The Snitch: What losing Tasmania as 19th AFL club could mean for Fremantle Dockers
I only ever vote yes in referendums despite our country's historical lean to a no.
It's just my positive nature.
Ask Mrs Snitch. I always find it hard to say 'no' to anything my dear lady requests, whether it was the peculiar mix of Penfolds Grange and Devils on Horseback at our wedding reception at El Caballo Blanco, or her insistence we ride to the chapel in a racing green Dymaxion replica.
So I have been flummoxed with with all of this pushback from Tasmanians on having an AFL team.
It's all so negative and small-town minded.
The thought of missing out on a stadium, and therefore a team, because of political squabbling and local myopia, has brought Tasmanian's finest footy players to tears this week.
Why wouldn't you want an AFL team in your State?
Yes, Tassie's greatest tourism asset lies in its diverse landscape and rich history, from Cradle Mountain to Port Arthur, but this would surely ramp it up a notch.
If I am honest, only one good thing will come from a team not landing in Van Diemen's Land and that would be the likelihood Alex Pearce would remain at Fremantle for the duration of his career.
Alex has Palawa heritage and grew up in Ulverstone on Tassie's north coast. He'll be 31 by Tasmania's intended AFL debut in 2028, but would be just the type of experienced and balanced footballer and all-round good chap the Devils would be looking for to lead their inaugural team.
The transformation of the ugly Macquarie Point Sewage Treatment Plant into a boutique stadium worth a few Tassie truffles short of $1 billion has poured new salt on to old north v south wounds in the State.
On Thursday, Tasmania's Liberal Party Premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a vote of no confidence over a looming $1 billion budget deficit and will now call a snap election.
The deficit and now the election mean the AFL team is in doubt given the league has made the new roofed stadium a condition of a 19th licence.
Media giant Eddie McGuire summed it up best when he said: 'What Tasmania doesn't need is every week to have an advertisement that they are a second-rate state. I think Tasmania deserves to be finally seen for the great state that it is.'
He's right. If they want to remain blissfully second rate, then we have to let them. It's their call.
They are busy subversives Tasmanians, just like West Aussies, after all. Remember, Tassie is an actual island. We are like one given our distance from the east.
Which brings me to my favourite Tassie story and a perfect segue out of this misery.
Back in 1982, the Commonwealth Games opened in Brisbane to great fanfare.
Matilda the giant kangaroo was the centrepiece as she circled the QEII Stadium, winked and opened her pouch to enable hundreds of kids to pour out and form a human map of Australia.
The Snitch was one of those kids – with my aptly named best mate Cliff – positioned to form the Nullarbor Plain.
It was all going splendidly until we realised there was a gaping error. We'd left Tasmania off the human map.
I recall talking to the one kid who was solely responsible for that role. He mumbled something about eating too many apples and sprinted to the nearest toilet and, you guessed it, missed the cut when we boarded Matilda.
The outrage was loud from Tasmanians. It was another slap in the face from the mainland.
Realising the gravity of his absence when he emerged from the lav to find we had all left without him, 'Tassie' leapt the fence in a futile effort to address the geographical gaffe, but sadly, we'd already broken away.
A bit like Tassie right now.
