Richmond looking at playing games in Hobart [merged]

[Infamy]

Time for North Melbourne to change from the North Melbourne Kangaroos to the Flip Flops

Bloody make up your mind, didn't you commit to your members to not play home games interstate?

[dizza]

so long as it means we play less games at that stupid Etihad Stadium, i'm for the idea. perhaps having 9 or 10 home games at the 'G with the other 1 or 2 in Tassie could work well.

[Infamy]

so long as it means we play less games at that stupid Etihad Stadium, i'm for the idea. perhaps having 9 or 10 home games at the 'G with the other 1 or 2 in Tassie could work well.

This is the agreement Hawthorn have. They play only 7 home games at the G, play 4 home games against low drawing teams in Tasmania and they play all away games against MCG tennants at the MCG. I think they may also get 4 reciprical matches at the G with their 11 game memberships.

[3rogerd]

north are in a sticky situation, dont wanna p.ss off what supporters they have left.

[mightytiges]

Yep both of them 

Seriously as Infamy said North can't make up their minds because everywhere they go it ends up a failure - Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, back to staying in Melbourne, and now they want to try Hobart. Nomad clubs don't last long-term. Just look at Fitzroy. Ironically they played a few games in Hobart in the early 90s. It didn't save them.

As for us I'd prefer we play all our home games in Melbourne. Start winning and the large crowds, tv ratings, sponsors, etc will come and hopefully with large crowds we force Andy D's hand to play more games especially our home games at the 'G. I could tolerate one home game in Hobart to replace a Docklands home game (especially the St Kilda one  ) but 4 in Hobart is too many. Our home is the 'G and Punt Road.

[cub]

1 NOT 4 No No No

[Smokey]

I could tolerate one home game in Hobart to replace a Docklands home game (especially the St Kilda one  ) but 4 in Hobart is too many. Our home is the 'G and Punt Road.

Yep, what MT said.  Become successful and the money will come without the need to go interstate.

[one-eyed]

It's time Tassie had a seat at AFL table
TIM LANE
July 18, 2010
 
HAVING lately resisted the temptation to maintain the rage on Tasmania's indefinite exclusion from the quasi-national football competition, this columnist has finally succumbed.

Perhaps it's the talk of a second Victorian club looking to feed off the island state's lush pastures?

Or perhaps it's pride in the fact that an Australian XI comprising 27 per cent Tasmanian personnel has helped beat Pakistan at Lord's?

Whichever way you look at it, a state of 2.5 per cent of the national population providing 27 per cent of the members of an elite national sports team is a significant effort. It's made even more so by the fact that cricket was once a poor relation among Tasmanian sports. It was only a courageous and far-sighted decision of the Australian Cricket Board in the mid-1970s, to give the island state a chance in the Sheffield Shield, which turned Tasmania's fortunes for the better.

It's hard to discuss the state's football case without going over some old ground. Fifty years old to be precise, for it was that long ago in June that Tasmania had its greatest day in football, beating a strong Victorian team without the benefit of state-of-origin rules.

In the manner of interstate contests of the time, this match was played on the same day as the No. 1 Victorian team played South Australia, but that's not to say the team that lost in Launceston wasn't worthy. Some of those who wore the Big V that day were Hall of Fame members Ken Fraser, Murray Weideman, Bill Goggin, and Frank Johnson; while John Birt, Verdun Howell, Hugh Mitchell, Hassa Mann, John Peck, and Bruce Comben won Brownlows, Colemans, or club best and fairests.

Were a game to be played today pitting a second AFL team against the best of those currently playing senior football in Tasmania, it would be less than a no-contest. The AFL second XVIII would win by upward of 200 points. That's a measure of how far football in Tasmania has been allowed to fall.

The cold, hard reality is football in Tasmania has been devastated by nationalisation. Still, there is no commitment beyond weasel words to it being given representation in the AFL.

Now there's a contest between some Melbourne-based clubs to play as many as four games a year in Hobart. This is not necessarily all bad for Tasmania, but it's not necessarily good either. I see something obscene in the probability that Tasmanian taxpayers will soon be underwriting the financial fortunes of two Victorian football clubs.

How long can an Australian state be expected to go on paying its dues - in terms of players and dollars - without being given full membership? The crude unfairness is manifest.

As for what it would mean if Richmond (for example) plays games in Hobart, so that the south and the north of the state provide separate, second homes for two Victorian clubs, I have mixed feelings. The notion that such an arrangement offers Tasmania the chance to show it can sustain up to eight AFL matches per year, thus strengthening its case for inclusion, has some validity. One can but hope it's not a convenient justification for the AFL and its clubs to increase their level of parasitic occupation of the island without genuine commitment to granting ultimate inclusion. The Tasmanian government and AFL Tasmania should push all parties hard on this to seek to establish their bona fides.

