Supporting Tasmania or otherwise changing your loyalties

[KTigers]

Unfortunately grassroots footy in Tassie has taken a bath since the halycon days of the 60s and 70s. Get this... the TFL GF in
1972 I think at North Hobart Oval had a crowd of around 23,000. The population of Hobart at the time was 140,000.
Do the maths. In comparison to that, the MCG tomorrow night will be close to empty. The town we lived in had a population
of around 800. When the local team played down the hill from our house there were more than 2,000 people there to watch.
As a youngun I made a kid's fortune collecting up their discarded Coke and Fanta bottles and taking them back to the kiosk
for the refund money every second week.
These days on a local level footy there is a shambles in comparison. But I think the locals will return once they get their own
team up and running. I'm not even sure they need a new stadium. I reckon, as Sprite says above, they just want something
that is "theirs". I mean, we're the same. We all think the Swans are kinda "ours". This forum wouldn't exist if we didn't think
that way. Hopefully the stadium thing can get sorted. The AFL's arrogant attitude of demanding this and that has gone down
like a ton of bricks. The non footy people in Tassy pay taxes too. They are entitled to their opinion and have made some
valid points. Hopefully everyone down there and at AFL House can calm down. We'll see I guess.

[Bloods05]

Unfortunately grassroots footy in Tassie has taken a bath since the halycon days of the 60s and 70s. Get this... the TFL GF in
1972 I think at North Hobart Oval had a crowd of around 23,000. The population of Hobart at the time was 140,000.
Do the maths. In comparison to that, the MCG tomorrow night will be close to empty. The town we lived in had a population
of around 800. When the local team played down the hill from our house there were more than 2,000 people there to watch.
As a youngun I made a kid's fortune collecting up their discarded Coke and Fanta bottles and taking them back to the kiosk
for the refund money every second week.
These days on a local level footy there is a shambles in comparison. But I think the locals will return once they get their own
team up and running. I'm not even sure they need a new stadium. I reckon, as Sprite says above, they just want something
that is "theirs". I mean, we're the same. We all think the Swans are kinda "ours". This forum wouldn't exist if we didn't think
that way. Hopefully the stadium thing can get sorted. The AFL's arrogant attitude of demanding this and that has gone down
like a ton of bricks. The non footy people in Tassy pay taxes too. They are entitled to their opinion and have made some
valid points. Hopefully everyone down there and at AFL House can calm down. We'll see I guess.

What I find extraordinary about the AFL's _demand_ for a stadium is that both state and federal governments are prepared to cover by far the majority of the cost. The AFL is one of the wealthiest organisations in the country but governments aren't demanding it use its own money on what is at least arguably a questionable requirement for a new local team.

[barry]

You are overstating the generational component of a Tassie team. The viability of a team can't wait 20 years for kids to grow into it. It needs to be up and running with 30,000 members within a year or two (30,000 being the lowest current membership base in the AFL). So it needs 30,000 Tasmanian to switch allegence from their existing AFL team.

The Tassie team business case clearly spells this conversion out as a requirement and assumption.
Tassie has one of the highest AFL aligned population with 79% being AFL followers. Out of 500,000 population thats only 100,000 people not already aligned. They would all be people who just don't like sport in general, so converting them from no-interest, through to some-interest, through to members would be near impossible. The business case clearly targets the other 400,000 of which even less are within easy access to the stadium.

If Tassie can't get at least a GWS or GC level of membership from existing AFL fans, which is still not really a viable level, then the project is doomed.

[KTigers]

What I find extraordinary about the AFL's _demand_ for a stadium is that both state and federal governments are prepared to cover by far the majority of the cost. The AFL is one of the wealthiest organisations in the country but governments aren't demanding it use its own money on what is at least arguably a questionable requirement for a new local team.

Interesting. I'm not convinced the AFL is one of the wealthiest organisations in the country. Their revenue numbers are big, but really it's
what is left at the end of the day that is available for what is essentially capital works spending. The tell-tale was during Covid when
they had to borrow $400M against Marvel to get thru it. They didn't have the money. The Hobart stadium is meant to cost $715M and
the AFL is contributing $15M. Their contribution is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. That means $700M has
to come from somewhere. And Tassy or its government are not rich. They don't have $700M sitting in the corner gathering dust.
So it's got to taken from other areas of government spending. That's what a lot of locals there are not happy about. They want an
affordable house to live in. Stuff like that. It's not an uncommon request of people around the country these days.
If you ask me the AFL has been reading the US sports teams old playbooks on getting city and state governments to pay for their new
stadiums. But these days in the US these same governments are saying no. Because largely, like the Tas government, they don't have
the money anymore either. Half of them are broke.
The AFL's arrogant demands down in Hobart really haven't helped their cause either. They haven't read the room. They've never been
good at it. And so you have the situation that exists down there now.

