ROCKLIFF’S PREMIERSHIP QUARTER

THE decision on whether Tasmania will be granted an AFL licence will be known in a matter of weeks. So it comes as no surprise that Premier Jeremy Rockliff has stepped up the pressure on the state’s bid. Some may have doubted that Mr Rockliff had the same fire and passion for a stand-alone AFL team as his predecessor Peter Gutwein. After his statements on the weekend, any uncertainty about Mr Rockliff’s stance can be cast aside.

Mr Rockliff has a reputation as a mildmannered politician whose style is more about negotiation and conciliation. His leadership has been more about gaining the respect of his peers and bringing people along with him rather than a hard-nosed, dictatorial approach.

That’s why his rather blunt brinkmanship on the state’s AFL bid is likely to have had maximum impact.

He has emerged from the pack like a nuggety back pocket player and taken it up to the opposition ruckman.

Mr Rockliff knows he’s on solid ground. The taskforce has done the work. Tasmania’s bid for an AFL licence stands up financially, it makes sense socially and no one has ever argued against the emotional case that Tassie, as one of the code’s foundation states, should be part of the big league.

No other state has had to jump through so many hoops and offer so much to the league which has been propping up financially struggling clubs for decades.

Mr Rockliff is right to draw a line in the sand on the state’s offer.

It is generous and should be a no-brainer for the AFL. The government is guaranteeing a $150m commitment with $10m a season for the first decade, $50m for a high performance centre and half the funding for a new stadium – likely to cost at least $750m.

“No expansion club has ever come near replicating an offer like this, and while there is value because Tasmania will derive a significant return, the government will withdraw its offer if the AFL doesn’t respect the magnitude of this offer,” Mr Rockliff said. Yet there are still those who argue the bid is not enough. Chief among the doubters are clubs that have the most to lose – Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett and Gold Coast Suns CEO Tony Cochrane.

There are others (a number of them Mercury letter writers) who say the state shouldn’t spend so much on a footy team when there are higher funding priorities like health and education.

There is some logic to that argument but the case for a team outlines the economic benefits which estimates at least $110m annually as well as creating 360 jobs in tourism and hospitality. As a state we already spend more than $8m a season on AFL clubs Hawthorn and North Melbourne for an estimated economic return of about $35m.

There are also many intangible benefits. Sport is great for building communities, reducing crime and improving health through increased participation.

The AFL should accept Tasmania’s case for a licence and everyone will benefit.