The fact that Richmond's CEO, Brendon Gale, is also a board member of AFL Tasmania makes for another of football's disturbing conflicts of interest. When he joined the Tasmanian board, Gale wasn't associated with Richmond. Now that he is, and the Tigers are interested in Tassie, just whose interests does he represent in any negotiation? While it is cosy to imagine that the interests of club and state will always run in parallel, this is not necessarily the case now or in the future.

My other concern at this likely new arrangement is that it plays on Tasmania's greatest weakness: its propensity for regional warfare.

To seek to establish football bases in the state's two most populous centres flies in the face of everything the state has achieved in the past decade and has the potential to set the regions further apart than ever before.

With southern Tasmania looking for its piece of the action, Richmond looking for its, and the AFL wanting to quell the discomfort of the obvious unfairness of Tasmania's circumstances, the outlook is unclear.

What is clear is the appropriateness of Paul Keating's great truism: ''In the race of life always back self-interest; you know it's always trying.''

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/its-time-tassie-had-a-seat-at-afl-table-20100717-10f8p.html

[one-eyed]

First to stay south, but Hawks now facing a fight
JON PIERIK
July 18, 2010
 

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou says the incentive of growing a supporter base, rather than financial return, is paramount when clubs consider shifting home games to Hobart.

Richmond, North Melbourne and Melbourne have been linked to playing matches at Bellerive Oval, as soon as 2012, with the Kangaroos' chairman James Brayshaw intensifying his club's interest this week.

The Tigers had led the charge, having received detailed information from Cricket Tasmania, which runs Bellerive, earlier this season. Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale has subsequently met Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett and CT chairman Tony Harrison.

While the Tigers have a $4 million debt, and shifting games south would be financially lucrative - the Hawks have a $16.4 million deal over five years to play at Launceston - Demetriou said there were other important factors to consider.

''I think all clubs, whether it's Richmond, North Melbourne or whoever, [should] see Tasmania as a great way of growing their supporter base,'' he said. ''I don't think it's about reducing debt, or just the money; it's about growing the supporter base, because you have to grow in this competition because it's becoming very, very competitive.''

Gale has flagged hopes of the Tigers one day having 75,000 members - they have 35,960 this season - so a healthy Tasmanian base would help fulfil this hope.

The Hawks, who have more than 7000 Tasmanian members, have yet to renew their deal with the government, with talks to begin soon. Demetriou said deals with Bellerive would not impact the Hawks.

''We will talk to all clubs, including Hawthorn, because Hawthorn has done a fantastic job in their commitment to four games and their commitment to football in Tasmania, and they have got a very good following,'' he said. ''We have always said that if there are to be games at Bellerive, they can't be to the detriment of Launceston.

''They have to be additional games to the four. That's a healthy thing for Tasmanian football and we are keen to see that.''

Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett hopes his club will be playing Tasmanian games in 20 or 30 years.

''We actually see our commitment being here for the long-term,'' he said. ''It's been the position of many governments on both sides of the political persuasion that Tasmania has football to the north and cricket to the south. If that were ever to change, we're happy to review where we play.

''I just simply say this though - from our perspective, this is … the best ground we play on in the league; [of] any ground in Australia, this is the best ground.''

The Kangaroos had been reluctant to publicly express interest in Hobart for fear of sparking unnecessary speculation about their financial viability. But Brayshaw, speaking on The Footy Show, confirmed the club's strong interest.

''Absolutely, every club with a chance of playing down there should look at it,'' Brayshaw said. '' don't know [how many games] and that's the issue at the moment. We don't really know what it looks like but I think there will be footy played down there in a couple of years, and it will be really exciting. It will be a great place to play footy.''

Brayshaw said the Hawks had shown how to make it a success.

''The south of Tasmania is an enormous opportunity and any club that doesn't look at that positively has got rocks in their head,'' he said.

''You only have to look at what [Hawthorn] has done in the north, it is an enormous success story. They have increased membership, increased supporter base, increased revenue of course, increased merchandise.''

The Kangaroos' membership has fallen by 4.9 per cent to 26,953 this season.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/first-to-stay-south-but-hawks-now-facing-a-fight-20100717-10f8m.html

[one-eyed]

Roos eye Bellerive but Tigers lead charge
JON PIERIK
July 19, 2010


CRICKET Tasmania says Richmond leads the battle to stage home AFL matches in Hobart from 2012, with negotiations to intensify with the Tigers in the next fortnight.

CT chairman Tony Harrison last night welcomed North Melbourne's greater interest in playing at Bellerive Oval, after the club's chairman, James Brayshaw, said the proposition was ''something we cannot pass up''.

But Harrison said the Tigers had led the charge. ''Brayshaw's comments are obviously welcomed and we are very happy to talk to them,'' he said. ''But at this point Richmond has been the most proactive. That's probably where we are at. We have got some more talks planned with Richmond people in the next couple of weeks, so we are just continuing to progress from our perspective.''

