6 Teams in Melbourne

[memberforever]

Hahaha... why would Hawthorn relocate?

Loaded with cash, the best facilities in the AFL, and a 30,000 strong membership base. This is why I hate the club playing 4 games in Tasmania. Fools like yourself assume we are in the same boat as the Roos and Dogs - get a clue - and then repost your thoughts.

And what do you know about what position the dogs are in. We are about to spend $20 million on facilities to more than match yours, membership is heading to 30,000, now all we have to fix is the shit stadium deal from Telstra and get more money. To top it off, we are going to kick your arse on Sunday.

 

[Rockford]

Obviously everyone is pointing at the teams with the smaller member bases as those likely to be moved on or merged. I'd prefer to see my club relocated than to see it lose its franchise altogether and have a new franchise start up in a new city. There isn't much risk of that for the Cats at the moment but I guess it is a possibility for the clubs that aren't as financially viable in Melbourne.

I reckon if we had a poll that said: your club is no longer financially viable, you can either: merge, re-locate or cease to exist that everyone would pick relocate.

Sydney is starting to look like a market that could support a second team, the derbies would be good for football in NSW as well.

 

[VanBerlo=God]

Definates to stay -
Collingwood
Essendon
Geelong
Melbourne - oldest professional sporting club in the world or any sport.
Carlton

Under this system it's definately bye bye -
Kangas gone already
Hawks gone already
Doggies

That leaves -
Richmond
St Kilda
merger

How many would be happy to see this?

None I would imagine.
Wait till new stadium is constructed in WA, then move a 3rd team over there, and merge it with the local population.
Eventually one Melbourne team will go bust just like Fitzroy.

 

[Fastback]

And what do you know about what position the dogs are in. We are about to spend $20 million on facilities to more than match yours, membership is heading to 30,000, now all we have to fix is the shit stadium deal from Telstra and get more money. To top it off, we are going to kick your arse on Sunday.

you must be proud of handouts.

Hawks by 25.

 

[Hawkk]

And what do you know about what position the dogs are in. We are about to spend $20 million on facilities to more than match yours, membership is heading to 30,000, now all we have to fix is the shit stadium deal from Telstra and get more money. To top it off, we are going to kick your arse on Sunday.

I've got nothing against the Dogs, but this isn't your money - nor is the facility the clubs.

The money is coming from the government and the facility belongs to the community...having said that I agree the Dogs are getting their act together which is terrific for the game...

The Dogs are living proof that a club can come back from a dire situation in a realitively short period of time, given on field success and an excellent PR team.

 

[memberforever]

melbourne bulldogs
or western demons

take your pick

I wanted to argue for the Kangas to stay in Melbourne, but if your going to post rubbish like this then you can forget my support. By the way, Melbourne is 150 years old next year, one of the oldest clubs in the world, I don't think the AFL will let them go anywhere.

 

[kickingoals]

KANGAROOS

HAWKS

BULLDOGS ,

ALL THERE TIME IS UP IN VICTORIA , ROOS WILL BE UP HERE ON THE COAST IN 2010 FULL TIME ,

HAWKS WILL SHARE GAMES BETWEEN TASMANIA AND WORD HAS IT SYDNEY ,

BULLDOGS MAY BE FORCED INTO A MERGER TYPE THING WITH THE MELBOURNE FC ,

MELBOURNE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE NUMBER OF CLUBS THAT IT HAS NOW AND THESE CLUBS ARE THE WEAKEST...THATS FOOTY,

 

[Rockford]

KANGAROOS

HAWKS

BULLDOGS ,

ALL THERE TIME IS UP IN VICTORIA , ROOS WILL BE UP HERE ON THE COAST IN 2010 FULL TIME ,

HAWKS WILL SHARE GAMES BETWEEN TASMANIA AND WORD HAS IT SYDNEY ,

BULLDOGS MAY BE FORCED INTO A MERGER TYPE THING WITH THE MELBOURNE FC ,

MELBOURNE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE NUMBER OF CLUBS THAT IT HAS NOW AND THESE CLUBS ARE THE WEAKEST...THATS FOOTY,

Don't write in red all caps, that's bigfooty.

 

[NimChief]

Just because your ass is on the fire dont start chucking the rest of us in thier.

Your arse is too.

Still making big losses with all the handouts you're getting.

You've done very well off the field, but you're a long way away from being sustainable. Fact.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

We walked away from Tassie because we can make more money playing OUR home games in Melbourne. Noticed the number of prime time games the Saints have these days?}

How?

[We made the decision for one simple reason . . . we can make more money in Melbourne from our home games than playing them interstate. Clearly the reverse is true for Hawthorn.]

Why?

Now call me stupid . . . but if a team can make more money playing their home games interstate then there's a fair chance they'd leave Melbourne before clubs where the reverse is true (i.e. St Kilda).

