Dump the Tassie deal now!

[Jaeger]

I would have thought someone such as your good self would have your head around the commercial realities rather than the perception?

Yes, but we only need 25,000 at home games to profit and we get that easily these days.

We're a very marketable/profitable club now, the iinet sponsorship deal is one of the biggest in AFL history. We could easily replace Tassie with another big sponsor.

The fact that we have a clean stadium 4 times a year is a big positive, but we play better at the MCG and Etihad, IMO, where majority of our members are able to attend and support the side.

Tassie deal's been great for us, but it can be replaced. IMO, the negatives are beginning to outweigh the positives. We don't need it anymore.

Kennett actually said at an AGM when it was a hot topic that we were financially better off if we played all our home games in Melbourne.

Besides it being great financially, and Aurora having the best turf in the AFL, there isn't a lot else going for it.

Would you say it provides us with a genuine home ground advantage? I'd say definitely not.

If we could replace the current agreement with something similar (financially), I would be all for it.

Sorry if this post upsets our Tassie posters.

 

[hebog]

We failed to get the required guarantees when we went from 2 to 4 games - to help St Kilda out of their deal if I remember correctly
And now the saints are in NZ !!!

What's next, four home games in NZ?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

It appears that in dealing with the AFL all agreements should be legally binding as we are not dealing with gentlemen.

Well all the short-sighted clubs with bad judgement were falling over themselves to get to Telstra Dome believing there was a gold mine to be had, they all signed legally binding agreements. Yet they have been squealing like pigs to get out of there. Binding or not, the AFL isn't phased about what's been agreed or not.

The reality is, until we as a club challenge the cushy arrangements that Rich, Carl, Ess and Coll have with the AFL we will continue to get the short straw. We need an ally or two to start making noise and these in all likelihood are all interstate.

The rest of the clubs in Vic are mostly on life support. They benefit financially from the cushy arrangements I referred to, whereas we don't. Last year we received the least from the AFL for being a competitor in their rigged competition. And yet the clubs like Rich and Carl have been on handouts for years. Why exactly, no one really knows.

As for dumping the tassie deal, it may have run it's course and our club should be organizing an exit strategy with North

 

[spudmaster]

As for dumping the tassie deal, it may have run it's course and our club should be organizing an exit strategy with North

How about "You guys take over our 4 home games a year and in return we'll promise not to let Buddy outscore your entire side next time we meet"?

 

[Tonka]

If I remember correctly the AFL are contracted to play 45 games at the G, 46 games at docklands and another 2 games at Docklands if finals aren't played there the year before. Total = 93 contracted games in Melbourne.

9 Melbourne teams gives 99 games in Melbourne, plus 4 of Geelong's home games, less Darwin 2 games, less Cairns 1 game (reducing to 0) ,less Wellington 1 game (increasing to 2). Total before considering Tassie = 99 games.

So that leaves 6 games available for Tassie. The current split is 4 in Launceston and 2 in Hobart.

I suspect the AFL and North have big plans for Hobart and that will require money and further games played there. This will in my opinion make it unlikely Hawthorn will get another 4 game Launceston contract when the current contract expires.

I think we'll see some home games bought back to Melbourne.

 

[TAITA]

If I remember correctly the AFL are contracted to play 45 games at the G, 46 games at docklands and another 2 games at Docklands if finals aren't played there the year before. Total = 93 contracted games in Melbourne.

9 Melbourne teams gives 99 games in Melbourne, plus 4 of Geelong's home games, less Darwin 2 games, less Cairns 1 game (reducing to 0) ,less Wellington 1 game (increasing to 2). Total before considering Tassie = 99 games.

So that leaves 6 games available for Tassie. The current split is 4 in Launceston and 2 in Hobart.

I suspect the AFL and North have big plans for Hobart and that will require money and further games played there. This will in my opinion make it unlikely Hawthorn will get another 4 game Launceston contract when the current contract expires.

I think we'll see some home games bought back to Melbourne.

The AFL would be ecstatic to see North in Tasmania and that millstone away from their neck forever, but whilst they continue to contribute three fifths of five eights of **** all to that arrangement, and third parties such as sponsors create commercial agreements to thwart their absolute shitbagging of Tasmania - they will ultimately be susceptible to market forces.

 

[jd1991]

One thing that Tassie gives us, that has been lost in the talk, is that it generates long term membership growth in Victoria.

A lot of Tasmanians after they turn 18+ move to Melbourne, we are now making it more likely that these people are already supporters if not members. Thus we increase our membership above the average.

This helps us long term.

 

[MightyHawks]

One thing that Tassie gives us, that has been lost in the talk, is that it generates long term membership growth in Victoria.

A lot of Tasmanians after they turn 18+ move to Melbourne, we are now making it more likely that these people are already supporters if not members. Thus we increase our membership above the average.

