Tasmania | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Tasmania

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,140
1,119
Like I’ve said in the past. The argument that a Tasmanian AFL side isn’t economically viable is so disingenuously presented by the AFL. It infers that AFL clubs are in the main, all financially self sustaining.

But over the last decade. If it weren’t for cross subsidisation, more than half the clubs would be extinct. As in, 10 of the 18 clubs are no more “economically viable” than a Tasmanian AFL team in their own right. It’s the AFL as a collective product that has been financially sustaining, not necessarily the individual clubs. More accurately, the AFL CHOOSES to subsidise economically unviable legacy clubs (and two marketing projects on the Gold Coast and the western suburbs of Sydney) INSTEAD of a Tasmanian team. That’s their prerogative. But I wish they presented it honestly, rather than half truths and lies.

And with the revenue growth on the TV rights flattening, I think there are some fears at AFL house that they may struggle to keep funding all of these unviable clubs into perpetuity, as they do now. This is why the AFL (and Eddie) would prefer to push North Melbourne to Tasmania if they could. If they can fool some other sucker (the Tasmanian taxpayer) to fund $20mil per year. It reduces the tab on one club the AFL system is currently subsidising.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,089
11,611
Melbourne
I thought this plan sounded familiar.
Alan Bond resurrected


“……..Richmond Football Club’s incoming president, Alan Bond, last night said the Tigers would spend $12 million to play 11 games in Brisbane and 11 in Victoria from next year……..”

From memory I think he wanted us to play our home games at the ‘G and our away games in Brisbane. I think he spat the dummy and stepped down as president soon after the suggestion was knocked on the head. Thank *smile* on all counts

I thought of that too, silly proposal then, silly proposal now.

DS
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
20,501
4,875
Hey zips - can you find a date when it got to -5 deg in Hobart. This weekend is a shocker weather wise, but I think this southerly low is hitting Melb as well, we have snow on the mountain now and it may snow down to 200m tonight and I can guarantee you it won’t get to -5 in the city. It will be lucky to get to zero tbh.

Why capacity of 40k for a stadium - that won’t work - how long have the cats had a 40k seat stadium - zero years from memory.

The stadium is a ruse - Blundstone arena is fine, it is of standard to host test matches and AFL matches now, what’s changed.

The AFL have changed the goal posts, thats what’s changed.
Yeah. Interesting how the AFL thinks $150-200 mill is fine to spend on a stadium, which it is, when they are spending the money, but its $750 mill when someone else is. One rule for some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,140
1,119
Yeah. Interesting how the AFL thinks $150-200 mill is fine to spend on a stadium, which it is, when they are spending the money, but its $750 mill when someone else is. One rule for some.
Yep, $750mil (which is a moving set of goal posts that gets more expensive every article I read) for a gold plated stadium with platinum plated roof and Italian leather seats with nuclear fusion powered bum warmers. Perhaps we get sterling silver goal posts in that price tag too. Why not $3billion? Or $500 gazillion while we’re at it? It’s only money, can just print more of it. A stadium that would have been in the realms of only the grotesque excesses of the sheik ruled oil states just a few years ago. That’s now absurdly seen as the minimum standard spectators are entitled to, to watch a bunch of blokes chase around some cow skin.

I totally understand that Bellerive was a mistake that has had good money after bad poured into it. But how did we suddenly jump from adequate functionality of Metricon Stadium, Giants Stadium or Kardinia Park, to the mind boggling excesses of this proposal?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,089
11,611
Melbourne
Yep, $750mil (which is a moving set of goal posts that gets more expensive every article I read) for a gold plated stadium with platinum plated roof and Italian leather seats with nuclear fusion powered bum warmers. Perhaps we get sterling silver goal posts in that price tag too. Why not $3billion? Or $500 gazillion while we’re at it? It’s only money, can just print more of it. A stadium that would have been in the realms of only the grotesque excesses of the sheik ruled oil states just a few years ago. That’s now absurdly seen as the minimum standard spectators are entitled to, to watch a bunch of blokes chase around some cow skin.

