By Paul Carter
June 26th 2009 @ 1:20am
Get a Roar profile
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.
Western Sydney insurmountable for AFL
The AFL faces insurmountable barriers to establishing a second Sydney team, says a Senate committee formed to examine Tasmania’s bid for a league licence.
The committee, which supports Tasmania’s bid for an AFL team, says the weakness of the sport’s market in Sydney only underlines the risks in the decision to prioritise that city over Tasmania.
The [...]
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...
(7)
were we trying to bully union to death when they were boring people to death ( ok stop now ifs sokka’s so boring why is it so...
Kurt said | June 26th 2009 @ 1:32am | Report comment
I’m going to put aside the issue of whether or not the AFL should be putting a team in WS (which has been pretty much done to death here) and ask exactly why a senate committee is spending time investigating the expansion plans of a sporting competition?
Does this strike anyone else as a bit odd? So the AFL decides to expand into WS rather than Tasmania – people can agree with that or think it is a bad idea, but is it really a matter for our elected representatives to spend significant time and money discussing? Perhaps the remit of this committee should extend to examining selection decisions as well – who should open the bowling for Australia, what formation should Pim Verbeek choose in the opening WC game etc?
All seems a bit strange to me.
Billo said | June 26th 2009 @ 1:50am | Report comment
They obviously don’t have enough to do.
Maybe we should ask Andrew Demetriou to issue a statement about Australian foreign policy.
Michael C said | June 26th 2009 @ 6:26am | Report comment
what Kurt said.
at least it’s not the Vic state govt, as they put so little money into the AFL that they can’t even exert influence over the AFL-Etihad Stadium stand off.
Michael C said | June 26th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
And the Demetriou response :
But AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou says the League had no intention of altering its plans.
“The decision of the senate has no influence on our decision. The AFL Commission has prioritised the Gold Coast for its 17th licence and western Sydney for its 18th licence,” Demetriou said.
“The decision handed down by the senate in no way will influence the AFL’s commitment to western Sydney.
“We are working with the Tasmanian Government – to their eternal credit they didn’t even provide a submission to the Senate Committee.
“We know where we are at with the Tasmanian Government, we have got a good relationship with them and are working closely on what we can do further in Tasmania.”
Demetriou said the League would support Hawthorn’s plan to play more games in Launceston once the new teams were introduced.
Redb said | June 26th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
It is not the Federal Governments or any governments right to tell any sporting organisation what they should do… period.
Senate enquirys are personal agenda platforms nothing more nothing less. They are not binding they are not free of bias or prejudice they can be best summed up as akin to a Tobacco company funding an inquiry into the health benefits of cigarettes – you get the answer you want.
There are countless sporting teams often set up as franchises that don’t necessarily reflect the current local sporting landscape.
Redb
Tom said | June 26th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
“It is not the Federal Governments or any governments right to tell any sporting organisation what they should do… period.”
Not sure about that, but I certainly agree that the government shouldn’t be telling the AFL about which markets to expand into.
Frankly though, they’re doing them a favour by providing them with free market research that they can accept or ignore if they want. The FFA probably wouldn’t mind a whole stack of data about which markets could support an A-league club.
Not the government’s role though. Waste of time and money.
Redb said | June 26th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Tom,
obviously I’m talking about matters that are not illegal or immoral,etc.
Not so sure about the market research either, it seems to be telling the AFL what they already know and did not attempt to evalute the commercial upside for the AFL in Western Sydney which is far greater should it exceed.
What about the argument taht Australian Rules as the only indigengous code should be offered and have sporting structures that adequately support it right around the country, AFL is already played in good numbers in Tasmania.
The 2nd Melbourne A League licence is hardly a proven winner on face value. Melb Victory are popular but dont pack out Docklands everytime they play. Canberra or other cities without an HAL team could have been looked at first.
It is ridiculous for the Senate to stick it’s nose into the AFL’s expansion plans on the basis of Senator(s) pushing their own agenda. One of the Tassie Senators is note even an AFL fan but no doubt is looking at the commerical advantages it would bring to her State if Tassie got a licence.
Redb