This helps us long term.

This is something I hadn't actually considered.

If we were to scale down our involvement in Tassie then I'd be in favour of 2 matches there, one Home game and one Away match against North.

Keeping a smaller presence in Tassie will ensure we maintain a decent base there

 

[Long Live HFC]

Kennett actually said at an AGM when it was a hot topic that we were financially better off if we played all our home games in Melbourne.

forgive my ignorance, but weren't kennett's comments on this subject specifically related to a one off, "get out of TAS" deal, rather than related to the financial future of the club? i can't imagine why the hawks would play games in tassie if there wasn't an obvious (ongoing) bottom-line benefit.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

forgive my ignorance, but weren't kennett's comments on this subject specifically related to a one off, "get out of TAS" deal, rather than related to the financial future of the club? i can't imagine why the hawks would play games in tassie if there wasn't an obvious (ongoing) bottom-line benefit.

You are correct. It was only in reference to the payout.
Our finances are strong and we will continue to indirectly pay the price if we don't move out. Our board should be negotiating an exit strategy with all parties to be effective 2014. Similar to that when we were moved away when Waverley was closed down.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Does anyone here have life insurance? How about income protection? Does it cost you money now? In case something bad happens?

For the HFC, that is essentially what Tassie is.

No matter how much the AFL screws us over, no matter how poorly we are travelling on field, Tasmania gives us security. Security to take chances in the good times, to protect us in the poor times.

In the good times, it might cost us money (if the alternative was 11 home games at the MCG, extra vic teams, etc, etc). But in the down times, it keeps us out of AFL control (and hopefully, eventually influence). The AFL don't like that - soon they will have control over all bar a few clubs (there's a superb reader comment on the Age website IIRC about their motives).

We are in the middle of a dominant era (wasted IMO) with perhaps another 4-5 years maximum to capitalise on a couple of generational players. If we were to come back to Melbourne, then what happens once we follow the cycle back down?

 

[jd1991]

This is something I hadn't actually considered.

If we were to scale down our involvement in Tassie then I'd be in favour of 2 matches there, one Home game and one Away match against North.

Keeping a smaller presence in Tassie will ensure we maintain a decent base there

This is why, when it comes to selling games, there are very few logical places to go. For a Victorian team Darwin, Cairns are all irrevalant as there is no noticable migration flows from those places to Melbourne, so it becomes all about the cash.

Ballarat is somewhat of a good choice, but the issue there is the people have a relative quick commute to melbourne to watch there own teams.

Places where there is enough of a distance, reasonable populations and good migration flows to maximise growth above the average, would be Tasssie of course, Albury/Wadonga (100k pop, plus places within 90 minutes another 100k plus, with good migration flows to Melbourne) and also New zealand. As a lot of kiwis come to mebourne and Sydney for work, lifestyle and oppurtunties.

To me they are the 3 places any team that wants a second base to drive both monetary and members would be to maximise there own clubs growth.

We have already as a club targeted 2 of them. I think if you could speak to Kennett or any of the board privately, they want the Hawks to be a big club. The only way to do this over a reasonable short time span is to target these territories with good migration flows.

If/when we end up leaving Tassie, we need to make it seem we are been forced out, so we retain the goodwill of the locals. If we just get up and leave, we will lose a lot of the support/goodwill we have in that area.

 

[MightyHawks]

This is why, when it comes to selling games, there are very few logical places to go. For a Victorian team Darwin, Cairns are all irrevalant as there is no noticable migration flows from those places to Melbourne, so it becomes all about the cash.

Ballarat is somewhat of a good choice, but the issue there is the people have a relative quick commute to melbourne to watch there own teams.

Places where there is enough of a distance, reasonable populations and good migration flows to maximise growth above the average, would be Tasssie of course, Albury/Wadonga (100k pop, plus places within 90 minutes another 100k plus, with good migration flows to Melbourne) and also New zealand. As a lot of kiwis come to mebourne and Sydney for work, lifestyle and oppurtunties.

To me they are the 3 places any team that wants a second base to drive both monetary and members would be to maximise there own clubs growth.

We have already as a club targeted 2 of them. I think if you could speak to Kennett or any of the board privately, they want the Hawks to be a big club. The only way to do this over a reasonable short time span is to target these territories with good migration flows.

If/when we end up leaving Tassie, we need to make it seem we are been forced out, so we retain the goodwill of the locals. If we just get up and leave, we will lose a lot of the support/goodwill we have in that area.

Absolutely. Well said.