Say no to the AFL and you deserve to be permanently cut adrift, leaving you to float south where you will somewhat ironically bump into Macquarie Island before clattering into the frozen pole of Antarctica.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Harley Reid's contract demand revealed as rumours swirl
Harley Reid's future may remain in the West after his management approached the Eagles to discuss potential contract extensions beyond 2026. The 20-year-old has been linked with a move back to Victoria once his rookie contract expires, but new details on his future have emerged. FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1. Journalist Ryan Daniels reported on Triple M a number of options had been presented to the club about what a new deal could look like. One contract stipulation is reportedly a 'long-term commitment', news that would be music to the ears of the fan base. 'There's been a bit of a twist in this one because nothing has happened for quite a while and I can tell you the latest with this one is a bit of a strange one because my understanding is Harley's management have put some options to the West Coast Eagles to stay,' Daniels said on Triple M. 'One of them in particular is a very long deal, I don't know the specific number of years but it was described to me as very long as I think you could imagine would be nine or 10-year range. 'It would have to be between 15 and 20 million, and I would say we're heading closer to the 20 million … if you're talking 10 years into the future (salaries will go up in that time). 'I found this fascinating, the West Coast Eagles have had these presented to them weeks ago, and they haven't necessarily done anything with it just yet. 'I just found it fascinating that instead of the Eagles putting the offer on the table to consider all these options … we've now had a conversation 'well what about this?' 'And it's got a potential for Harley to have a look at a very long-term deal that will keep him at the West Coast Eagles and clearly there is some interest from Harley's side. 'That is a pretty significant update on that situation and I know there is going to be a meeting in the next few days between West Coast and Harley's management to discuss the specifics.' Eagles coach Andrew McQualter, speaking after the club's loss to Richmond, conceded too much was being asked of Reid, at a time where his future remains unclear after next year. 'We're aware we've got a 20-year-old carrying our midfield,' McQualter said. 'It's not an easy position for him. 'I thought Harley was by far our best player … I love the way he went about it. 'I loved his team first approach, the way he attacked the ball. He was inspirational to his teammates. 'As a team, we have to find more people and players and ways to not rely on one person. There's no AFL team ever that relies on one player to be good. 'He's absolutely in (at West Coast) – he is a competitor. He's wanting to do everything to get this club out of this position.'
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Dees earn scrutiny as bigger loser in clash of AFL's most disappointing duo
Bump language shows mindset change Whether Steven May is suspended or not, the moment was proof the mindset of the game has fundamentally changed. You change behaviours by changing language, and the May case is proof the AFL has already changed the narrative on these types of collision incidents. Instantly, the discussion centred on the velocity of May, what his plan was and the expectation of collision if and when he arrived late. It was also about the change of the duty of care, that pulling up or pulling out of a contest is OK if it means you don't concuss the other player. Previously, the reaction would have typically been that the MRO shouldn't even look at the case because both players were going for the ball and it was just an unfortunate collision. Loading That could still ultimately be what the tribunal decides, but significantly the discussion – even among veteran players – reflects the sort of change the AFL has been seeking. Now the conversation is whether what May did was fair and reasonable when his opponent, Francis Evans, came off concussed and bleeding from the head with a lost tooth. May may be cleared, like Fremantle's Alex Pearce was earlier in the season, or he might go for weeks as North Melbourne's Jackson Archer did. That is not the point. The point is the shift in the conversation. 'He was going to go and win that football', Nathan Buckley said in commentary before adding that he was not sure 'our game can allow that any more'. Jack Riewoldt offered on Fox: 'if you come in with that sort of velocity … this incident has a little bit of the Jackson Archer about it and that cost him three weeks. 