AFL TV rights

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-announces-new-tv-broadcast-deal-with-fox-sports-and-seven/story-e6frf33l-1227488759820

Pretty much the same as is now

Apart from a huge imcrease in revenue.

A day after the announcement that the AFL is about to receive 2.5 billion dollars, Gil states that Tasmania is too poor to have an AFL team.

I still do not for the life of me understand why it's okay to pump countless dollars into GWS & GC, and not do the same for a footy heartland like Tasmania.

I know I know, it's all about return on investment and I guess Tasmania isn't a growth market - but FFS, instead of continually propping up team number 7 & 8 in Victoria, how about punt one and give Tasmania what it deserves, even if you do have to contribute to it's running costs.

It's a bloody disgrace IMO.

Gingernuts wrote:A day after the announcement that the AFL is about to receive 2.5 billion dollars, Gil states that Tasmania is too poor to have an AFL team.

I still do not for the life of me understand why it's okay to pump countless dollars into GWS & GC, and not do the same for a footy heartland like Tasmania.

I know I know, it's all about return on investment and I guess Tasmania isn't a growth market - but FFS, instead of continually propping up team number 7 & 8 in Victoria, how about punt one and give Tasmania what it deserves, even if you do have to contribute to it's running costs.

It's a bloody disgrace IMO.

I agree with you & i'll bet the AFL would have a team based in New Zealand, South Africa or Japan before even considering Tassie.......still not quite a national competition without Tasmania & for that matter the two territories as well

If the AFL(VFL) want an International competition with teams in South Africa, New Zealand, Japan, Holland, Canada, etc.etc then they will have one, bugger what Australia wants and that includes Tasmania.

Couldn't agree more Gingernuts. GWS pull less than 10,000 a game at home, Tasmania would be giving you twice that many yet "the sums don't add up"? You have a very strong and traditional football culture there, which you will never ever have in western Sydney, no matter how many tens of millions of dollars you blow on it.

Yeah I would like Gillon to explain exactly why the dollars don't stack up. Is it more to do with how much they could raise from sponsors / corporate interests etc in a market drawn from less population?

Even so, the AFL will be contributing to GWS and GC for decades like they have with Sydney over the journey.

Having him explain how they are different situations in terms of financial model would be interesting.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Yeah I would like Gillon to explain exactly why the dollars don't stack up. Is it more to do with how much they could raise from sponsors / corporate interests etc in a market drawn from less population?

Reading the article, I think this was what it was all about - but how is that any different to having 8 teams competing for the dollars in Melbourne?

I personally think Gillon's argument is completely flawed. I think sponsoring a Tasmanian side would be very attractive to plenty of large corporates.

The AFL is more than a business. They are (whether we like it or not) custodians of the game and also have a responsibility to ensure it's health and wellbeing in all parts of the country, not just the bits with the most shiny stuff.

Gingernuts wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Yeah I would like Gillon to explain exactly why the dollars don't stack up. Is it more to do with how much they could raise from sponsors / corporate interests etc in a market drawn from less population?

Reading the article, I think this was what it was all about - but how is that any different to having 8 teams competing for the dollars in Melbourne?

I personally think Gillon's argument is completely flawed. I think sponsoring a Tasmanian side would be very attractive to plenty of large corporates.

The AFL is more than a business. They are (whether we like it or not) custodians of the game and also have a responsibility to ensure it's health and wellbeing in all parts of the country, not just the bits with the most shiny stuff.

I agree. One of Gillon's arguments was that the Tasmanian population of 500,000 could not support an AFL team and Gold Coast and Western Sydney had bigger catchment areas. Which totally ignores the fact that most of the "catchment" follow rugby and the expat Victorians living in retirement on the Gold Coast will support their old teams.
If he put the money the AFL is spending on the two newcomers into a Tasmanian team it would succeed.

Given that the AFL also supports the less profitable Melbourne teams like ST Kilda, Bulldogs etc each year to th tune of several million, his excuse of not generating enough supporters or sponsors seem a bit weak.

Hence the need for a more thorough financial justification.