I totally understand that Bellerive was a mistake that has had good money after bad poured into it. But how did we suddenly jump from adequate functionality of Metricon Stadium, Giants Stadium or Kardinia Park, to the mind boggling excesses of this proposal?

Fair point, Tasmania should ask if Kardinia Park and the like will now need to be upgraded to the same standard they are asking of Tasmania.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Tiger Rob

Tiger Superstar
Jul 30, 2009
1,618
539
Hobart
Some great debate here, well done all.

A small sample size admittedly, but some facts as I see them from Hobart. I’ve 2 lads, 21 and 17. Both played footy and cricket as juniors. Wasn’t for them in the end and they moved on, but they know the games. The 21 year old and his mates are all keen footy followers. Seems that age group are fully involved as supporters and will be “eys on the telly” for a long time, state team or not.

The 17 year olds lot completely the opposite. None follow footy. Not one. They aren’t particularly interested in cricket either, but follow the Hurricanes and go to games. Why? Coz they’re ours and they are here.

Again, small sample size, and kids tend to follow what their mates like, but I think there is some relevance. That age group might be the cut off for “eyes on tv”, but by the time the ratings people cotton on to that age group, it’ll be far to late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

tora

Tiger Rookie
Dec 10, 2021
206
198
63
Just visiting Hobart from near the Gold coast stayed near Bellerive. Had a sticky beak at Blundstone std. It looked fine. Similar to Metricon in vibe. North are playing there this weekend. TV news is from Melbourne so its saturated with AFL content.1000 times more than north NSW.
Tasmania must have the next licence. Based in hobart I guess.
People here already know the game so you don't need a Clarkson coaching them. As per Sheedy at GWS. Half promoting the game in NSW. I could imagine Jack Riewoldt thriving in an assistant coach capacity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

hutstar

Tiger Superstar
Dec 17, 2002
2,321
725
Florida
Yep, $750mil (which is a moving set of goal posts that gets more expensive every article I read) for a gold plated stadium with platinum plated roof and Italian leather seats with nuclear fusion powered bum warmers. Perhaps we get sterling silver goal posts in that price tag too. Why not $3billion? Or $500 gazillion while we’re at it? It’s only money, can just print more of it. A stadium that would have been in the realms of only the grotesque excesses of the sheik ruled oil states just a few years ago. That’s now absurdly seen as the minimum standard spectators are entitled to, to watch a bunch of blokes chase around some cow skin.

I totally understand that Bellerive was a mistake that has had good money after bad poured into it. But how did we suddenly jump from adequate functionality of Metricon Stadium, Giants Stadium or Kardinia Park, to the mind boggling excesses of this proposal?
The cost of a stadium tends to reflect revenue goals. I’d love to compare the two business cases. For 200 mill you’ll get a ground with seating but not much else. If you’re trying to build a stadium for multi use, a good set of revenue generating amenities and with solid corporate and group appeal, the price goes up pretty quickly.
For a couple of hundred million you can get something like Brentfords new stadium. It’s really basic but functional , and for a small capacity, about 20k. A decent stadium for 40k+ is 700 million. That’s what Sydney’s new square ground costs, though it’s obviously smaller in area but pretty fancy. Not unusually so though. Optus was over a billion, spurs about 1.5, Allegiant over 2 and SoFi a shitload more again. It’s quoted as 5 billion but more like 3.5 for the football part. I think the real number for a good smaller stadium is around 400 million, but if you want the toys like a roof or full service parking (which is the best source of income) then add 100 mill or so.
 

hutstar

Tiger Superstar
Dec 17, 2002
2,321
725
Florida
Like I’ve said in the past. The argument that a Tasmanian AFL side isn’t economically viable is so disingenuously presented by the AFL. It infers that AFL clubs are in the main, all financially self sustaining.

