North do as many camps and clinics as Hawthorn. People who say second and third teams are kidding themselves, may as well barrack for all of them. I’m not suggesting if you don’t support either side that you can’t go. I’m saying Hawthorn have attracted members here purely because they’ve been successful, got very little to do with “what they’ve been doing over the past decade”.
Attendance numbers- any facts to back that up or pure speculation? Sounds like a garbage claim to me.
Maybe the attendance numbers have dropped for all games in Tasmania because the novelty has worn off.
I also seem to remember AFL in Hobart in the 90’s…
Needless to say, It’s not a pissing contest. The current model is unviable as neither side would be financially successful based solely here. In the meantime, both sides will continue to be Govt funded and give the appearance of caring while people like you and I spend either 3, 4, or 7 weekends a footy season watching AFL in Tasmania.
Of the 10 games in Launceston with the lowest attendance (none have been below 10000), only one game (Sirengate 2005) has been earlier than 2013, and all have either had Brisbane, Gold Coast, GWS or Fremantle as the away team. Only 2 games since 2012 have drawn more than 17000 (Hawthorn vs Carlton and Hawthorn vs St.Kilda in 2016).
This is the 4th year where Bellerive has had a 3rd game on the schedule, last year being the lowest average with the 2 lowest crowds they’ve attracted (against GWS which only saw 8700 turn up and Adelaide). Their 2 highest crowds were against Richmond (one of which was a puzzlingly scheduled Friday Night game where it was ridiculously cold by Hobart standards), the game last week was higher than any of the 3 games played there last year in terms of attendance.
For the context of history the 4 games played in the early 90’s at North Hobart (not counting the three Origin games between Tasmania and what was a second string Victorian side) didn’t attract a crowd of more than 14000, but having seen North Hobart myself I can’t believe they could squeeze many more in. Fitzroy played in all of them, got pantsed in both 1991 games (Hawthorn nearly broke the record in one game, Plugger kicked 8 for the Saints in the other) but proved their upset win over the Eagles to close the 1991 season in Melbourne was no fluke by beating them again in 1992 (Doc Wheildon kicked 6, probably all out of his backside which was normal for him) and narrowly lost to Essendon in the other.
This is what I would do if I were the AFL
Move North Melbourne to Tasmania where they will play 8 of their home games in Hobart. 3 Games will then be played at Etihad Stadium to keep their Victorian supporters somewhat happy. One of those games will be their Good Friday clash.
Hawthorn would still play 5 games in Launceston. One of those games would be against North Melbourne every year. Similar to the derbies in the other states. To be renamed simply Kangaroos to begin with hopefully within time to be renamed Hobart Kangaroos.
St Kilda to move to Canberra, permanently. Playing all 11 home games at Manuka Oval. GWS and Canberra to part ways and funding to go in to supporting St Kilda. To be renamed Canberra Saints.
I would also move the Western Bulldogs to Ballarat on a more permanent basis. With 4-6 games to be played their instead of the 1 or 2 currently being played.
Geelong would also play all their home games in Geelong. There is no reason why they should be traveling into Melbourne to play at the MCG or Etihad for home games. They should only be going into Melbourne for away games.
This would then create 10 interstate teams and only 8 Victorian ones. 6 of which to be permanently based in Melbourne. With Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn based at the MCG. Carlton, Essendon and Melbourne based at Etihad.
I’m Tasmanian and attend all the AFL games, so I don’t need the history lesson. But these facts do indeed point out the numbers have dropped off (which was my point). Yes, the Friday night game was close to the most ridiculous piece of scheduling I’ve seen (don’t get me started on scheduling, AFL are generally inept at it).
I’m sure North would love to play 8 games a year in front of 9-12k. I have no idea why you would relocate the original MCG tenant to the Docklands either.
To relocate all these sides the AFL would be spending much more to keep these sides afloat.
Considering the debts they currently have you would expect that they would be cleared with the move.
I understand and agree with your point. But with exposure in Tasmania they could turn around the game in Tasmania and build a supporter base their too. Who knows they might end up selling out games.
I am not sure about each agreement of the MCG or Docklands. It was an example. 3 at the MCG 3 at Etihad.
Tassie doesn’t want a bar of Norf. Therein lies the problem.
Really? Why do they play 5 games a year there then?
Norf play 3 a year. Its about the $$$$$, the games are bankrolled by the Tas Gov. I’ve been to every game at Bellerive, only games they have a supporter majority would be the Giants and maybe Port. Crows/Eagles/Swans would be close to 50/50.
Carl/Rich/Melb/Stk would all have the majority of ground support.
As with home grounds the AFL have that so flawed. In a previous post someone mentioned, it could have been you, that Richmond play all home games at the MCG. Well that is wrong. Port Adelaide have played Richmond at Etihad in the past and Brisbane did last year. With, I believe, Bulldogs playing a Melbourne side at the MCG as a home game. There is serious flaws about who plays where that must be sorted out. To make the game fair. If Collingwood are playing say Essendon and Essendon’s home game is Etihad it should be played at Etihad.
So you mean the general public don’t want a bar? How can you expect them to have a bar of them when they only play 3 games a year against nobody sides, generally. If they set up a local base. Promoted the brand to schools etc. the attitude would definitely change. Can’t expect them to come in for 3 weeks and straight away have a supporter base.
I’m sure a lot of us were predicting North to get the wooden spoon this season. How they’ve proved us wrong!
West Coast at the top of the ladder is also a surprise for me.
Just realised that next Friday night’s game involves Carlton and the Western Bulldogs, who are 17th and 16th in the table respectively. Still unsure why the AFL gave Carlton so many Friday night games this year.
Either them or Gold Coast who are also proving to be surprisingly resilient without a home (and will be for another 6 weeks).
There was something I really liked about the Gold Coast this year and I just think they could do quite well by the end of this season. I actually predicted them to make the 8. You do have to feel for them though. Only playing 3 times in QLD up until round 9 and having to travel to WA, SA, Victoria, China and Ballarat - what a hard start to the year. If they can win some of their games against the Bulldogs, Melbourne and Port Adelaide who knows what they could be capable of once they start playing at home.
Thought this was a more appropriate thread
I take it this Brisbane rating was for yesterday’s ‘Q Clash’?
That’s such a shame to see 
It was arguably the best game of the round so far (bar the STK vs. GWS draw).
Yes, it was on 7mate and yes Sunday twilight therefore was a bad timeslot. But still not good.
The AFL spent the 1990s building and promoting the game in Sydney and Brisbane, saw success during the 2000s with Swans and Lions, local games were always on main channel and ratings often went above 100k, even higher for important games and certainly finals.
Seven have given NSW/QLD the finger since 2012, with the 7mate situation. Yes, commercial decision seeing multi-channels are now available. But it’s just such a shame.
Its just going to take time. The QLD teams need somr success.
Issue is they had it, even more than the Swans, but then lost it by mid-2000s.
While Swans have been strong since mid-90s to date, with an off year here and there.
When was the last time they missed finals?
The Swans missed finals in 2009.