'He came that fast into the contest, the collision was inevitable. Steven May has a duty of care because Francis Evans has the ball there.' David King added: 'What we had to do is look at it from the victim's point of view. What are we asking Evans to do?' Whether May's action is considered more akin to Archer or to Pearce will determine May's fate, but the bigger outcome has already been realised with the change in the language and the idea of what the game should tolerate. Time to topple Tassie roof The Tasmanian state election does not deliver a majority government, but logically it does deliver a majority of MPs who support a new football stadium. Liberal and Labor have both backed a stadium. Combined they have the numbers to now approve the stadium. Logic would say they do, though logic is rare in politics Don't waste a crisis is a truism of politics, which – if applied to Tasmania – would say that the new government, in whatever minority form it takes, has the chance to leverage its precarious political position to achieve what should have been the AFL and state government position from the outset and abandon the roof. The roof was a desirable, if expensive, luxury item the AFL added to the stadium as an ambit claim. The AFL logic was that, at the moment of their strongest bargaining position, they needed to ask for everything they wanted. The rationale was that if they didn't get what they wanted now, they would never get it. So they set a roofed stadium – not just a stadium – as a precondition. It was the sort of negotiating position Tony Soprano would've applauded. A roofed stadium would be an easier sell when recruiting players and for luring travelling fans to fly down to watch their team play against the Devils. But in making the demand, the AFL managed to turn what should have been a unifying moment for Tasmania and its football into an election issue and a flashpoint in a state that does not have to go searching for things to fight about. Infrastructure projects that come in on budget are as rare as Tasmanian tigers. The stadium will cost more than budgeted, and the federal government, which is committing every spare sports dollar it has to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, has made it clear there will be no more money for the stadium. They put a ceiling on the roof. The AFL has said it won't throw in more cash, so if and when the costs run over, the state will be left scrambling for more. A roof in a cold but relatively dry state would be an excellent addition, particularly if combined with air conditioning/heating. But that would only add to the expense. And, yes, this idea of abandoning the roof is said in the knowledge of the foul weather experienced by Hawthorn and Port Adelaide at the weekend and after personally covering a North v West Coast game at Bellerive in horrendous conditions, with a wind so strong the ball blew back over players' heads. Let's not forget, football was played in Canberra in snow. No one demanded a roofed stadium for the Giants to come into the competition. If the Libs and Labor in Tassie don't join together and push the stadium through in its current state because they hate each other or maybe the minority Greens and independents demand concessions, what happens then? Is the AFL truly going to walk away from a team this far down the track, with funding offered by governments, a CEO and football staff employed, player movement rules and concessions drafted and clubs making decisions on the trading of players and draft picks in anticipation of the team's arrival? To go ahead requires the agreement of the majority of AFL clubs. Will they really cut and run on Tassie now with no roofed stadium? The AFL has the opportunity to pivot and reposition their brand in Tasmania, which has taken a hit even among the large number of Tasmanians who support a team and stadium. Rioli's revives Bosustow memories Peter Bosustow, who died earlier in the year, kicked goal of the year in his first season for a smother then recovering the ball and snapping a goal. He played in the era of Maurice Rioli. What Maurice Rioli Jnr (MJ) did against West Coast was very like Bosustow. His diving smother to then soccer the ball to himself, gather and chip to the goal square was superb. It was all Bosustow, right to the moment he didn't just kick the goal himself but passed it. Later he produced diving rundown tackle that was just as thrillingly team-lifting. It was one of those slow-motion moments where everyone but the ball carrier could see what was about to happen next. Poor Brady Hough. MJ has taken time to find his place in the Tigers' team. He is not a big possession winner, his skills can be loose, but his speed and pressure is elite.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Dees earn scrutiny as bigger loser in clash of AFL's most disappointing duo
Bump language shows mindset change Whether Steven May is suspended or not, the moment was proof the mindset of the game has fundamentally changed. You change behaviours by changing language, and the May case is proof the AFL has already changed the narrative on these types of collision incidents. Instantly, the discussion centred on the velocity of May, what his plan was and the expectation of collision if and when he arrived late. It was also about the change of the duty of care, that pulling up or pulling out of a contest is OK if it means you don't concuss the other player. Previously, the reaction would have typically been that the MRO shouldn't even look at the case because both players were going for the ball and it was just an unfortunate collision. Loading That could still ultimately be what the tribunal decides, but significantly the discussion – even among veteran players – reflects the sort of change the AFL has been seeking. Now the conversation is whether what May did was fair and reasonable when his opponent, Francis Evans, came off concussed and bleeding from the head with a lost tooth. May may be cleared, like Fremantle's Alex Pearce was earlier in the season, or he might go for weeks as North Melbourne's Jackson Archer did. That is not the point. The point is the shift in the conversation. 