Though if we leave we really are being forced out

 

[Todman]

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/09/24/362440_afl.html



THE State Government's $18 million sponsorship deal with Hawthorn -- including a $300,000 bonus if the Hawks win the AFL grand final on Saturday -- is one of the best sports marketing deals in Australia, according to one of the country's top marketing experts.
Sydney marketing guru Max Markson said yesterday it was a smart investment and worth every cent of Tasmanian taxpayers' money.
"It's cheap at twice the price, absolutely," Mr Markson told the Mercury. "No other state in Australia comes anywhere near it in terms of having the brains to get into that sort of sponsorship or to exercise that kind of marketing nous."
Brand Tasmania boss Robert Heazlewood was right behind him, saying it was excellent bang for our buck.
"I was watching the footy on TV last night and thinking how lucky we are to have that extra part of the contract," he said.
The State Government is in the first year of a new five-year, $18 million deal with Hawthorn to play one pre-season match and four home-and-away games in Launceston per season until 2017.
The deal includes naming rights to the Tassie Hawks, including "Tasmania" on the guernseys of the Hawks, who boast some of the biggest names in AFL football, such as Lance Franklin, Luke Hodge and Cyril Rioli.
"The AFL is a major sport, it's national exposure for the state, and it's right in the heartland of Melbourne, which is the centre of Tasmania's major tourist market," Mr Markson said.
"I really think it's a clever sponsorship -- it's money well spent, smart money."
Government analyses of the Hawthorn arrangement found that games played in Tasmania added an average net value to our economy of $15 million a year and created more than 400 full-time equivalent jobs.
The contract includes bonus payments for finals and a payout of up to $300,000 for the flag.
Mr Heazlewood believes anyone against the deal should rethink their position.
"I'd say they're wrong," he said.
"If you are going to embark on a marketing campaign you can't half do it. The Hawthorn arrangement is a case study on how to do it."
Hawthorn plans to bring the Premiership Cup to Tasmania next Monday if it beats Sydney on Saturday.
Under its previous five-year deal with the Hawks, the State Government paid out the $300,000 bonus when Hawthorn won the flag in 2008.
"I remember when Hawthorn won the grand final (four years ago)," Mr Markson said. "They've made two grand finals in five years -- think about the number of teams that don't even make the grand final.
"Hawthorn are a great team, and I just think it's a very smart sponsorship, right on the money target-wise -- Victoria, your biggest tourism market -- it's just clever."
Minister for Sport and Recreation, Michelle O'Byrne, yesterday congratulated Hawthorn on winning its way into the grand final.
"Tasmania will be on centre stage at the MCG on Saturday through its sponsorship of the Hawks," Ms O'Byrne said.
"This provides tremendous exposure for our state from one of Australia's biggest sporting events."

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Quoting Max Markson doesn't exactly help the case for the Tasmania deal. He's a man with little credibility thanks to the stunts he pulls.

 

[Henry Jr]

The State Government is in the first year of a new five-year, $18 million deal with Hawthorn to play one pre-season match and four home-and-away games in Launceston per season until 2017.
The deal includes naming rights to the Tassie Hawks, including "Tasmania" on the guernseys of the Hawks, who boast some of the biggest names in AFL football, such as Lance Franklin, Luke Hodge and Cyril Rioli.
"The AFL is a major sport, it's national exposure for the state, and it's right in the heartland of Melbourne, which is the centre of Tasmania's major tourist market," Mr Markson said.
"I really think it's a clever sponsorship -- it's money well spent, smart money."
Government analyses of the Hawthorn arrangement found that games played in Tasmania added an average net value to our economy of $15 million a year and created more than 400 full-time equivalent jobs.
The contract includes bonus payments for finals and a payout of up to $300,000 for the flag.
Mr Heazlewood believes anyone against the deal should rethink their position.

Hmmm, given we get $3.6 mill per year and generating $15 mill value to the economy each year, surely a payrise is on the cards if indeed the deal stays.

 

[Thaihawk]

Let's go back to Glenferrie and crowds of 8,000 - 10,000. Sorry, but the way the Afl want to go is bigger, which means more money, if some Melbourne clubs suffer, tough. There has to be some collateral damage during the expansion. And we know where we stand on the AFL's popularity poll, so they wouldn't mind seeing us as one of the first to go, and if that meant relocating to Tas., or even NZ, well so be it.

 

[m0zza]

Just the obvious comments

Failing to honour the existing contract would be foolhardy

The Tasmanian economy is a basket case, surely the next offer will be less attractive

The majority of the Launceston games would be at Etihad NOT the G

The AFL will make our fixture even worse

The AFL will NEVER fixture 11 MCG home games

 

[m0zza]

http://tassietour.wotifcompetition.com/?stlcmpid=MP4381

This might be of interest to anyone planning to travel for one of the Launceston games

 

[Hawkk]

Let's go back to Glenferrie and crowds of 8,000 - 10,000. Sorry, but the way the Afl want to go is bigger, which means more money, if some Melbourne clubs suffer, tough. There has to be some collateral damage during the expansion. And we know where we stand on the AFL's popularity poll, so they wouldn't mind seeing us as one of the first to go, and if that meant relocating to Tas., or even NZ, well so be it.