[Bloods05]

Interesting. I'm not convinced the AFL is one of the wealthiest organisations in the country. Their revenue numbers are big, but really it's
what is left at the end of the day that is available for what is essentially capital works spending. The tell-tale was during Covid when
they had to borrow $400M against Marvel to get thru it. They didn't have the money. The Hobart stadium is meant to cost $715M and
the AFL is contributing $15M. Their contribution is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. That means $700M has
to come from somewhere. And Tassy or its government are not rich. They don't have $700M sitting in the corner gathering dust.
So it's got to taken from other areas of government spending. That's what a lot of locals there are not happy about. They want an
affordable house to live in. Stuff like that. It's not an uncommon request of people around the country these days.
If you ask me the AFL has been reading the US sports teams old playbooks on getting city and state governments to pay for their new
stadiums. But these days in the US these same governments are saying no. Because largely, like the Tas government, they don't have
the money anymore either. Half of them are broke.
The AFL's arrogant demands down in Hobart really haven't helped their cause either. They haven't read the room. They've never been
good at it. And so you have the situation that exists down there now.

God forbid, they might have keep pumping vast amounts of money into the Tassie team for decades to come. Sound familiar?

[barry]

God forbid, they might have keep pumping vast amounts of money into the Tassie team for decades to come. Sound familiar?

Like I said above, if all Tasmanians are like you and won't switch to the Tassie team, then they be on the drip feed for decades, and the business case is broken.

[Bloods05]

Like I said above, if all Tasmanians are like you and won't switch to the Tassie team, then they be on the drip feed for decades, and the business case is broken.

I'm never sure whether I'm being deliberately misrepresented or just plain misunderstood. But I still think you're a treasure Baz.

[KTigers]

God forbid, they might have keep pumping vast amounts of money into the Tassie team for decades to come. Sound familiar?

Currently every club receives somewhere between $10M and $25M a year from the AFL. Clubs that are financially stronger
like Collingwood and West Coast are at the lower end of the scale, and GWS, the Suns, North, St Kilda and the Dogs are
at the higher end. We are in the middle receiving around $15M a year. The expectation is that the Tassie team will receive
around $20M-$25M a year.
The money the AFL pays out mostly comes from the TV rights and sponsors. The money only comes to the AFL because
the teams play each other, so it's sort of their (the clubs) money anyway. It just passes through the AFL. The AFL decides
who gets what and it's based on need. The alternative would be if the clubs negotiated their own TV rights deals,
which in business terms would be a total mess. The way it's done now is the best way.

[Jimitron5000]

I don't think Tassie fans will to switch allegiance from their current team to the Tasmanian team. I reckon that they will support the Tassie team in every match except in the matches they play against their number one team. Plenty will buy memberships and support the team in other ways. The level of support will be strong and the stadium (whatever stadium it is) will be full and raucous every week.

[KTigers]

It probably doesn't matter who they "support". They just need to show up en masse every second week and buy plenty of
merch, beer and food while they are there. Trust me, the Swans and the SCG would love it if an extra 10,000 "uncommitted"
people showed up to home games and spent $40 each on a ticket and $25 per on food and drinks.

[barry]

I'm never sure whether I'm being deliberately misrepresented or just plain misunderstood. But I still think you're a treasure Baz.

You said "One team for life". It's in the first post in this new thread.
A Tasmanian like you who supports, say, essendon today, can never support the new Tasmanian team. Emphasis on "one" and "life".

[Bloods05]

You said "One team for life". It's in the first post in this new thread.
A Tasmanian like you who supports, say, essendon today, can never support the new Tasmanian team. Emphasis on "one" and "life".

Like I said.

[barry]

Like I said.

You got owned.

- - - Updated - - -

If you got around shouting ideological nonsense, people are going to call you out.

[Mountain Man]

If/When a Tassie team exists, presumably it will freeze out both North (Hobart) and Hawthorn (Launceston).

"One Team" and "Life" will be tested as to how many Tasmanians travel to home games in the other city - or are no games played in Launceston?

[barry]

I am torn about the Tasmanian expansion. There are quite of few, let's say, 'conservative' footy fans who don't like change and follow the 'one team for life' mantra*, and so Tassie will struggle for fans. But I know in practice, many will adopt the Tassie team, especially after a bit of success**. But it's issue is more the limited growth in population and lack of big business support.

* - I think this concept is propagated by the big vic clubs to maintain their market share,. Thereby holding back the Norf's of the world

** - If the swans and lions are example, then fans need a period of pain, followed by success before jumping on board