Richmond in Tassie?

[Panthera Tigris]

For the interest of bloggers on here, more from today's Mercury. It seems that the latest election result in Tasmania has ramifications for anyone looking at playing home games in the state



HAWTHORN'S annual $3.4 million deal with the Government is in danger.

Greens leader Nick McKim has revealed he opposes the deal as it stands.

Mr McKim, the historic first Greens minister in the new Labor-Green Government, said the Greens were happy to continue to pay Hawthorn to play in Launceston, but could not support the $1.2 million sponsorship part of the yearly $3.4 million deal.

Mr McKim also said the additional $1 million Hawthorn generated from gate receipts, signage and advertising at Aurora Stadium should be returned to the state and reinvested in community football.

"Our policy, unlike Labor and Liberal's would deliver an extra $1 million a year into grassroots footy in Tasmania," Mr McKim said.

The sponsorship component sees the Hawks with "Tasmania" branded across their jumpers and signage at all home games.

The current contract expires at the end of next season but will be renegotiated this year.

"If the matter comes to Cabinet under the model that has been agreed, and depending on what the recommendation is to Cabinet, if we don't agree with the recommendation we can absent ourselves from the Cabinet discussion and any [Cabinet] vote and then we are not bound by Cabinet decision," Mr McKim said.

If the new deal was introduced to Parliament, the Greens would then be in a position to vote against it.

"But we will continue to advocate our policy and vote our policy on the floor of the House whether or not it comes to Cabinet," Mr McKim said.

On Monday, Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett said the Government would not fund or subsidise AFL games in Hobart, and Mr McKim backed him yesterday.

AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday: "If the Tasmanian Government, or a club, wished to talk to the AFL about fixturing more games in Tasmania, be that at Aurora Stadium or at Bellerive Oval, we would be prepared to have that discussion to see what may be possible."

Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale, who has received stadium economic figures on playing games at Bellerive, would not be drawn on the Premier's comments.

"The recent discussion relating to the Richmond Football Club playing games at Bellerive is purely speculative," Mr Gale said. "However, if a realistic opportunity was presented that benefited both the Richmond Football Club and the people of Tasmania, then we would be interested in having a look at it".

AFL Tasmania chairman Dominic Baker said the state must prove it can host more than four games a season if it is to push for its own team.

"It's as simple as that ... if that's not engaging another club, then clearly Hawthorn will need to play more than four games," Mr Baker said.

 

[Baloo]

Here's a question for Bin4, would you be more willing to see RFC play 4 home games a year in Hobart for $3.4 million and a guarantee that all your other home matches are at the G ?

 

[gold1]

The blue print for Tassie.

Once again the tankers are out,here is an option that should be looked at:

Richmond plays 4 home games next year in Hobart.

One game against Hawthorn in Launceston.(away game)Perhaps the Hudson/Richo cup match.

The four home games will be against North,the doggies,the cats,the hawks(again, to create rivalry).

Richmond adult 17 members to have free flights,or ferry to these games.

The opposing teams supportors selected to play the Tigers to have an opportunity for reduced fares,and given their geographic locations should be able to get to airports,ferry terminals easily.
Both Richmond and Hawthorn receive exclusive zoning rights.Both have seconds teams in the TFL.An opportunity too good to miss IMO.

 

[Tiger74]

(1) why would the AFL give any club who is playing tourist a guaranteed zone? as I've told you previously, even the GC17 and GWS zones are only temporary, and they are permanent expansion teams. no way AFL would give this up for nothing permanent

(2) Isn't the whole point of playing games in zones without a permanent AFL presence to promote the games locally? The subsidy you propose is enormous, and would be $1m per game, for every 5,000 members who take it up

 

[gold1]

(1) why would the AFL give any club who is playing tourist a guaranteed zone? as I've told you previously, even the GC17 and GWS zones are only temporary, and they are permanent expansion teams. no way AFL would give this up for nothing permanent

(2) Isn't the whole point of playing games in zones without a permanent AFL presence to promote the games locally? The subsidy you propose is enormous, and would be $1m per game, for every 5,000 members who take it up

Tassie is an untapped market.The Afl have baulked at setting up a team there,however if their intention is to look north (gold coast,western sydney),it does make sense to foster a team at Launceston(Hawks),and a team in Hobart(Richmond),and allow some concessions.Your notion of a million dollars a game is interesting.So what!We run this club at about 30million dollars turnover a year,at less than 40000 members.The cost of subsidising Sydney and the two new teams will be huge compared to a Tassie venture.