Melbourne is also still in the frame, but only one team is expected to be granted the opportunity by the AFL, the Tasmanian government and CT to play up to four games a season at Bellerive Oval.

''That's up to the AFL. I don't know what the AFL would want to do,'' Harrison said.

''But I guess, from a club's perspective, they would prefer to have only one club if you are going to drive memberships and all that.''

The Tigers are already scheduled to play one home match a season in Darwin in 2011-12. While parts of the cricket venue need upgrading, CT is confident all work would be ready in time for 2012.

Harrison said initial estimates were that the home club would pocket $250,000 a game plus revenue from sponsorship and signage rights.

Hawthorn has a $16.4-million deal over five years to play four matches a season at Aurora Stadium in Launceston.

That deal is being renegotiated, with the Hawks considering playing an extra game there each season.

So lucrative has the deal become that Hawks president Jeff Kennett hopes the club continues to play matches in Launceston for the next 20 or 30 years.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/roos-eye-bellerive-but-tigers-lead-charge-20100718-10g6s.html

[one-eyed]

Hobart a one-team town: Gale

  * BRETT STUBBS   
  * The Mercury
  * July 19, 2010 09.59am

THERE can be only one in the race for Bellerive Oval, according to Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale.

Richmond was the first team to officially announce its interest in playing home games at Bellerive, but has now been joined by North Melbourne with Melbourne also in the mix.

But Gale said Hobart could not be shared by more than one club if the Tigers or Kangaroos or Demons were to replicate the success of Hawthorn in Launceston.

"I agree with that," Gale said on Melbourne radio yesterday when asked if it was not possible for two clubs to share Hobart.

"I think to encourage clubs to invest and grow and develop they have got to be cut a bit of slack."

Gale said it was not up to the clubs to decide which would make Hobart its home away from home, and no decision would be made until Hawthorn renegotiated its deal with the AFL and the Tasmanian Government sometime this year.

"That really wouldn't be up to us, that would be up to the AFL," he said.

"They control the fixture which is a pretty important tool for the AFL and it would be up to the Government as well, I would have thought."

North Melbourne president James Brayshaw has gone on the Kangaroos website to talk up the positives of moving home games to Bellerive, especially with North's membership dropping by 1387 to 26,953 the second lowest in the AFL.

This is on top of several extremely low attendances that have seen the Kangaroos regularly losing money at home games.

Brayshaw said home games in Hobart could help grow membership, supporter-base, attendance, corporate partnerships, merchandise and "the most important area of all, revenue".

"The potential to explore a partnership with a city like Hobart, to expand in the areas I have mentioned and have the chance to make our business bigger, better and stronger is simply something we cannot pass up and I just think it's really exciting," Brayshaw said.

He said 2012 was the most likely season for the start of Bellerive home games, but also moved to allay fears it would result in a permanent relocation south.

"Hawthorn plays four games a year in Launceston and it is one of the best deals they have ever done," he said.

"Nine thousand extra members and a massive increase in its supporter base, which is very hard to achieve.

"The added corporate partnerships, sponsorships and merchandise sales have added millions to its bottom line which is also incredibly hard to do.

"It has been an unqualified success and no one ever talks about Hawthorn moving to Launceston."

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/07/19/159875_afl.html

[wayne]

The Kangaroos look like amateurs with Arocca saying that Richmond 'were all over it like a rash' and that they weren't playing games anywhere other than Victoria.

Now Brayshaw is out there looking as desperate as ever trying to get a slice of the action.

I'd like to see us get the Tassie games just so North misses out.

[Infamy]

I'd like to see us get the Tassie games just so North misses out.

I agree, get it for 3-4 years then hand it over to North as part of a relocation plan... if they can last that long

[cub]

Well March said to me last night "It is more unlikely, than likely" and "We would be crazy not to suss it out"
I made a point of it being a trade for the Etihad "Home" games and he dodged the ?

[WilliamPowell]

Well March said to me last night "It is more unlikely, than likely" and "We would be crazy not to suss it out"
I made a point of it being a trade for the Etihad "Home" games and he dodged the ?

But what else can he do/say CUB?

the AFL control things, even Benny Gale said that see below:

Gale said it was not up to the clubs to decide which would make Hobart its home away from home, and no decision would be made until Hawthorn renegotiated its deal with the AFL and the Tasmanian Government sometime this year.

"That really wouldn't be up to us, that would be up to the AFL," he said.

"They control the fixture which is a pretty important tool for the AFL and it would be up to the Government as well, I would have thought."

March can't make guarantees about things because those nuffers at AFL headquarters are likely to shaft us.

What has been confirmed through all of this is that we will be playng 2 homes games in Darwin in 2011 & 2012