The feud between the Tasmania Devils and the Hawthorn Hawks has become a ‘festering sore’. Why won’t the AFL act?
With the gloves now off Hawthorn and the Devils in the battle for hearts and minds in Tasmania’s north, it is worth noting the AFL’s strange and ongoing silence on what has become a festering wound for the game’s 19th club.
Just months after the Devils settled the polarizing and damaging row over Hobart’s new ground at Macquarie Point, the new club faces another dispute. Tasmanian chief executive Brendon Gale on Tuesday doubled down on his claim on the imprint 12 months ago that Hawthorn should leave the state at the end of next season.
Gale’s instigation of this week’s row was ill-timed, but it was an argument the game’s bosses should have resolved on behalf of his club long ago. The AFL’s inaction shows Gale’s Devils are in danger of becoming villains after having worked so hard to unite the state.
The Tasmanian team, which will make its VFL debut in Hobart on Saturday, wants Hawthorn to leave the state after 2027 under a business plan approved by 18 clubs in 2024. Hawthorn, which has won 80 per cent of its Launceston games and will receive more than $9 million from the state government in their current two-year deal, wants to stay and share UTAS Stadium for up to two to four games a year.
That head office’s failure to take a position on a debate that has confused Tasmanian football fans and divided the market it promised to unite underscores the lack of decisive leadership that so often punctuates Dillon’s time at work. The AFL is actually entertaining a two-team model, unless it points to something much more worrisome relative to the Devils’ position.
Hawthorn boss Ashley Klein this week confirmed the AFL was going through business modeling for a two-team market in Launceston from 2028, the Devils’ first season in which they will play the majority of their games at UTAS. This was despite the business case approved by the clubs and the commission, and the Tasmanian board’s strong stance that the entire government must be behind the club for it to be strong and sustainable. The claim appalled and surprised the Devils, and is even more contradictory given that Macquarie Point Stadium will not be ready until at least 2031.
Dillon has been contacted for comment.
Klein told this imprint: “Our understanding is that the AFL is doing an analysis of what our bid would look like if Hawthorn stayed. What it would look like for Hawthorn, for the Devils, for football and tourism in the state.”
“Our wish and desire, 25 years into our 100-year history, is to continue playing football in Tasmania. Everything we do in terms of community, grassroots football and branding shows how committed we are. “We wouldn’t go the Devils’ way, we would leave the community and grassroots partnerships to the new team. “We see it as more of a tourism partnership but we think it would be better for us if Hawthorn stayed in Tasmania, better for the game and better for the state.
“I can appreciate them [the Devils] I have a different opinion and if I were Brendon [Gale] I was going to go the same way. But there is no other state in Australia that has the entire gaming market to itself.”
Klein’s comments contrast with a lengthy meeting in Hobart last week between Tasmanian chairman Grant O’Brien and the board and new AFL Commission chairman Craig Drummond and Dillon’s No.2 Tom Harley. There Devils bosses reiterated their desire for the AFL to finally take a stand and announced Hawthorn’s current deal with Tasmania would be their last.
O’Brien said the suggestion that the AFL was exploring the possibility of a two-team model in Tasmania was news to him. He likened this scenario to Geelong sharing GMHBA Stadium.
Speaking to this masthead from North Hobart Oval on the eve of a sold-out VFL clash with Coburg, O’Brien said: “I think it’s gotten to the point where Hawthorn don’t want to leave but the prospect of a two-team state for our population is like suggesting two teams from Geelong play. I’m sure Geelong won’t be happy about that and it doesn’t make sense to me.”
“There was never a proposal for two teams in the 19th license proposal and this was made very clear in the task force report. If there is any doubt about this, it is the AFL’s responsibility to clarify this.”
“Hawthorn has been great for the state and Hawthorn has benefited greatly from the state. But from a unitary perspective it’s a bit difficult to see one team playing from Hobart and two teams playing from Launceston. To be fair Hawthorn has a government sponsorship, but under the agreement the Tasmanian Football Club was supposed to have clean air from 2028.”
It’s true that the new club has work to do in Launceston, and the uncertainty over Hawthorn’s future doesn’t help either. The Hawks will ditch the Tasmanian logo on their guernseys in 2027 but have now signed a new, separate two-year sponsorship deal with Launceston City Council.
For years the AFL has held divisions across the state specifically responsible for the game’s failure to support the Tasmanian team, and now the Hawks continue to muddy the waters thanks to the AFL’s inaction.
The Devils signed one of the game’s most lucrative long-term sponsorships last month — a seven-year partnership with homegrown Blundstone worth an estimated $24 million — but financial support from the north is nowhere near that from the state’s south.
Hawthorn has a Tasmanian membership of 8000. As HQ knows all too well, Tasmanian football fans are all barracking for another AFL club and failing to take a position on Hawthorn’s future will certainly do nothing but harm the Devils’ progress. So is the state government, which has donated $12 million a year to the Devils for 12 years.
Hawthorn points out that the Tasmanian government – indeed both major parties – supported the two-team model in Launceston ahead of last year’s election. However, neither side wanted to risk losing Hawthorn votes. And Hawthorn’s future does not depend on the government; It is up to the AFL to decide the fixtures for the home and away season.
So Drummond and Dillon need to take a position. Similarly, O’Brien and Gale do not want to be seen as the new club that kicked Hawthorn out of the county. Not only would this be bad for business and the Devils’ image, it’s an idea that is as unfair as it is wrong.
19. The AFL license bid is controlled by the AFL. All of his planning was underpinned by a one-team model in a state with a population of about 580,000. The game’s head office may have a new president, but a leadership change isn’t to blame for the slowness to take action. The definitive call for Hawthorn to leave Tasmania should have been made in 2025. Any business analysis conducted by the AFL on behalf of the Hawks when it comes to Tasmania must focus on a farewell tour and a greater future at the MCG.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Caroline Wilson is a Walkley-winning columnist and former chief football writer for The Age.Connect via email.