 

[Tiger74]

Tassie is an untapped market.The Afl have baulked at setting up a team there,however if their intention is to look north (gold coast,western sydney),it does make sense to foster a team at Launceston(Hawks),and a team in Hobart(Richmond),and allow some concessions.Your notion of a million dollars a game is interesting.So what!We run this club at about 30million dollars turnover a year,at less than 40000 members.The cost of subsidising Sydney and the two new teams will be huge compared to a Tassie venture.

1) Tassie is not an untapped market, Hawthorn play 4 games a year there

2) AFL has balked to date because they don't believe Tassie has the corporate support to sustain a team, and QLD/NSW do longer term

3) Your concessions for RFC/HFC to play less games are year in Tassie than GC17 and GWS will play at home (8 versus 11) are greater than what GC17 and GWS will receive. GC/GWS get only a temporary zone

4) you think the financial subsidy is minor!! If only 5k of members attend, in travel that is $1m per game, making it a $4m per annum per team subsidy to send Victorians to watch a game you are trying to promote to local Tasmanians. And this is before the game subsidies already provided. A match subsidy is normally at least $400k these days. This makes the cost now $5.6m per team. And I'm betting the cost will be much higher than this. A 17 ticket for RFC members is $127 more than an 11 game membership. That is cheaper than one return trip to Tassie. If I get 4 for free, I'm buying one for my wife too, not so she can go to the game, but so we can have a couple of free holidays to Tassie (two trips is worth more than the whole membership).

$12m+ per annum, the AFL is better off paying for a fresh team to start from scratch than pay us to play tourist.


As I've said before, I'm in favour of playing down there, but we have to be realistic about what we will be offered, and at best it will be $500k per game (esp with the Tassie govt indicating they will not pay for this unlike the Hawk arrangement)

 

[gold1]

Tassie is very much an untapped market,given only 4 games are played there.Geelong has the same population,and plays more games there.In Tasmania,there has always been a Hobart-Launceston rivalry,a bit like Sydney-Melbourne.It makes sense to push the boundaries and have a team play in Hobart-tourist or otherwise.You talk about cost?I tried to get the current Swans membership off their website.It seems they are the only team not displaying their current membership.Could it be that it is very low?If so,who is subsidising this venture?If the tigers played in Hobart,they would get an extra 20000 members IMO.Something the AFL could not ignore.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

If Richmond (club & supporters) decide to venture into Hobart, I think the bottom line will depend on the what sort of deal they negotiate with the Tasmanian government. If the numbers are crunched and it's worthwhile then it should be all sytems go.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Greater Hobart population consists of 212019 residents, whereas Greater Launceston consists of 141434 residents.

The goverment's deal and the future development of Bellerive Oval will be the two most important factors that will decide this strategy.

 

[gold1]

If Richmond (club & supporters) decide to venture into Hobart, I think the bottom line will depend on the what sort of deal they negotiate with the Tasmanian government. If the numbers are crunched and it's worthwhile then it should be all sytems go.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Greater Hobart population consists of 212019 residents, whereas Greater Launceston consists of 141434 residents.

The goverment's deal and the future development of Bellerive Oval will be the two most important factors that will decide this strategy.

212,019 residents in Hobart.As I said 20000 members.Not a big ask.

 

[Tiger74]

Tassie is very much an untapped market,given only 4 games are played there.Geelong has the same population,and plays more games there.In Tasmania,there has always been a Hobart-Launceston rivalry,a bit like Sydney-Melbourne.It makes sense to push the boundaries and have a team play in Hobart-tourist or otherwise.You talk about cost?I tried to get the current Swans membership off their website.It seems they are the only team not displaying their current membership.Could it be that it is very low?If so,who is subsidising this venture?If the tigers played in Hobart,they would get an extra 20000 members IMO.Something the AFL could not ignore.

