Two-headed fight for an AFL team in Tasmania

Given that 18 teams looks like a lot, then 20 teams looks like even more (obviously), and a NZ team looks way, way too ambitious. I think a tassie team will have to wait for one of the Melbourne teams to want to re-locate (or split its games 7-4 between Tassie and Melbourne). Should another team ever get in trouble - then re-location to Perth would be the obvious answer - Perth can easily support 3 AFL teams, and to be honest, the AFL would probalby look here before they look at Tassie. Otherwise, I can't see us moving beyond 18 teams for a long, long time to come.

This is i believe the best way forward (comment by all means) No teams get altered in any way, add 2 new teams and one new purpose built stadium (in nz) along with a significant upgrade of Bellerive Oval in approximately 5-8years time 1. Tasmainian Devils 2. New Zealand Nukes (Please someone come up with a better name) then there are 20 teams keep the top 8, divide into 5 divisions of 4, they play each other twice and the other 16teams once (season stays 22 rounds with no byes). Suggested Groupings: A: Giants, Swans, Lions, Suns B. Eagles, Dockers, Power, Crows C: Demons, Bombers , Magpies, Blues D: Saints, Tigers, Devils*, Nukes* E: Cats, Bulldogs, Hawthorn, Kangaroos This has a number of advantages 1. Groupings mean that multiple teams from the same area will tend to eliminate duplicate representations keeping the finals series live for multiple regions of Australia longer and increasing tv rights. 2. Clearly there is no rationale anymore for reducing the number of clubs or relocating

"they didn’t have to. These teams could have remained in the VFL where they belonged and their supporters could still be barracking for their original teams." Actually they were not able because the then VFA has been re labelled the current VFL - so Fitztroy at least were forever banished to the land of non existence and South went north and re labelled Sydney before then. And yep definitely agree that the VFL should not have become the AFL, Ross the Toss Oakley should have created the AFL not rejig a current league, some say not possible but that would be like saying creating a West Coast or Adelaide is not possible - it could have worked. Still to the problem at hand, the only to get another team in regardless from where is to merge 2 current teams (yuk unpopular revenue loss) OR like I said reinstate the VFL as it was as a feeder league to newly created Vic teams. Naturally, the logistics would be challenging to say the least but the alternative is to keep a Vic centric non even comp that we currently have or as I like to call it the V/AFL.

WC played Essendon on Saturday and they only have 3 days of recovery before flying to Melbourne on Wednesday. They meet Richmond on Friday night with the Tigers coming off a 15 day break. McGovern is going to struggle to come up in time. He needs as many recovery minutes as possible and 3 days isn't a lot. It's hard to argue that travel and back to back 6 day breaks for WC will not be a significant factor in determining the outcome of this game. It's going to be incredibly tough for WC to win this one even if McGovern gets up. That's how the fixture looks for WC. Not complaining, just pointing it out in the interests of transparency.

"you can’t just throw out 100 plus years of history (even though they have already with Fitzroy and South Melbourne" they didn't have to. These teams could have remained in the VFL where they belonged and their supporters could still be barracking for their original teams. It's probably too late now but in hindsight the VFL should never have been re-branded as the AFL (for so many reasons). It should have been a clean start for all teams entering the AFL, and the VFL, WAFL and SANFL etc would be stronger competitions today if they had played in a state based Division 2 type league, a little like the EPL. The two teams that played in their respective state GF's move on to a national carnival after their state GF's with the top 2 teams from the carnival being promoted to the AFL for the following season. Each state takes turns hosting the carnival so as to make it fair on everyone. The two bottom placed teams in the AFL are relegated to Div 2 to make way for the new entrants. That way Tassie could one day have a team competing in the AFL if they were good enough to finish top 2 in the carnival. No club would need to fold and no fans would be disenfranchised. Player transfers would need to be more flexible for a scenario like this to work.

52 % of the population live in NSW and Qld - the GDP of Singapore is less than Western Sydney - if you want a $2bn TV rights deal then you have to have 4 sides in northern Australia. Tragically Tas and NT dont have the resources to back a viable team (> 20m a year) and of course tassie has the north/south problem unfortunately. Like Canberra they can only have 3 -4 games a year...|A damn shame

A 50/50 split would not last. It would very quickly turn into a bitchfight the likes of which Australian sport has never seen when as soon as it was announced where the first final would be hosted. Or if one year all the big clubs played in one centre. Most likely, given history, it would be centralised in Hobart within five years and the north of the state would drop off entirely. That was the death of the VFL Devils (which was itself a bad move for Tasmanian footy, but a relative success given the usual disaster brought about by the endemic cronyism within AFL Tasmania). Even with competent management a Tasmanian will never work. Even if all 500k lived in one centre and the state could be treated as a signle market there is no economy. The secondary and tertiary sponsors which are the lifeblood of a club simply do not have a reason to invest. None of their cutomers or suppliers make any decisions of note in the state, there os no need to spend money on corporate hospitality as there are no contracts to win and nobody worth sucking up to. Along with lower wages, lower participation rates and lower levels of independent incomes, there is nothing for the AFL to gain and no chance of a club being self-sustaining.

