By Adam Cooper
April 17th 2008 @ 5:51am
View The Roar's top AFL writers.
AFL Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
AFL set to overlook Tasmania
The AFL appears certain to snub Tasmania from its major expansion by reiterating its priorities lie in the north, despite the island state’s call for its licence submission to be judged on its merits.
More AFL
Swans finally free to focus on Geelong
Crows expect Jekyll, but will Dockers turn up as Hyde?
Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon formally launched [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(12)
True Tah said | April 17th 2008 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Agree a Tasmanian team would be good for the league, and make it truly national…however from an economic viewpoint, I don’t know what a Tasmanian team can bring to the table. Maybe Tassall or Gunns could get on board as a sponsor?? Im sure most Tasmanians already have a favourite team in the AFL.
Also not a fan where a government is needed to step in to support a sport – a sport shouldn’t need government subsidies to survive.
Michael C said | April 17th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Certain sports are getting a whole heap of govt subsidies etc – to survive and even thrive in opposition to the AFL – - why not get a bit back.
Hopefully at least Tassie might get a relocation club one day.
True Tah said | April 17th 2008 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
From what I understand, the Hawks play a few games under an arrangement with the Tassie government – are these games generally well supported?
Michael C, what sports get government subsidies to survive? Certainly not rugby union or league, they both had amounts shelved by Rudd.
The Substitute said | April 17th 2008 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Michael C,
I have to agree with you that the only way Tassie will get a team is if it is a relocated one. It has been well established that Melbourne has too many teams. It has been predicted two will fall over in the next decade. I am not so pesimistic, but one will have to move.
Long term the AFL are going to want an even number of teams. They will have to look to Tasmania then. Where else is there to go? There is no other market without an AFL side (or any other from the “big 4″ – A-League, NRL, S14) of that size that could actually support a team. Unless the game booms in a nearby overseas market in the next 10 years, Tassie will probably end up with a team.
That said, I do suspect Paul Lennon’s attempts to reason with the AFL had a purely political motivation…
Michael C said | April 17th 2008 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
The Hawks play about 4 games a year in Launceston, and generally – the average over about 25 games at the venue (inc some StKilda ‘home’ games) is just a tad under 17K. Not a bad result – that’d be eagerly taken by all other codes – and for the AFL perspective is ‘underwritten’ – who knows how many fly or ferry down each time – if North MElb played there I’d be making an effor to get over there.
SPorts – supported by Govt. Well, starting point is Soccer. Rudd doubled the Howard govt pledge to the FFA – and at the same time took the razor to the Rugby lads. A bit harsh that really. However – as always – it’s good to be an Olympic sport.
I’m not at all fussed that we have this silly funding to prop up minor sports just because they are ‘olympic’ sports – a lot of the Olympics is pretty irrelevant these days – and the whole AIS system is not far off the old ‘professionals’ of the Eastern Bloc where in every 2nd athlete listed the ‘military’ as their profession – but, obviously were spending about 5 hours a day at least training for their sport. At what point is ‘buying’ olympic medals just a bit distasteful (don’t start me on ’space age’ bicycles or swim suits that should either be available for ALL or NONE – - ruddy farce that – - and they call it ’sports’!!!!). Even the AFL, have to go as far as playing junior matches vs ‘developing’ Sth African squads – - because, without that ‘international’ element – then the AIS wouldn’t be on board – - it seems like that was a system designed to freeze the AFL/VFL out (and why? because they were successful independantly and pinching too many potential olympians…..).
[Rant over]
True Tah said | April 17th 2008 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Michael C, point taken about sports getting government funding.
I don’t have a problem with soccer being supported by government funding at the expense of league and union as I guess Australia needs to be seen to be playing the world game to fit in with the rest of Asia and the world generally, but I would have thought that with the massive crowds of the A-League and the various sponsors which are getting on board, they wouldn’t need any more funding?
One thing I do have a problem with is the NSW State Government pledging a stack of money to build soccer stadiums – their priority should be fixing up the rail system first and foremost before worrying about sports!!!
Michael C said | April 17th 2008 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
True Tah -
Soccer is interesting
FOr now, the crowds are okay – MVFC leading the pack there – but, profitability of clubs is still to be achieved, let alone the HAL/FFA as a whole.
The FFA needs money to run about 8 or 9 national teams – including womens etc – - and realistically only one (the socceroos) generates real revenue. NOw and then.
The thing about soccer is whether we want to just ‘fit in’, or perhaps ’stand out’ from the crowd. I’d like at least a bit of both – so hopefully, in trying to fit in we won’t destroy that that makes us a little different.
Now -for the NSW Govt to pledge to build soccer stadiums – that’s interesting, to me, aren’t they all just rectangular stadiums fine for the Rugby codes AND soccer – -or, does soccer require a surface finish somewhat different to Rugby (a flatter field? I recall annoyance from soccer folk at the camber of the MCG once upon a time) – - or do soccer folk just want dedicated pitches to not have to cope with the ground being dug up by rugby lads?