Sydney last I heard had around 30k members year to date

As for your idea, you are not getting it. You have the AFL subsidizing an $308 membership with $800 of free interstate travel. Sure our membership will rise, but the AFL will lose millions. Also it won't be RFC people buying the membership, but anyone who wants a free flight to Tassie. great at giving away free holidays, but not sure how it will help the AFL if most the members are anywhere but at the game.

The cost of this would make anything GC17, GWC, Sydney, and Brisbane have gotten seem insignificant

 

[gold1]

Sydney last I heard had around 30k members year to date

As for your idea, you are not getting it. You have the AFL subsidizing an $308 membership with $800 of free interstate travel. Sure our membership will rise, but the AFL will lose millions. Also it won't be RFC people buying the membership, but anyone who wants a free flight to Tassie. great at giving away free holidays, but not sure how it will help the AFL if most the members are anywhere but at the game.

The cost of this would make anything GC17, GWC, Sydney, and Brisbane have gotten seem insignificant

Easily solved.You must go to the game and walk through the gates to get the benefit.Furthermore,even if some were to rort the system,where do they sleep overnight,and eat......................a benefit to the state.Is that not what the Tassie government want?

 

[Tiger74]

Easily solved.You must go to the game and walk through the gates to get the benefit.Furthermore,even if some were to rort the system,where do they sleep overnight,and eat......................a benefit to the state.Is that not what the Tassie government want?

not so simple - if you go over and don't scan what happens? you still flew over for free.

accommodation can be as low as $100 a night, still much less than the $200 pp flight costs - also the govt WILL NOT SUBSIDIZE A HOBART TEAM. This has been reported already, and I'm not sure why the AFL care about helping the Tasmanian tourism industry

if your idea was viable, it would have been done for Sydney years ago - it makes zero economic sense for the AFL to agree to anything like this.

 

[Baloo]

If Richmond (club & supporters) decide to venture into Hobart, I think the bottom line will depend on the what sort of deal they negotiate with the Tasmanian government. If the numbers are crunched and it's worthwhile then it should be all sytems go.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Greater Hobart population consists of 212019 residents, whereas Greater Launceston consists of 141434 residents.

The goverment's deal and the future development of Bellerive Oval will be the two most important factors that will decide this strategy.

Benny has said every decision we make will be based on whether it will help as achieve our lofty goals. Benny still has my support and I reckon at the end of the day if he thinks it is beneficial to reaching our goals, then I'm all for it.

 

[premiers2011]

think about it this way... if you have a 17 game membership, that will be reduced to 15 right? does that mean these members will get a reduction in membership cost?

what about members who have a reserved seat at home games? remember that we'll only get to sit in our reserved seat for 9 games instead of 11. even if we do get 2 reciprical games, we still will not gain admittance to our reserved seat area for those games. so will we get a reduction in membership cost?

if we do get a membership price reduction, how much would that cut into the $400-$500k profit from these games? do the maths - even if you take $10 off per membership for $35,000-40,000 members, then a large chunk of the Hobart money is already gone.

and if we don't get a membership price reduction... well quite frankly the club will be ripping us off. and the last thing the club would wanna do is make its traditional supporters unhappy.

some people have suggested this is win/win. imo its lose/lose

Ah, Now I see what's stressing you so much Ian.

It's not the fact that we may lose some home ground advantage or we may not get to see the Tigers for 2 less games a year.

It's because you may lose your reserved seat for two games.

So if I'm reading this right you would rather RFC lose a chance to make an extra $400K-$500K a season rather than sit in the outer,or 4 bays across for two games a year!

I'm only guessing but I'd reckon there would be only 7000 reserved members seats so @ $10 refund we'd still clear $430K.

I reckon as alot have said on here if we can get the home games we play at Etihad moved to Hobart and make some good bucks aswell and still get reciprical rights and free entry to 2 away games at the G for the games that are moved we are definately in a win/win position.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Benny still has my support and I reckon at the end of the day if he thinks it is beneficial to reaching our goals, then I'm all for it.