The only way the AFL will squeeze another team in would be to merge Vic clubs but that means supporter base loss (read revenue) and even if they did this is it is not OK for those teams! - you can't just throw out 100 plus years of history (even though they have already with Fitzroy and South Melbourne). I could imagine the reaction If I was to suggest we merge West Coast / Freo or Port & Adelaide................ "Oh nooo you did not just say that" and fair enough. The league is stuck with the teams it has unless we have a complete overhaul, I don't know the answer but for example we have all the current non Vic teams as a starting base, re-instate the VFL as it was as a feeder league and create new teams from Vic and Tassie. This way we could fit in an even number of teams in each state for say 12 teams, no more byes, no more "travel disadvantages", a truly national comp and there is enough talent pool in this country to support it (as the talent base for 18 teams in supportable). Point is that the way the V/AFL is structured right now we cannot fit in another team - sadly for Tassie.

Hard to see Tassie embracing a poor melbourne club bribed to relocate. Would be great to see the U18 state strip running around in the AFL!

Surely WA will get another team...they are not spending $1B for just the dockers & eagles. I think everyone generally excepts that WA could easily support another team and will eventually get another team. The big question is what other team will join then as the AFL has no interest in having a bye each week. Hopefully its Tassie!! Either way its still at least 10yrs away. By then at least the Suns will be standing on their own two feet.

What would it take to get one Vic team to relocate to Tassie? I know that this is very hard for the fans and everyone involved but if the incentives were big enough and if some of the financial support they receive were removed it could happen quite quickly if the powers that be wanted it to happen.

Its because GWS and GC has more potential for growth in these markets. It just so happens that they are rugby regions but that wasn't why the AFL went there.

I agree 13th but the problem is that the AFL values revenue above everything. I get it, it's a business but there is more than enough money to go around for a team in Tassie. They spends tens of millions propping up some Vic clubs and expanding into the GC and GWS markets which I support but not when Tassie keeps getting the cold shoulder.

I agree that attendance revenue is the reason that two Vic teams don't play in Tassie more often. I don't believe it's a conspiracy against the WA teams. That doesn't make it right though. It means that the AFL values revenue more than it does an even competition and player welfare and that sums it up in nutshell.

Is it different because every minute spent waiting around is a minute that could be spent on something more productive. That gives the other team an advantage and there is no getting around that point, it's a fact. Sitting in a car can't be compared to sitting in a pressurised cabin with its dehydrating, hypoxia, circadian rhythm disruptions and muscle lethargy effects. Read what the science above says and then compound the travel as it all adds up. As Moose said, that's one reason that only one player has played 300 games from the West. We have only discussed the physiological effects. What about the physcoligal effects of travelling every fortnight, time away from family, friends and missing out on special events. That the life of a professional athlete and these things effect all players at times but the WA teams do have a much tougher gig than any other team in the country. I don't know how anyone can deny that?

Why didn't WC play North at Etihad last week and let Sydney fly down to Tassie this weekend instead? That seems to be a lot fairer on all parties. The flight from Melb to Hobart might only takes 1h 45m incl take-off and landing (I checked). Add another 40m for transfer times and waiting and we have added close 2.5h to the trip. Door to door is an 8 hour journey. What did North do with the extra 5 hours that they had last week? WC played North off. 6 day break and they play the Bombers with another 6 day break after that trip today. I'm not whingening or looking for excuses but I would like to see the draw improved. I don't expect it to be perfect as the interstate teams will always travel more but the WA teams in particular should not be required to play in Tassie every single year as they have been.

The AFL is not interested at this stage if giving the Tasmanian people their own team. They will be behind closed doors hoping the Hawthorn and North Melbourne arrangements continue for a while yet. Because whilst it doesn't entirely stop the noise from Tasmania for their own team, they would feel it somewhat satisfies Tasmanian people. They have spoken about population and all the other reasons as to why they have elected nit to give Tasmania their own team at the time. But there can be little doubt the primary reason was because the AFL was anxious to increase their presence in NSW ans QLD, wanting to own those markets as well. Because of the huge investments they have made any hope of a Tasmanian team is probably at least a decade off.

rugby states can be easily interchanged with where the population is now and where the population will be in 20 years, had Tassie and Darwin been much more populous then it would have been those and the challenge far easier.

Yep I like that too, trouble is that you know, I know, everyone knows that the AFL put GC and West Sydney 1st coz they want a foothold in Rugby states.