I don't want to call you stupid JD, but you are making it hard. While you are going along OK at the moment - where is the long term vision? How are you going to get your turnover up to the 40 or 50 million dollars a year you need to compete with the heavyweight clubs?

 

[Hawkk]

We walked away from Tassie because we can make more money playing OUR home games in Melbourne. Noticed the number of prime time games the Saints have these days?

About the same as the Hawks were getting in the 1999-2003 period...funny how these things are cyclical isn't it? In 2002, Hawthorn was the 3rd most attended and watched team in the league, by 2005 we were 14th.

A responsible board recognizes that the club is in an upswing and improving the brand but on the other hand recognize that a rainy day is potentially always around the corner.

To put into perspective the Hawks went from 9 FNF games in 2002 to 1 in the space of 3 years...

The football industry is ruthless, the trick is to reduce the downward swings and prolong the upward swing.

In a sense, I can understand why the Saints left Tassie - they clearly didn't enjoy the place, have a formidable record at the Dome and didn't get the support (membership hike) they were hoping for.

The Hawks on the other hand got the opposite. They play the ground well - baring in mind they train in conditions akin to YP on a day in day out basis, they have an excellent record, the membership has surged by 300% and they got truckloads of money to play down there.

With all that said, you can see from the get go why the conditions are very different.

We made the decision for one simple reason . . . we can make more money in Melbourne from our home games than playing them interstate. Clearly the reverse is true for Hawthorn.

Or not, we wouldn't be playing games down there if we were only getting 300,000 dollars a game.

We get $750,000 + catering - which covers a 70,000 crowd at the MCG, both Hawthorn and St.Kilda – or any club for that matter, doesn’t draw those numbers to irrespective of opponent or form.

Once again, ignorance

Now call me stupid . . . but if a team can make more money playing their home games interstate then there's a fair chance they'd leave Melbourne before clubs where the reverse is true (i.e. St Kilda).

You've got to delve under the surface; some things aren't as simple as they first appear...

 

[Hawkk]

I don't want to call you stupid JD, but you are making it hard. While you are going along OK at the moment - where is the long term vision? How are you going to get your turnover up to the 40 or 50 million dollars a year you need to compete with the heavyweight clubs?

Exactly, its not about where clubs are today, its whether or not they have the capacity to break the 50-60,000 member barrier over a 5-10 year period.

As it stands, Collingwood is the only Victorian club to lay claim to making inroads.

A good board looks 5-10 years into the future, an excellent board looks 20-25 years...

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

JeffDunne, I reckon you will rue the day you took on the Hawkk. He owns you brother.

 

[hawker11]

KANGAROOS

HAWKS

BULLDOGS ,

ALL THERE TIME IS UP IN VICTORIA , ROOS WILL BE UP HERE ON THE COAST IN 2010 FULL TIME ,

HAWKS WILL SHARE GAMES BETWEEN TASMANIA AND WORD HAS IT SYDNEY ,

BULLDOGS MAY BE FORCED INTO A MERGER TYPE THING WITH THE MELBOURNE FC ,

MELBOURNE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE NUMBER OF CLUBS THAT IT HAS NOW AND THESE CLUBS ARE THE WEAKEST...THATS FOOTY,

Is that you Wayne Jackson?

 

[Fastback]

We walked away from Tassie because we can make more money playing OUR home games in Melbourne. Noticed the number of prime time games the Saints have these days?

We made the decision for one simple reason . . . we can make more money in Melbourne from our home games than playing them interstate. Clearly the reverse is true for Hawthorn.

Now call me stupid . . . but if a team can make more money playing their home games interstate then there's a fair chance they'd leave Melbourne before clubs where the reverse is true (i.e. St Kilda).

Yes, but you weren't getting $750k per game down there.

One of the main reasons we did the deal was to enable us to compete with the wealthier clubs.

Your prez on the other hand wants the AFL to cap footy dept spending... read into that what you will.

 

[JeffDunne]

If that's the case, why does St.Kilda;

a) Fail to attract 30,000 members (despite aiming for 40,000)
b) Run off a shoe string budget
c) Struggle to attract 40,000 vs. a fellow 'glamour' Victorian club in a prime timeslot
d) Train in 3rd world conditions

a) We have had over 30,000 members for a number of years now - as we have this year.

b) we like to make a profit (strange concept I know)

c) Since when? We sold out the dome vs an interstate side. How many Melbourne teams have done that?

d) You should visit the 3rd world.

In essense St.Kilda today is no different to the Kangaroos of the 1990's and Fitzroy of the mid 1980's - a small club that is portrayed by the media as a glamour club that has a history of being an on and off field screw up…in short they are sentimental favourote for the hordes of unwashed to talk about over the water cooler...

There's no need to get upset Hawkk.