'He was going to go and win that football', Nathan Buckley said in commentary before adding that he was not sure 'our game can allow that any more'. Jack Riewoldt offered on Fox: 'if you come in with that sort of velocity … this incident has a little bit of the Jackson Archer about it and that cost him three weeks. 'He came that fast into the contest, the collision was inevitable. Steven May has a duty of care because Francis Evans has the ball there.' David King added: 'What we had to do is look at it from the victim's point of view. What are we asking Evans to do?' Whether May's action is considered more akin to Archer or to Pearce will determine May's fate, but the bigger outcome has already been realised with the change in the language and the idea of what the game should tolerate. Time to topple Tassie roof The Tasmanian state election does not deliver a majority government, but logically it does deliver a majority of MPs who support a new football stadium. Liberal and Labor have both backed a stadium. Combined they have the numbers to now approve the stadium. Logic would say they do, though logic is rare in politics Don't waste a crisis is a truism of politics, which – if applied to Tasmania – would say that the new government, in whatever minority form it takes, has the chance to leverage its precarious political position to achieve what should have been the AFL and state government position from the outset and abandon the roof. The roof was a desirable, if expensive, luxury item the AFL added to the stadium as an ambit claim. The AFL logic was that, at the moment of their strongest bargaining position, they needed to ask for everything they wanted. The rationale was that if they didn't get what they wanted now, they would never get it. So they set a roofed stadium – not just a stadium – as a precondition. It was the sort of negotiating position Tony Soprano would've applauded. A roofed stadium would be an easier sell when recruiting players and for luring travelling fans to fly down to watch their team play against the Devils. But in making the demand, the AFL managed to turn what should have been a unifying moment for Tasmania and its football into an election issue and a flashpoint in a state that does not have to go searching for things to fight about. Infrastructure projects that come in on budget are as rare as Tasmanian tigers. The stadium will cost more than budgeted, and the federal government, which is committing every spare sports dollar it has to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, has made it clear there will be no more money for the stadium. They put a ceiling on the roof. The AFL has said it won't throw in more cash, so if and when the costs run over, the state will be left scrambling for more. A roof in a cold but relatively dry state would be an excellent addition, particularly if combined with air conditioning/heating. But that would only add to the expense. And, yes, this idea of abandoning the roof is said in the knowledge of the foul weather experienced by Hawthorn and Port Adelaide at the weekend and after personally covering a North v West Coast game at Bellerive in horrendous conditions, with a wind so strong the ball blew back over players' heads. Let's not forget, football was played in Canberra in snow. No one demanded a roofed stadium for the Giants to come into the competition. If the Libs and Labor in Tassie don't join together and push the stadium through in its current state because they hate each other or maybe the minority Greens and independents demand concessions, what happens then? Is the AFL truly going to walk away from a team this far down the track, with funding offered by governments, a CEO and football staff employed, player movement rules and concessions drafted and clubs making decisions on the trading of players and draft picks in anticipation of the team's arrival? To go ahead requires the agreement of the majority of AFL clubs. Will they really cut and run on Tassie now with no roofed stadium? The AFL has the opportunity to pivot and reposition their brand in Tasmania, which has taken a hit even among the large number of Tasmanians who support a team and stadium. Rioli's revives Bosustow memories Peter Bosustow, who died earlier in the year, kicked goal of the year in his first season for a smother then recovering the ball and snapping a goal. He played in the era of Maurice Rioli. What Maurice Rioli Jnr (MJ) did against West Coast was very like Bosustow. His diving smother to then soccer the ball to himself, gather and chip to the goal square was superb. It was all Bosustow, right to the moment he didn't just kick the goal himself but passed it. Later he produced diving rundown tackle that was just as thrillingly team-lifting. It was one of those slow-motion moments where everyone but the ball carrier could see what was about to happen next. Poor Brady Hough. MJ has taken time to find his place in the Tigers' team. He is not a big possession winner, his skills can be loose, but his speed and pressure is elite.
