Fixture Hawks after Tasmania? Sponsorship extended to 2025!

[Steven Tyler]

Yes but it is not that simple. We have to pay the home team $27 for every Hawthorn adult member that attends a designated away game. So, if 20k adults and 5k kids go this week v Richmond, that costs us $600k to replace that home game.

Kennett even admitted a few years back that we would be financially better off playing all games in Melbourne (as long as we find a new major sponsor). Part of the reason given for playing in Tas was a home ground advantage, particularly agains the Marvel teams. If we host Tassie in Tassie, we will be giving them our home advantage.

Richmond a Melbourne get 10 MCG home games, the club could push for, and reasonably expect to get, eight or nine.

Are Tassie playing home games in Launceston?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

And Coll/Carl/Rich/Ess are given preferential treatment because of their overwhelming drawing power. In the end it's more about the matches and the AFL expansion rather than the clubs individually.

Still irks me that in the last 10+ years we have continually paid the most annual tax to the AFL than those 4 clubs who get all the preferential treatment

Even when we are at the bottom

 

[Walshawk]

Are Tassie playing home games in Launceston?

Four apparently.

 

[extractasam]

Still irks me that in the last 10+ years we have continually paid the most annual tax to the AFL than those 4 clubs who get all the preferential treatment

Even when we are at the bottom

Really? Where do you find the numbers for this stuff

 

[MrPremiership]

It helped us to become a bigger, wealthier club.

Based on what?

And if so, what's the benefit of continuing to do so?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Really? Where do you find the numbers for this stuff

Every time I see them I just shake my head. The following figures doesn’t show the tax we pay but I think are net of tax.

These are the distributions since we have been on the downward spiral playing mostly on Sunday afternoon

AFL to scrap equalisation taxes but Hawthorn, Collingwood will still have to pay

THE AFL will scrap the controversial equalisation taxes that saw Collingwood and Hawthorn hand back more than $5 million in the past two years. But the AFL’s richest clubs will continue to receive millions of dollars less than the poorest under the league’s new distribution scheme.

www.linkedin.com

Extract from this old article reads

Clubs have been briefed by the league on an arrangement that will see Hawthorn’s financial figures used as the minimum amount distributed to clubs.

Clubs will no longer hand back money if successful, but Hawthorn, boasting $41.6m in assets and a $2.57m profit this year, will still be penalised.

The league will deduct the current equalisation payment from the annual distribution figure of the richest club, known to be Hawthorn.


It is just so hard to keep up with the AFL equalisation measures because they make it so difficult for most to try and understand so they can keep the facade going

So many asking the question,” why don’t we play all games in Melb” have a right to. Enough with the subsiding.

 

[crazywildhorse]

Melbourne needs a 3rd “bouquet” stadium in the South East for about 30k. StKilda, Melbourne and Hawks would use it, at least—Richmond would also likely use it.

I wonder if any of those clubs has access to a large tract of land down that way that could be developed?

 

[extractasam]

Every time I see them I just shake my head. The following figures doesn’t show the tax we pay but I think are net of tax.

These are the distributions since we have been on the downward spiral playing mostly on Sunday afternoon

View attachment 2016539View attachment 2016540View attachment 2016541View attachment 2016542View attachment 2016543View attachment 2016544

AFL to scrap equalisation taxes but Hawthorn, Collingwood will still have to pay

THE AFL will scrap the controversial equalisation taxes that saw Collingwood and Hawthorn hand back more than $5 million in the past two years. But the AFL’s richest clubs will continue to receive millions of dollars less than the poorest under the league’s new distribution scheme.

www.linkedin.com

Extract from this old article reads

Clubs have been briefed by the league on an arrangement that will see Hawthorn’s financial figures used as the minimum amount distributed to clubs.

Clubs will no longer hand back money if successful, but Hawthorn, boasting $41.6m in assets and a $2.57m profit this year, will still be penalised.

The league will deduct the current equalisation payment from the annual distribution figure of the richest club, known to be Hawthorn.