I don't mind St.Kilda, it just gives me the shits when opposition fans - like I just did with St.Kilda here, ignorantly make claims without knowing any of the facts...

Wasn't I the one who told you you wouldn't get 11 games at the G (despite your protests)?

There's someone posting ignorant crap in this thread and it aint me.


"St.Kilda today is no different to the Kangaroos of the 1990's and Fitzroy of the mid 1980's" . . . that's a classic.

 

[JeffDunne]

JeffDunne, I reckon you will rue the day you took on the Hawkk. He owns you brother.

Would you like me to bump a few threads.

The 11 games at the G was my favorite.

 

[JeffDunne]

Or not, we wouldn't be playing games down there if we were only getting 300,000 dollars a game.

We get $750,000 + catering - which covers a 70,000 crowd at the MCG, both Hawthorn and St.Kilda – or any club for that matter, doesn’t draw those numbers to irrespective of opponent or form.

Once again, ignorance

The money you are getting is for sponsorship as well as for playing games.

Try comparing apples with apples.

 

[Hawkk]

a) We have had over 30,000 members for a number of years now - as we have this year.

2004, 5, and 6...yes.

However according to saints.com.au, you currently have 29,580 members - despite publically stating 40,000 was the goal on the back of the games being brought home.

b) we like to make a profit (strange concept I know)

At what opportunity cost?

c) Since when? We sold out the dome vs an interstate side. How many Melbourne teams have done that?

Other then Essendon you haven't got much competition in that pursuit.

d) You should visit the 3rd world.

I have, it wasn't what it was cracked up to be...

There's no need to get upset Hawkk.

I'm not.

You were/are the glamour side of the competition. The Bulldogs are the next glamour side that will see alot of the FNF stage over the next 2-3 years...FTA coverage is cyclical.

Wasn't I the one who told you you wouldn't get 11 games at the G (despite your protests)?

I said it was a strong possiblity - and it still is in the future...yes.

Your point is.

You still haven't answered the very valid question about Butterss trying to cap football expenditure...

There's someone posting ignorant crap in this thread and it aint me.

Right...

"St.Kilda today is no different to the Kangaroos of the 1990's and Fitzroy of the mid 1980's" . . . that's a classic.

What's the difference.

All 3 have/had traditionally small followings, rose to prominance and captured the imagination of the football community over a small period of time - the Kangaroos was most sustained however...

 

[JeffDunne]

The footy's about to start Hawkk . . . so I'll leave this discussion for now with this simple observation :

Hawthorn need to play interstate to remain profitable - St Kilda don't.

IMO that means Hawthorn are far more likely to relocate than St Kilda. Not too difficult a concept to grasp I would have thought.

 

[JeffDunne]

What's the difference.

All 3 have/had traditionally small followings, rose to prominance and captured the imagination of the football community over a small period of time - the Kangaroos was most sustained however...

St Kilda has never had a small following.

We have struggled financially in the past because the club was run like a two-bob operation. How many clubs could have survived given our lack of success with a small following?

Don't worry, St Kilda has plenty of support.

 

[Hawkk]

The money you are getting is for sponsorship as well as for playing games.

Try comparing apples with apples.

To be precise the split is 750,000 for sponsorship and 2.5 million dollars (630,000 dollars) + catering and ground signage for every game we play down there.

All up, conservatively we probably get 650,000+ per game.

On top of that HSBC - who dropped back from major to principle partner, is paying the same amount as principle partner as they had done as major partner. They are in the top 6 for most recognizable brands in the football sponsorship business and the agreement works well with their expansion into the Eastern/SE suburbs of Melbourne (and in the long run potentially Tasmania) so the deal is a win-win-win really.

All up the sponsorship will net Hawthorn in the range of 17.5 million dollars to 20,000,000+ dollars depending on the amount of success the club has over the next 5 years.

 

[Mr--ShinBoner--#11]

its discussions like these that turn me off footy.
id hate to see ANY team have to relocate. its unfair on the players and its unfair on the supporters. so whats the point of hanging shit on each others clubs off-field situation? the league can grow with out moving teams wherever they like. the english premier league has 20 teams and major league baseball has 30 teams. whats saying the afl has to limit itself to 16 teams?
thread closed

 

[graystar]

Even the Pies are looking to non football related revenue to compete with the Eagles and Crows - in the form of nightclubs and bars...

Now going to that place would have to be on par with going to Panthers nightclub in Penrith, west Sydney.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

The footy's about to start Hawkk . . . so I'll leave this discussion for now with this simple observation :

Hawthorn need to play interstate to remain profitable - St Kilda don't.

IMO that means Hawthorn are far more likely to relocate than St Kilda. Not too difficult a concept to grasp I would have thought.

Hawthorn does not require to play interstate to remain profitable.

St Kilda, according to you, has a very blinkered vision for the future, Melbourne isn't that big champ.