Newman]

Can we see a map of Tassie so we can see how it'd work Hai_Newman ?

 

[fargothegreat]

Will they add more money to the AFL's bottom line than they take?

That their sales document, with it's optimistic assessment, has them taking more AFL money than most clubs doesn't bode well.


Doesn't really matter though...what will it be in 20 years time?

Yes. The report clearly shows the AFL making a profit from a Tasmanian team.

It also doesn't have them taking more money than most clubs. It has them taking about the same amount as mid-tier clubs, and potentially less if the AFL needed a larger contribution from the government.

 

[fargothegreat]

We were MADE to put it on.

Yes exactly my point, because your club wasn't worthy of a licence without it.

 

[telsor]

Yes. The report clearly shows the AFL making a profit from a Tasmanian team.

It also doesn't have them taking more money than most clubs. It has them taking about the same amount as mid-tier clubs, and potentially less if the AFL needed a larger contribution from the government.

You haven't read the report, have you?

 

[fargothegreat]

You haven't read the report, have you?

Yes I have. Have you?

 

[telsor]

Yes I have. Have you?

Did you understand it?

Did you consider it in the light of how things would work in reality rather than it being an optimistic sales pitch?

 

[fargothegreat]

Did you understand it?

Did you consider it in the light of how things would work in reality rather than it being an optimistic sales pitch?

Here's a direct quote from the report:
The Taskforce model supposes a ‘negotiation’ that sees Tasmania enter the AFL with an equitable
‘club average’ distribution of $17.1M per annum. The State would need to accept funding the
estimated shortfall of $7.3M per annum.
We note that the AFL may not be able to afford nor want to take the risk of another expansion club.
Our report suggests that, based on these sensitivities, the State may need to fund up to a
maximum of $11M, consistent with the AFL content cost per ‘home’ game incurred today.

It's not a 'sales pitch'. The report wasn't even aimed at the AFL. It was a report by an independent taskforce to government, that the government subsequently backed and took to the AFL.

The figures haven't been pulled out of someone's ass as you're suggesting. It's actually a really good argument as to why Tassie should be in the AFL.

I suggest you sit down and have a proper read of it before you criticize it.

 

[telsor]

Here's a direct quote from the report:
The Taskforce model supposes a ‘negotiation’ that sees Tasmania enter the AFL with an equitable
‘club average’ distribution of $17.1M per annum. The State would need to accept funding the
estimated shortfall of $7.3M per annum.
We note that the AFL may not be able to afford nor want to take the risk of another expansion club.
Our report suggests that, based on these sensitivities, the State may need to fund up to a
maximum of $11M, consistent with the AFL content cost per ‘home’ game incurred today.

It's not a 'sales pitch'. The report wasn't even aimed at the AFL. It was a report by an independent taskforce to government, that the government subsequently backed and took to the AFL.

The figures haven't been pulled out of someone's ass as you're suggesting. It's actually a really good argument as to why Tassie should be in the AFL.

I suggest you sit down and have a proper read of it before you criticize it.

No, the figures were paid for by a group trying to advance a particular agenda....Can you see how that might be biased?

As for the 'AFL Average'...to get that they had to include money to clubs that had particular purposes, like money to GC/GWS which are designed to build teams in non football areas, or money to Vic clubs which is just passing on money the earned but the AFL collected (Club affiliated AFL members, signage at Docklands, etc)...Can you see how that 'average' isn't a realistic figure?

$11M from government....yeah, no problem there, politicians are known for being reliable, and there is no way the debts they're racking up with Covid might mean they can find other places they'd rather spend that money. Or that the rest of the country might not want to keep subsidising Tas's GST take if they're throwing that money into a football team.


But please, do go on about how they're going to make the AFL much more money than that....

 

[Tasmanian saint]

No, it will be the team with an unsustainable debt.

That's not North.

No it will be like last time the club with the smallest supporter base and in the most expendable area it’s not my personal view but obviously is the afl though

 

[Tasmanian saint]

On the thread topic....

Tas wont get their own team.

By the end of COVID, The AFL is going to be financially stuffed.
They wont be forking out big money for a new club that probably wont be able to pay it's own way.
Nor are they going to dump a financially struggling Vic club with a Tas club whose finances will be at least as bad.

So before a Tas club comes about, the AFL will need to pay off most if not all of it's debts and build up some serious reserves (nothing like an existential crisis to make management prepare for the worst), so we're probably talking 2040 at the earliest before they'd look at it.

Going by the past trends and official predictions, in 20 years time, Tas will be even further off the mark in teams of the population and economy needed to support a team. (a business case that is marginal at best will become just awful).

So yeah, unless something else pretty significant changes, it's not going to happen. Time was always Tas's worst enemy on this one, and Covid will turn a maybe into what will be a pretty clear NO.

Rubbish would have more chance paying there way then a lot clubs your starting to sound like a broken record!

 

[Capriati]

No, Tassie don't want North.

AFL has guaranteed 18 clubs in and 18 clubs come out of this crisis.

No guarantees on 18 clubs beyond that.

One of the Melbourne clubs will fold before 2025, or two clubs will merge (probably St Kilda and one other). This will pave the way for Tassie to come in and the AFL keeps an 18 team comp.

9 teams in Victoria, 9 non-Victorian teams.

Sounds like a good step towards a truly national comp.

 

[Del191229]

No it will be like last time the club with the smallest supporter base and in the most expendable area it’s not my personal view but obviously is the afl though

No last time it was about our debt too.

Your supporter base ain't exactly huge.

I don't know why you're so worried - you'd get to see that at home all the time.

 

[Del191229]

Not entirely sure about that that. They do have an agreement currently in play for a certain amount of games and cutting clubs would jeopardise that and open up the possibility of re-negotiating. The AFL wouldn’t want this.

But, the AFL has shown to be very commercially driven and worked with broadcasters in the past so who knows what they will do.

If there’s an opportunity to optimise the competition by cutting more costs than they would lose in revenue, it might be something they would look at.

Would be risky for them to give broadcasters any reason to renegotiate the current agreement though.

Theoretically yes, but then when Good Times come back the AFL would have to spend even more expanding again to capitalise.

It won't happen, despite the wet dreams of many (not you) Richmond supporters.

 

[Del191229]

No, Tassie don't want North.

AFL has guaranteed 18 clubs in and 18 clubs come out of this crisis.

No guarantees on 18 clubs beyond that.

One of the Melbourne clubs will fold before 2025, or two clubs will merge (probably St Kilda and one other). This will pave the way for Tassie to come in and the AFL keeps an 18 team comp.

9 teams in Victoria, 9 non-Victorian teams.

Sounds like a good step towards a truly national comp.

Merger not gunna happen, I honestly don't know why you people continue saying this crap when the only time two Vic clubs actually agreed to a merger, the rest of the comp voted it down ffs.

Folding very possible, but would just go into AFL control.

 

[BF Tiger]

There's no point giving a little kid that can't read a copy of Moby Dick.

Nonetheless, onus probandi then dictates that your suggestion is false.