But over the last decade. If it weren’t for cross subsidisation, more than half the clubs would be extinct. As in, 10 of the 18 clubs are no more “economically viable” than a Tasmanian AFL team in their own right. It’s the AFL as a collective product that has been financially sustaining, not necessarily the individual clubs. More accurately, the AFL CHOOSES to subsidise economically unviable legacy clubs (and two marketing projects on the Gold Coast and the western suburbs of Sydney) INSTEAD of a Tasmanian team. That’s their prerogative. But I wish they presented it honestly, rather than half truths and lies.

And with the revenue growth on the TV rights flattening, I think there are some fears at AFL house that they may struggle to keep funding all of these unviable clubs into perpetuity, as they do now. This is why the AFL (and Eddie) would prefer to push North Melbourne to Tasmania if they could. If they can fool some other sucker (the Tasmanian taxpayer) to fund $20mil per year. It reduces the tab on one club the AFL system is currently subsidising.
Nothing about this post makes sense. I think we’re all pretty clear that the AFL doesn’t want another chain around its neck. I think everyone is clear that the preferred option would be to have only profitable clubs in the league. Finally why is it fooling some other sucker to expect the people who want the club to pay for it? I hope the best argument for a Tassie team isn’t simply that we can afford another loss making venture because we already have too many? If Tassie join, and I hope they do, then it needs to replace an existing burden with something more financially viable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
41,640
13,719
Tasmania deserve a team. If this is to be a National competition then all the traditional states deserve a team. Territories as well, NT and ACT are/were traditional Aussie Rules heartlands.

Does that mean weaker Vic based clubs need to relocate or cease to exist? Probably. Is it a shame? Yeah. Will people scream and yell and throw fits? Yeah.

In one generation the angst will be over and we'll remember them like University. Victoria has too many sides for a national comp.

The only concern I have about a Tassie team is the possibility of Jack becoming a Tassie Maps identity more than a Tigers one. Richo less so as he has the Bull Richardson connection as well. But it's a small price to pay for giving Tasmania what they truly deserve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
4,101
3,744
Tasmania deserve a team. If this is to be a National competition then all the traditional states deserve a team. Territories as well, NT and ACT are/were traditional Aussie Rules heartlands.

Does that mean weaker Vic based clubs need to relocate or cease to exist? Probably. Is it a shame? Yeah. Will people scream and yell and throw fits? Yeah.

In one generation the angst will be over and we'll remember them like University. Victoria has too many sides for a national comp.

The only concern I have about a Tassie team is the possibility of Jack becoming a Tassie Maps identity more than a Tigers one. Richo less so as he has the Bull Richardson connection as well. But it's a small price to pay for giving Tasmania what they truly deserve.

I couldn't stomach Jack playing for another team.

But if he wanted to play full forward and captain a Tassie team for a year, I'd probably end up a paid up member.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
41,640
13,719
I couldn't stomach Jack playing for another team.

But if he wanted to play full forward and captain a Tassie team for a year, I'd probably end up a paid up member.

I think Jack will be retired by the time a Tassie Team launches. But I can see him playing a significant and public facing role at the club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,140
1,119
The cost of a stadium tends to reflect revenue goals. I’d love to compare the two business cases. For 200 mill you’ll get a ground with seating but not much else. If you’re trying to build a stadium for multi use, a good set of revenue generating amenities and with solid corporate and group appeal, the price goes up pretty quickly.
For a couple of hundred million you can get something like Brentfords new stadium. It’s really basic but functional , and for a small capacity, about 20k. A decent stadium for 40k+ is 700 million. That’s what Sydney’s new square ground costs, though it’s obviously smaller in area but pretty fancy. Not unusually so though. Optus was over a billion, spurs about 1.5, Allegiant over 2 and SoFi a shitload more again. It’s quoted as 5 billion but more like 3.5 for the football part. I think the real number for a good smaller stadium is around 400 million, but if you want the toys like a roof or full service parking (which is the best source of income) then add 100 mill or so.
Hopefully Giants and Suns will be asked to upgrade theirs to that same standard then, or face expulsion. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,140
1,119
Nothing about this post makes sense. I think we’re all pretty clear that the AFL doesn’t want another chain around its neck. I think everyone is clear that the preferred option would be to have only profitable clubs in the league. Finally why is it fooling some other sucker to expect the people who want the club to pay for it? I hope the best argument for a Tassie team isn’t simply that we can afford another loss making venture because we already have too many? If Tassie join, and I hope they do, then it needs to replace an existing burden with something more financially viable.
It makes perfect sense. Although admittedly you possibly misconstrue what I am trying to say. My view mirrors what Nick Reiwoldt has said previously.