In Vic, we have a roughly $300m stadium being built – for MVFC – 2-3 years in, and Storm and maybe, some form of RU presence, one day, maybe. That’s fine. How much is public money? All of it.
Compare to Telstra Dome which – while there were dreams by a small minority that a Soccer stadium should be built at docklands – it never got off the ground – no funds, either privately or federally and the State couldn’t afford it – so, no stadium – the Govt however wanted A stadium in Docklands to generate the whole precinct redevelopment – - and so, the AFL were effectively courted – they come on board, private investors then came on board – AFL put in $30m up front, plus, by virtue of the funds drawn OUT of the stadium each year, the AFL is paying several mill each year – - compare this to the new soccer venue which is being GIFTED by the state…….how do you figure that one?
Even the MCG – it’s the MCC who carry the debt, there was a relative small amount of State funds in the lead up to the C’wealth games for the Northern Stand redevelopment, but, the majority was additional debt for theMCC atop their pre-existing debt for the Great Southern Stand. And, of course, where do they derive their revenue – MCC memberships and sports rent. The main player for that being the AFL – i.e. the main contributor both of ‘rent’ and of MCC member value.
What I’m getting at is some sports have had to work their but off over 150 plus years in Melbourne to have a couple of worthy venues – - and, then, along comes these other codes and they get a massive govt hand out without putting any money on the table. Surely, with the NRL part owned by News Ltd – surely they could have been urged to put up some funds – - but, apparently, the stadium is being handed over – -
in the AFL, just ask some of the clubs about their stadium deal at TD. Struggle to return revenue unless they break 35K attendance. Compare to Geelong who clear about $600K a match with a crowd of about 25K. The value therefore of a ‘gifted’ stadium in the on going sense is immeasurable. I reckon the AFL should lobby the Vic State Govt to ‘buy out’ Telstra Dome and ‘gift’ it to the AFL.
westy said | April 17th 2008 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Michael C….The QLD state Govt invested heavily in the Gabba to directly benefit not only cricket but principally the AFL. That is why they required the AFL to contractually promise to play any new AFL team in Queensland at the Gabba until 2015. The following is not some anti AFL jibe but reflects the genuine concerns of SA AFL clubs about the 10 milliom community grants to North Melbourne and Collingwood to redevelop their training facilities. Recent Vic Govt grants to certain Victorian AFL clubs have been to say the least generous.All sports have benefited from Government largesse. Football will always score highly as the strongest national participation sport in Australia. Tasmania would be better of trying to get an Aleague team because the poor inbreds do not realise they will never get an AFL team. AS one of my Tassy colleagues makes clear in AFL VICTORIA RULES.
True Tah said | April 18th 2008 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Michael C…the NSW Government wanted to spend $30m on a soccer centre of excellence, not a ground which could be used by league or union.
The old argument that a country can define itself by playing fairly specific games (e.g. AFL, NFL, GAA, NRL) or by playing a generic game everyone plays (soccer) – a lot of soccer people tell me that soccer is the new UN, and going by their arguments, the amounts spent seem to be investments on our sporting future – which seems to be soccer.
Would an A-League team get support in Tasmania? Aussie football is the number one sport down there, but Im sure soccer attracts a fair few, and some people also play rugby union, I don’t think there is a rugby league comp is Tasmania.
Michael C said | April 18th 2008 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Westy -
certainly – but, there are some folk who see only what other codes get and don’t realise what there own is getting.
My main point is that there’s up front cash value – and then the on going value. $20m on up grading training venues in Melb – with the proviso of being community access venues – and therefore, aren’t being signed over exclusively to AFL clubs – compared to a $300+ million dollar brand new stadium to be handed over keys and all – - immense up front value – - but, if that provides MVFC for example to make a $600K profit (similar to Geelong) for each match attracting say just 25K, where as the Bulldogs at Telstra Dome get screwed with a flat rate $40K for home-local matches and $15K for home vs interstate matches – - it shows the major difference as time progresses.
I’m not saying the Bulldogs aren’t being screwed by virtue of a poor deal that they signed off on – - however – the fact is they HAD TO negotiate with the private owners of a stadium, and get the best they could.
MVFC won’t need to negotiate. Nor with Storm. Do you see how huge a ‘free kick’ that is.
Forgetmenot said | April 18th 2008 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
Tasmania will almost certainly be the next place to get an AFL team. Hopefully Tasmanians can start supporting their VFL team more.
The VFL should aim to do more advertising down there to get people to games. Perhaps the Tasmanian government can negotiate with tv stations to get the Tassie Devils Football team on tv live on friday nights etc.
Tasmania would probably have the highest percentage out of all the states of people following football.
For me, i would rather money to be spent on growing the game internationally. We have an obligation to spread football as far and wide as possible.
Michael C said | April 21st 2008 @ 9:49am | Report comment
FMN -
the worst thing they did in Tassie was to incorporate half the NOrth Melb ‘ressies’ – - much, much better off exposing the maximum locals to the higher level competition and attracting decent coaching staff down there, and the odd decent recently retired/delisted talent – - but keep the Devils 95% local.