Me too. I'm happy to sacrifice my reserved seats in Melbourne to get us in the black and increase our membership. Anyway if we do play there, I will certainly be reserving a seat at Bellerive whenever we play.

 

[Ian4]

Here's a question for Bin4, would you be more willing to see RFC play 4 home games a year in Hobart for $3.4 million and a guarantee that all your other home matches are at the G ?

do you even need me to answer that?

gawd how many times do i have to repeat myself on here? Baloo, sometimes there are more important things than money... and this is definitely one of those occasions.

Once again the tankers are out,here is an option that should be looked at:

Richmond plays 4 home games next year in Hobart.

One game against Hawthorn in Launceston.(away game)Perhaps the Hudson/Richo cup match.

The four home games will be against North,the doggies,the cats,the hawks(again, to create rivalry).

Richmond adult 17 members to have free flights,or ferry to these games.

The opposing teams supportors selected to play the Tigers to have an opportunity for reduced fares,and given their geographic locations should be able to get to airports,ferry terminals easily.
Both Richmond and Hawthorn receive exclusive zoning rights.Both have seconds teams in the TFL.An opportunity too good to miss IMO.

i always try my best to play the ball and not the man on PRE... but seriously gold1, you just lost any credibility with that post :rofl

Ah, Now I see what's stressing you so much Ian.

It's not the fact that we may lose some home ground advantage or we may not get to see the Tigers for 2 less games a year.

It's because you may lose your reserved seat for two games.

well quite obviously its both. as for the reserved seat, i have paid my hard earned money for a seat in M50, and it should be my right as a member to sit there for 11 home games.

and thanx for bringing up another valid point. we'd be playing these 2 home games on neutral territory

So if I'm reading this right you would rather RFC lose a chance to make an extra $400K-$500K a season rather than sit in the outer,or 4 bays across for two games a year!

that 100% correct and thats how it should be. there are some things more important than money... and that is our soul.

and besides, if benny gale was a competent administrator, he would be looking at other ways... more appropriate ways to find new revenue streams. selling home games interstate is the weak/soft/unimaginative option.

I'm only guessing but I'd reckon there would be only 7000 reserved members seats so @ $10 refund we'd still clear $430K.

you forgot the 17 game members. how many of those do we have? and $10 was a figure i plucked out to use as an example. it would be a lot more than that considering it costs $20 for GA entry. it would and should be a hell of a lot more than the $70k you plucked out and you know it...

I reckon as alot have said on here if we can get the home games we play at Etihad moved to Hobart and make some good bucks aswell and still get reciprical rights and free entry to 2 away games at the G for the games that are moved we are definately in a win/win position.

of course i disagree as there is nothing wrong with etihad stadium imo. but remember the AFL have stadium contracts in place and need to play a minimum number games at etihad and the G. what if the AFL still schedule us home games at etihad?

 

[premiers2011]

i always try my best to play the ball and not the man on PRE... but seriously gold1, you just lost any credibility with that post :rofl

[/quote]

This can't be the same guy who plays the man everytime he has a cheap potshot at our captain is it ???

 

[Ian4]

This can't be the same guy who plays the man everytime he has a cheap potshot at our captain is it ???

no mate, i'm talking in reference to other PREnders. players are fair game imo.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Watching Alistair Clarkson On The Couch tonight made me think. ;D The Hawthorn media polo has the word Tasmania under the logo.

Would we accept the word Tasmania under our logo too?

There will have to be some sort of association recognising Tasmania on our media polo too if we are to extend our hand out for the big cash payouts.

What are your thoughts?

 

[davidrodan]

Watching Alistair Clarkson On The Couch tonight made me think. ;D The Hawthorn media polo has the word Tasmania under the logo.

Would we accept the word Tasmania under our logo too?

There will have to be some sort of association recognising Tasmania on our media polo too if we are to extend our hand out for the big cash payouts.

What are your thoughts?

Don't the Dawks play games in Tassie for money and have a sponsorship with Tassie as well?

So if we played games down there we wouldn't have to add 'Tasmania' to anything