It is just so hard to keep up with the AFL equalisation measures because they make it so difficult for most to try and understand so they can keep the facade going

So many asking the question,” why don’t we play all games in Melb” have a right to. Enough with the subsiding.

Thanks for digging that info up it’s an interesting read..

Some clubs will just argue they can’t be compared to MCG tenants because they don’t have many home games there I’m assuming.

 

[peetoo]

Melbourne needs a 3rd “bouquet” stadium in the South East for about 30k. StKilda, Melbourne and Hawks would use it, at least—Richmond would also likely use it.

I wonder if any of those clubs has access to a large tract of land down that way that could be developed?

Sandown or where the rectangular one was to be

But really, hasn’t the league outgrown that need? It’s pretty much the minimum we would get v any other team 30k

 

[Hawkk]

Sandown or where the rectangular one was to be

But really, hasn’t the league outgrown that need? It’s pretty much the minimum we would get v any other team 30k

Precisely, take away MCC, and Melbourne wouldn't get more than 10,000 paying customers to their low drawing games - it would be financial suicide for them.

With the vastly improved stadium returns, why would even need to look beyond the MCG and Marvel?

 

[Mercy Seat]

Melbourne needs a 3rd “bouquet” stadium in the South East for about 30k. StKilda, Melbourne and Hawks would use it, at least—Richmond would also likely use it.

I wonder if any of those clubs has access to a large tract of land down that way that could be developed?

The G currently hosts ~ 46 season games a year. Just over 2 games a week. I’d be pushing that to 3 a week before building new stadiums.

 

[Kanga Commando]

Melbourne needs a 3rd “bouquet” stadium in the South East for about 30k. StKilda, Melbourne and Hawks would use it, at least—Richmond would also likely use it.

I wonder if any of those clubs has access to a large tract of land down that way that could be developed?

Depends
How many games at the G or Marvel run at a loss for the clubs ?

 

[Coathanger]

Melbourne needs a 3rd “bouquet” stadium in the South East for about 30k. StKilda, Melbourne and Hawks would use it, at least—Richmond would also likely use it.

I wonder if any of those clubs has access to a large tract of land down that way that could be developed?

Here's one for ya.

 

[speedpeck23]

Still irks me that in the last 10+ years we have continually paid the most annual tax to the AFL than those 4 clubs who get all the preferential treatment

Even when we are at the bottom

I get it, but the reality is that the AFL controls the show. The clubs ceded control of the competition to the AFL Commission years ago. Clearly the AFL couldn't function otherwise. Imagine 18 clubs trying negotiate every decision in running the game.....conflicts of interest would be everywhere.

As it is now the AFL Commission is like the Coach of 18 players ( read clubs). The individual clubs clearly have an input but the AFL selects where the clubs play in the team (read fixture). The AFL and hence the clubs collectively get more bang for their buck if Hawthorn does the deal with Tassie instead of the Western Bulldogs or if Collingwood and Essendon play ANZAC day and not Melbourne and St.Kilda and so on. Some players on the team perform better than others. The AFL is more interested in the AFL competition winning rather than who is best on ground ( read Premiers)

 

[Walshawk]

Depends
How many games at the G or Marvel run at a loss for the clubs ?

Virtually none run at a true loss. Clubs like the Bulldogs claiming that they were making match day losses were not factoring in reserved seat revenue, 1/11th of membership revenue for games.

Building another stadium is a nonsense. 30k would cost half a billion. Even if 15 games were played there a year over 40 years, that is nearly $10m per game of construction cost. Crowds are going up. As if Richmond, or Hawthorn would ever play in a 30k stadium.

 

[Kanga Commando]

Virtually none run at a true loss. Clubs like the Bulldogs claiming that they were making match day losses were not factoring in reserved seat revenue, 1/11th of membership revenue for games.

Building another stadium is a nonsense. 30k would cost half a billion. Even if 15 games were played there a year over 40 years, that is nearly $10m per game of construction cost. Crowds are going up. As if Richmond, or Hawthorn would ever play in a 30k stadium.

I was just asking the question. talk to the OP .