Tasmania

[Fred]

It looks almost a certainty that Tassie will get a team - sooner rather than later, too.

Questions for me are :

1. Will Tassie start a new team or will it be a relocation. If the later, surely North Melbourne would have to be that team. Can’t see Hawthorn going and North have struggled for years financially and now on the field. If they do go, I hope the do it properly and not do some hybrid mix of playing only most of their games there.

2. Launceston or Hobart? I would hate to see them spilt between the two but I think you’ll see a few games played at Launceston with Hobart the base.

3. The bye is frowned upon. There will be another team and if not straight away - soon. Do they put another team in Adelaide ? Or do they put one in Canberra, doing away with this whole Giants playing there thing - which would be a bonus. I think another team in Canberra would be the go but Adelaide does need another team I feel. I think Sydney does too but Canberra could be the solution.

[Quolls2019]

It looks almost a certainty that Tassie will get a team - sooner rather than later, too.

Questions for me are :

1. Will Tassie start a new team or will it be a relocation. If the later, surely North Melbourne would have to be that team. Can’t see Hawthorn going and North have struggled for years financially and now on the field. If they do go, I hope the do it properly and not do some hybrid mix of playing only most of their games there.

2. Launceston or Hobart? I would hate to see them spilt between the two but I think you’ll see a few games played at Launceston with Hobart the base.

3. The bye is frowned upon. There will be another team and if not straight away - soon. Do they put another team in Adelaide ? Or do they put one in Canberra, doing away with this whole Giants playing there thing - which would be a bonus. I think another team in Canberra would be the go but Adelaide does need another team I feel. I think Sydney does too but Canberra could be the solution.

1. Doubt it will be a relocation. I think the time for a melbourne club going interstate is well passed, they all seem to be in reasonable financial condition and the only reason a team would move consider moving if it was on its death bed. GWS is a remote possibility for relocation, but not to Tas.

2. 5 games in each, 1 game in a redeveloped “country” ground. Or take it turns for 6 and 5 or buy 1 game a year and have six each, 1 year North, next year Hawthorn at their “home” grounds.

3. Canberra would be a good choice, seems to have maintained interest, however 3 professional football teams in the one town may be a bit of an ask….another in NSW, SA or WA…my preference would be Northern Australia, based in Darwin with 1 game each in Alice Springs, Townsville, Cairns and Mackay with an occasional one in Rocky.


I still have a preference for 22 sides, 22 rounds, each club plays each other once with one rivalry game each year.
Can be self funded without diluting the talent pool, and make a profit for the AFL.

[Terry]

Tasmania is a nothing market. It has a small population who are rusted on fumble followers. A team there will add nothing. No money. No new following. No nothing. Thanks in advance!!

[Fred]

Tasmania is a nothing market. It has a small population who are rusted on fumble followers. A team there will add nothing. No money. No new following. No nothing. Thanks in advance!!

I think it rights a wrong. Plus adds more game for tv once 20th team comes

[Quolls2019]

A longer season could have some financial benefit but could cause other issues.

[Quolls2019]

Tasmania is a nothing market. It has a small population who are rusted on fumble followers. A team there will add nothing. No money. No new following. No nothing. Thanks in advance!!

I think it rights a wrong. Plus adds more game for tv once 20th team comes

True that there will be no financial advantage until a 20th side comes in.
And that should happen as soon as possible.

[leeroy*NRL*]

the idea of 22 sides 22 games and 1 rival round. all playing each other once is a good idea.

an uneven balance is not the way forward.

[leeroy*NRL*]

decision to be made before end of AUGUST if TASMANIA is added to league.

new stadium to be based on NQ stadium in QLD at about $250mill cheaper to building costs.

[TLPG]

The rumour is that the AFL is investigating North Melbourne, and if it turns out that the AFL thinks they are a basket case - down to Tasmania they will go. As far as where they play goes, they can divide the home games between York Park and Bellerive. As it is an odd number of home games (11) I think the extra one should be in Launceston because it has the bigger capacity. My preference would be to play one on the North Coast (Burnie to be exact) but it would need an upgrade in capacity and it would need lights to AFL standard as well.

[WookieReturns]

The rumour is that the AFL is investigating North Melbourne, and if it turns out that the AFL thinks they are a basket case - down to Tasmania they will go. As far as where they play goes, they can divide the home games between York Park and Bellerive. As it is an odd number of home games (11) I think the extra one should be in Launceston because it has the bigger capacity. My preference would be to play one on the North Coast (Burnie to be exact) but it would need an upgrade in capacity and it would need lights to AFL standard as well.

The AFL cant force a team to relocate. Only its members can.

[TLPG]

That's not what happened to South Melbourne. The members had no say in it. Club exec said yes.

And the AFL can also take the license off North and either give it back to them on the proviso they move to Tassie, or tell them to nick off and give Tassie the license anyway - with the ability to have first crack at the North Melbourne playing list.