The AFL makes out that football is purely a business decision. Taken individually, many of the teams in the AFL do not stack up in pure business terms anymore than a Tasmanian team, perhaps even worse for some of them. But it's all hidden by the fact that a lot of what sustains the finances of the AFL is as a collective product. So there must be a reason that they keep these legacy VFL sides all around, other than business at an individual level. And it is emotion, to do with tradition and sentimentality to create interest in the overall AFL collective product. It would be a pretty boring comp if just 8 teams (the only 8 to not receive cross subsidisation) were left. Would the AFL collective system survive in that scenario that we cut it back to just those 8 teams?

The crux of what I (and Nick Reiwoldt) am trying to say. The AFL does indeed make an emotional/sentimental decision to keep legacy VFL sides around. But does not want to make the same emotional/sentimental decision for a Tasmanian team. And I was not necessarily arguing against that. In fact, I said it's their prerogative to make that decision. Just wish they were totally honest, rather than deliberately obfuscating the conversation.

As for a response to, "Finally why is it fooling some other sucker to expect the people who want the club to pay for it?" I don't think anyone has said Tasmania shouldn't pay for a side. But what the North Melbourne pushers are saying is "you are not allowed to buy your own car, have our discarded, broken down Datsun 120Y instead, so we don't need to pay rego, insurance and maintenance on it anymore."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

The Big Richo

Tiger Rookie
Aug 19, 2010
478
809
The home of Dusty
Ultimately I think it will depend on the appetite of the broadcasters for an extra game and what an extra team or two will do to the season.

For example if an extra team meant a permanent Thursday or Monday night game then I suspect it would be very lucrative. But if going to 19 or 20 teams meant the season dropped a round or two than that might leave a big financial hole that will take a lot of filling.
 

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
31,280
7,587
Melbourne
Ultimately I think it will depend on the appetite of the broadcasters for an extra game and what an extra team or two will do to the season.

For example if an extra team meant a permanent Thursday or Monday night game then I suspect it would be very lucrative. But if going to 19 or 20 teams meant the season dropped a round or two than that might leave a big financial hole that will take a lot of filling.
One extra team doesn't mean an extra game each round. Nor does it mean a shortened season.
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
20,501
4,875
Nothing about this post makes sense. I think we’re all pretty clear that the AFL doesn’t want another chain around its neck. I think everyone is clear that the preferred option would be to have only profitable clubs in the league. Finally why is it fooling some other sucker to expect the people who want the club to pay for it? I hope the best argument for a Tassie team isn’t simply that we can afford another loss making venture because we already have too many? If Tassie join, and I hope they do, then it needs to replace an existing burden with something more financially viable.
Makes perfect sense to me. PTs key point is very clear and well made, it isn't about individual club financial viability, its about AFL profit. Get it?

Otherwise what have we got? 6 vic clubs, and even 1 or 2 of those will flounder at times, so call it 5 effectively, 1 SA, 2, only just, in WA.

(as an aside I'm reminded of Jack Dyer at the SOS rally, paraphrase, 'if we keep kicking out the bottom club we'll end up with no teams').
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
22,550
6,531
. But what the North Melbourne pushers are saying is "you are not allowed to buy your own car, have our discarded, broken down Datsun 120Y instead, so we don't need to pay rego, insurance and maintenance on it anymore."
And you should be bloody well grateful for the privilege Panther. All this bleating n moaning about being able to pick your own team, I suppose you'll be wanting to chose your own colours n theme song as well. Bloody spoilt n petulant gimme gimme attitude.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user