Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Tasmania FC thread

Decentric said:
One other theme which is arising in discussion, is that football may be the biggest participant sport, but jogging, swimming, cycling, yoga, Pilates, may be 3- 5 times more popular as participation level pastimes than team sport.
Click to expand...
You can jog anywhere, swim in the sea, cycle on the road, do yoga and pilates in your own bedroom... But soccer needs PITCHES! All the physical and mental benefits, for all ages and sexes. We need financing. Who's supporting the game?
 
HappyGuus said:
You can jog anywhere, swim in the sea, cycle on the road, do yoga and pilates in your own bedroom... But soccer needs PITCHES! All the physical and mental benefits, for all ages and sexes. We need financing. Who's supporting the game?
Click to expand...
Was about to say the same, most of those apart from swimming pools don’t require any infrastructure.
 
HappyGuus said:
You can jog anywhere, swim in the sea, cycle on the road, do yoga and pilates in your own bedroom... But soccer needs PITCHES! All the physical and mental benefits, for all ages and sexes. We need financing. Who's supporting the game?
Click to expand...
It is the AFL anti- stadium lobby in its current manifestation ( which I'm part of) pointing out that high participant sports need to be well catered for - as opposed to a low participant sport like AFL.

At the same time many of those proffering these opinions also advocate that football/soccer, league and union have no purpose built stadium. Moreover, that football is the major international game that needs a reasonable purpose built stadium, not AFL needing a more expensive stadium that isn't even suitable for cricket.
 
@Decentric your thoughts. Tassie need to fix their pyramid. They had pro/rel for a season before COVID hit and they ditched it.

That system seemed like a good enough way to get north and south linked to the NPL. Why haven't they brought that back yet? And any word on expansion? They were heading for 10 teams in NPL, but again COVID killed it.

The top teams in the north and south conferences are way too strong not to be in NPL. South East only just lost to South Hobart in the cup. They are easily NPL level. And Northern Rangers are always up there every season.
 
HappyGuus said:
@Decentric your thoughts. Tassie need to fix their pyramid. They had pro/rel for a season before COVID hit and they ditched it.

That system seemed like a good enough way to get north and south linked to the NPL. Why haven't they brought that back yet? And any word on expansion? They were heading for 10 teams in NPL, but again COVID killed it.

The top teams in the north and south conferences are way too strong not to be in NPL. South East only just lost to South Hobart in the cup. They are easily NPL level. And Northern Rangers are always up there every season.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit out of the loop to proffer an opinion, HG.

It might change as I attend more NPL games.
 
Absolutely nothing in here about a rectangular configuration, i.e. bringing the seats in. "Multi-sport" meaning aussie rules and cricket.




1761820780125.jpeg
 
None of it is confirmed yet, even whether there will be a stadium or an AFL team in Tasmania but Football Tasmania CEO Tony Pignata has confirmed discussions with the government about using a new stadium at Macquarie Point for Tasmanian football team. I'm assuming it will go ahead in some form but the dome roof is even problematic for AFL with the supports not conducive for proper grass or hybrid grass.
 
HappyGuus said:
Absolutely nothing in here about a rectangular configuration, i.e. bringing the seats in. "Multi-sport" meaning aussie rules and cricket.




View attachment 3951
Click to expand...

Likely if they were to host association football at the new Macquarie Point stadium it would be the same 'rectangular configuration' we've seen at Marvel Stadium for Matildas games in recent times, which isn't really that good for the spectators.
 
rebelliousfeminist974 said:
Likely if they were to host association football at the new Macquarie Point stadium it would be the same 'rectangular configuration' we've seen at Marvel Stadium for Matildas games in recent times, which isn't really that good for the spectators.
Click to expand...
The stadium still isn't anything like a cert.
 
HappyGuus said:
Absolutely nothing in here about a rectangular configuration, i.e. bringing the seats in. "Multi-sport" meaning aussie rules and cricket.




View attachment 3951
Click to expand...

The more I think about this the more I think the Federal government should not be involved with this at all.

Australians love sport and there is always call on the Federal Government to fund stadiums. To me I would now put a limitation of all investments in stadiums over say 12,000 capacity - whether it is oval or rectangular.

Think about it. The government is constantly asked to fund stadiums for cricket, AFL, football, rugby league and rugby union as well as for concerts and community events. Why?

If you want a new stadium or you want a change to an existing stadium then it should be funded once and for all, ideally as part of a urban revitalization project. I'm not talking ovals, I'm talking real convertible stadiums that can change from rectangular to oval or back again in a timely manner. Sure it will add costs to start with - but it will mean that there won't be multiple costly stadiums servicing multiple sports when in reality most major cities need a smallish (20,000) medium (45,000) and large (65,000) type stadium. Now it might not work on every footprint. i.e. Hindmarsh can't be expandable to an oval because the footprint won't allow it.

Secondly, if you want government federal government funding you should no longer control scheduling of the ground. i.e. you can't accept money and then lock out other sports. The money is the taxpayers, not a sporting bodies. If they want to control - they can pay for it.
 
patjennings said:
The more I think about this the more I think the Federal government should not be involved with this at all.

Australians love sport and there is always call on the Federal Government to fund stadiums. To me I would now put a limitation of all investments in stadiums over say 12,000 capacity - whether it is oval or rectangular.

Think about it. The government is constantly asked to fund stadiums for cricket, AFL, football, rugby league and rugby union as well as for concerts and community events. Why?

If you want a new stadium or you want a change to an existing stadium then it should be funded once and for all, ideally as part of a urban revitalization project. I'm not talking ovals, I'm talking real convertible stadiums that can change from rectangular to oval or back again in a timely manner. Sure it will add costs to start with - but it will mean that there won't be multiple costly stadiums servicing multiple sports when in reality most major cities need a smallish (20,000) medium (45,000) and large (65,000) type stadium. Now it might not work on every footprint. i.e. Hindmarsh can't be expandable to an oval because the footprint won't allow it.

Secondly, if you want government federal government funding you should no longer control scheduling of the ground. i.e. you can't accept money and then lock out other sports. The money is the taxpayers, not a sporting bodies. If they want to control - they can pay for it.
Click to expand...

Great points. PJ for sports minister.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top