[WookieReturns]

That's not what happened to South Melbourne. The members had no say in it. Club exec said yes.

And the AFL can also take the license off North and either give it back to them on the proviso they move to Tassie, or tell them to nick off and give Tassie the license anyway - with the ability to have first crack at the North Melbourne playing list.

The board said yes after the players went on strike and the VFL would only fixture their games in Sydney. It was a weird time.

The league cant unilateraly take a license away without cause - and it needs the support of 2/3rds the clubs to do so - and no club wants that precendent when there are 4 or 5 other clubs in the same boat financially. While certain funding is guaranteed under the franchise agreements, the league could make the additional funding the club currently recieves conditional on a move, but even then the members wont go for it I think.

[Quolls2019]

That's not what happened to South Melbourne. The members had no say in it. Club exec said yes.

And the AFL can also take the license off North and either give it back to them on the proviso they move to Tassie, or tell them to nick off and give Tassie the license anyway - with the ability to have first crack at the North Melbourne playing list.

The board said yes after the players went on strike and the VFL would only fixture their games in Sydney. It was a weird time.

The league cant unilateraly take a license away without cause - and it needs the support of 2/3rds the clubs to do so - and no club wants that precendent when there are 4 or 5 other clubs in the same boat financially. While certain funding is guaranteed under the franchise agreements, the league could make the additional funding the club currently recieves conditional on a move, but even then the members wont go for it I think.

North is financially viable, hasn't had a couple of great years, but if that is the criteria for moving clubs…well every other club, over the years would have to move too.
Is not going to happen.
End game for the AFL is 22 teams with some major cost effective changes to get there, and will make some serious profit when it happens.

[TLPG]

That's not what happened to South Melbourne. The members had no say in it. Club exec said yes.

And the AFL can also take the license off North and either give it back to them on the proviso they move to Tassie, or tell them to nick off and give Tassie the license anyway - with the ability to have first crack at the North Melbourne playing list.

The board said yes after the players went on strike and the VFL would only fixture their games in Sydney. It was a weird time.

The league cant unilateraly take a license away without cause - and it needs the support of 2/3rds the clubs to do so - and no club wants that precendent when there are 4 or 5 other clubs in the same boat financially. While certain funding is guaranteed under the franchise agreements, the league could make the additional funding the club currently recieves conditional on a move, but even then the members wont go for it I think.

I think they'll find cause if they want to, and I suspect they will. It won't be in the finances. It will be in list management.

Here's what I think will happen, if the AFL finds that cause that is (and yes that's not a guarantee);

Tell North Melbourne that they have to go to Tasmania but they can stay in Melbourne if;
a) They accept a priority draft pick and;
b) They trade both that pick and the original first pick for experienced players (that's what they need right now)

Now there is a pretty good chance they will do that - but suppose they refuse thinking rebuilding with young players is the way to go? Uh uh - it's not when they don't have experience to carry the load. The competition is all about balance, and North is threatening that right now unless they get their house in order. No coach can fill that gap - not even Clarkson.

[Quolls2019]

That's not what happened to South Melbourne. The members had no say in it. Club exec said yes.

And the AFL can also take the license off North and either give it back to them on the proviso they move to Tassie, or tell them to nick off and give Tassie the license anyway - with the ability to have first crack at the North Melbourne playing list.

The board said yes after the players went on strike and the VFL would only fixture their games in Sydney. It was a weird time.

The league cant unilateraly take a license away without cause - and it needs the support of 2/3rds the clubs to do so - and no club wants that precendent when there are 4 or 5 other clubs in the same boat financially. While certain funding is guaranteed under the franchise agreements, the league could make the additional funding the club currently recieves conditional on a move, but even then the members wont go for it I think.

I think they'll find cause if they want to, and I suspect they will. It won't be in the finances. It will be in list management.

Here's what I think will happen, if the AFL finds that cause that is (and yes that's not a guarantee);

Tell North Melbourne that they have to go to Tasmania but they can stay in Melbourne if;
a) They accept a priority draft pick and;
b) They trade both that pick and the original first pick for experienced players (that's what they need right now)

Now there is a pretty good chance they will do that - but suppose they refuse thinking rebuilding with young players is the way to go? Uh uh - it's not when they don't have experience to carry the load. The competition is all about balance, and North is threatening that right now unless they get their house in order. No coach can fill that gap - not even Clarkson.

Will not happen, North are financially ok, and on the field they are doing as well as west coast, lets move them?
North made a few mistakes over the last few years, retiring harvey was a major one. Continuing to play home games in Tassy When the locals lost interest was another.
I doubt any Victorian side will be located for a long time if ever.
And, importantly how does the AFL gain by moving a Victorian side to a state that has quite clearly said they will not accept a relocated side?
Big question is where will the 20th side come from?