The AFL will not want the 5th largest (if not possibly the 4th) drawing Victorian club shifting interstate.

They probably DO want the said club filling their pockets at Ethiad though...

 

[KAMSTAR HFC]

Fes up if you really just don't want the Tasmania brand associated with the Hawthorn FC? Or do you not like the perception of having to sell games to survive?

Sure it gives rival club supporters good sledging material on big footy. But in the scheme of things the Tasmanian arrangement has put us in a very powerful financial position. One not possible with out it, that's the bottom line. Those of you who think we are better off financially with out Tasmania are misguided. Wake up and stop trying to fudge facts and figures.

The evolution of the AFL is undeniably headed into era where the rich clubs will prosper, which is captain obvious I know. Football department spend is the key here, that's where the likes of Collingwood, west coast and Adelaide have had the advantage. There is talk of putting a cap on football department spend, such is the advantage. Then there is international recruiting. We have landed two promising talents from new Zealand and Ireland thanks to having enough football department spend. Where free agency takes us who knows, but I'm tipping the weaker financial clubs wont be winners.

The Tasmanian deal gives a chance at being bigger, more powerful and more successful than we would be on our own. On our own we are simply treading water, surviving in the same manner Carlton, Richmond, tt Kilda, Footscray, Melbourne and North Melbourne do. Posting small profits (mostly losses) in a saturated market. No thanks!

Look at every other major sporting league around the world and you will see a common trend. The wealthy clubs are more successful.

Melbourne based supporters miss out on 4 games a year against lower drawing interstate clubs. Its a good deal and I for one am in favour of it.

 

[frankc]

Honestly can't believe the short sightedness of some. Thank goodness the commercial acumen of the board is not consistent with some of the posts here. Our club has done a great job in building a very good and long-term partnership with Tasmania. It has been a win-win all round.

 

[Noneedforaname]

If the AFL wants us to make up the numbers at Telstra dome, they can pay for it. When I see them offering better dollar than what we get is Tassie, then its time to negotiate. And that would be letting Tassie have a say and maybe make a better counter offer. Walking away from Tassie leaves us in no position to bargain for anything. Can only weaken our position in any negotiation.

We stay in control of our destiny by choosing whats best for us, not joining the ranks of the beggars who cowtow to Vlad and his ....

 

[walhawk]

If the AFL wants us to make up the numbers at Telstra dome, they can pay for it. When I see them offering better dollar than what we get is Tassie, then its time to negotiate. And that would be letting Tassie have a say and maybe make a better counter offer. Walking away from Tassie leaves us in no position to bargain for anything. Can only weaken our position in any negotiation.

We stay in control of our destiny by choosing whats best for us, not joining the ranks of the beggars who cowtow to Vlad and his ....

That is the whole point of what I am saying - we do not walk away, nor should we wait until the deal ends as we will have no leverage.
I am saying we will be forced out eventually, so let's do it on our terms.
Jeff should have taken the deal.We are paying for it now
I would negotiate for 8/9 MCG games and 2 in Tas. If that was not possible, then 2 in Albury (v GWS & 1 other). The AFL would actually support that.
4 games anywhere other than Melbourne is too many.

 

[Noneedforaname]

I would negotiate for 8/9 MCG games and 2 in Tas. If that was not possible, then 2 in Albury (v GWS & 1 other). The AFL would actually support that.
4 games anywhere other than Melbourne is too many.

Albury? Are Hawks gonna descend for a weekend, book flights and accomodation yadda yadda or just drive up and drive home the same day? Does Albury have the squizillions that the entire state of Tassie does to throw at us? My point is, Albury cannot afford us.
Albury is a step down from the middle class welfare that the dogs and roos currently put their hands out for. Its skid row, where bums go begging for loose change and half smoked cigarettes.

If we were to drop a game in Tassie, I'd prefer us to be playing it outta NZ. For it to come back to Melbourne, it would have to be on the back of supporter demand. That is, BIG crowd numbers against teams like Freo where people the last few years couldn't be arsed. Then I could see a case for supporters demanding another game at the G. Hell, I'd support it too. At the monet, I'd much prefer us to collect in the hip pocket (ie. secure our long term future) and put up with the whinging of a vocal few who want to see all games in Melbourne. It's selfish and short sighted and gets on my goat, especially when as I mentioned above, theres games that aren't well attended, and financially make better sense to be played in Tassie.

Albury? farg! Im driving down to Bendigo swap meet tonight and I wont be looking sideways as I go through the joint. No offence to the residents, but why would we playing there?