Hawthorn renamed - The Tassie Hawks

[Scotland]

From an older thread...

The Dockers are no longer welcome at Launceston's Aurora Stadium, with Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon lobbying to exclude the team because of poor attendances.

Fremantle has won just one of six games at Aurora Stadium since 2002 and accounts for the venue's five worst-attended games. It has attracted average crowds of 14,470 — 2925 fewer than games not involving the Dockers.

With 4 games a year in Tassie, does this mean:

a) Freo will only ever play Hawthorn in Perth?
b) Freo will continue to play in Tassie and draw low crowds?
c) Freo will be a designated MCG opponent?

Looks like we will be playing in Tassie again from next year, oh joy.

 

[Furn]

"fremantle has won only one of six games at aurora stadium"

you'll play our home games where we say you'll play our home games just like you do

 

[Chewy]

The tassie hawks name is designed to entice people such as myself who live in tasmania but support another team to contribute more financially to the state government and hawthorn football club.

Tassie cannot sustain a club on a permanent basis, Melbourne will remain hawthorn's home for the long term.

Hawks supporters should be proud of the club atm.

It's a bold move and one that I hope pays dividends. We'll need everyone in Tassie to get behind this to make it work. If the support isn't there, things will just peter out, the next government won't want to further commit themselves, we'll return to normal arrangements and the whole thing will have just been a large and expensive waste of everybodys time.

Tassie folks have been saying for years that they should be in the AFL, but they don't have the money to sustain a new club. AFL officials have always turned their noses up at them, preferring to look at the sunny blue skies up north.

Well this is your chance. There might not be another one. I reckon this might just work out for everyone's benefit and be a win/win situation. I don't know.... There is something undeniably "right" about this move. I have good vibes about it.

Well that makes everything OK then, don't worry about the supporters in the heartland who have been going every week for decades.

It's a handful of games, Ron. I'm there nearly every week. Occasionally I miss a game and do something else. This move will probably make me (and other Hawk fans) place more value in the remaining games in Melbourne and turn up with bells on. It's a two-edged sword. The biggest challenge for yours and my club's administrators has been to get their supporters to turn up to each game in large numbers. Some of our crowds have been slightly disappointing. I think this might prove to be a catalyst for improved attendances.

I'm quite happy to see Hawthorn in the flesh 14 times a year, watch them on TV 5 or 6 times and miss the others because I'm too drunk, or on the job. It's plenty. And Launceston isn't on the other side of the world. It's a pretty cheap weekend away to be truthful. I'll probably wind up making the trip down for at least 2 games a year, maybe more.

Why do it at all then? Surprised to see a good poster toeing the political line.

It's the economic reality of the AFL in the 2000's. To stay as we where, we'd be treading water and one day in the distant future, we'd drown. This will give us a chance to compete with West Coast or Adelaide on (hopefully) equal footing and snag ourselves a flag or two.

This isn't the first controversial or unpopular decision that Hawthorn has made. We left Glenferrie for Princes Park and prospered. We left there for Waverley and that would've worked well had the AFL commissioners not sold out Victorian footy fans with that poxy 50,000 seat stadium. The one that turns a buck for it's owners, but makes diddly squat for a lot of clubs who play there. As it was, we increased our level of support significantly in this time, especially in the outer east. Our record levels of membership post the aborted merger in 96 reflect this. Our club was the first to merge their reserves team with an existing VFL entity. When other clubs saw the benefits they all followed suit.

We've changed our uniforms over the years whereas a club like Essendon refuses to. Essendon are a club that is bound by their own traditions. It's their strength. But we're not as big as them, so we have to try different things. That's a part of our strength.

Anyway, I really do think this is a good move. As Jacqui9 said, we're bringing the game to true footy supporters. More people can get to see Hawthorn and we're being well compensated. Win. Win.

 

[Furn]

Yeah i used to go to 20 games a year back in 86 when it was the vfl but those days are gone, ...ive gone, i live in qld now but im moving back to melb next year and if u LOVE the hawks u can get to tas and if not well lets get together at waverley gardens "the social club " and spend our money on the mighty hawks its not ideal but we learnt that back in 96 with the merger, hawks r a teams on the move ,but well never leave our true fans in melb were juz trying to get by in a brave new world .

 

[pharro]

oh yes how terrible of us to try and find our own sponsorship money and endeavour to survive without handouts, much better to be badly managed and stick our hand out to be fed by the AFL ..

This gloating by Bulldog and Kanga supporters is really starting to **** me, you think supporters of those two clubs especially would be more understanding

There may be some fools gloating but most North Melbourne people would be concerned about this rather distasteful precedent. Obviously not a relocation, but what a dubious rebadging? What is the value in $$$ of undermining the identity of the club? And yes, I agree that the Kangaroos as a football club name was Greg Miller's most hair-brained scheme. Most North Melbourne people look forward to the new logo and branding next year re-establishing the North Melbourne identity.

 

[Chewy]

Will kids in Vic take up and support the Tassie Hawks?

Kids wake up and support the Dockers because they see them on TV and they like Pav or the Wiz.

Some kids wake up and put on their nuffy black and white tracksuit and sit at the brekky table with their nuffy black and white family and watch their nuffy Nathan Buckley highlights DVD while they all sing Good Old Collingwood Forever.

We are Hawthorn, but we are like any of the 15 other sides: if we win games of footy, the kids will follow.
Peanuts from rival clubs will taunt us and say piss off back to Tassie, but we'll just say that's in 3 weeks time; we're at the G for the next two Saturdays.

 

[pharro]

We've changed our uniforms over the years whereas a club like Essendon refuses to.

You what? Yellow back, stripey back? Not exactly revolutionary stuff.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As you well know, we get the gate for our 11 home games, and the Hawthorn Football Club is paying the home team for our members entry into 4 away games. Call that half the membership fee.


And then the Tassie government kicks in, what was it? $15 million?


<fingers crossed please just be 5 years>

Thanks. I didn't know that actually. Haven't looked into it too much at all.

 

[Chewy]

Keep hoping - won't happen.

You don't draw well enough at the G to warrant it.

Please don't bore me by posting statistics of crowd figures.

If and when our players ever get their act together and we start stringing a few wins together, you'll see improved attendances. Our fixtures have been shocking in recent years, but as our team has been so dismal, we've had no cause to complain.

You keep saying it won't happen. Let's wait and see.

 

[pharro]

Do they call us the HSBC Hawks now?

Only on banners and promotional material printed by HSBC I'm tipping. However therein lies the problem... normally the naming rights sponsor is ignored by everyone except those annoying ground announcers but the Tassie Hawks may just capture the media and public's imagination, making the name more popular and common than it should be. The again, if Hawthorn fans can cope with the taunts, good for them.

 

[Ron The Bear]

What a joke !!

Kennett was the best thing that ever happened to victoria for a start!
...

Opinions are divided.

 

[Grimreepah]

The Hawks are obviously keen to impress that it is still a club of Hawthorn to appease the Hawthorn members and supporters based in Melbourne, but as time goes on people will associate "the Tassie Hawks" more and more with Tasmania. More and more Hawks supporters will come from Tasmania. Then at some stage down the track it won't make commercial or logistical sense to stay in Melbourne and they will make a permanent move to Tassie.

 

[banzai]

http://hawthornfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=294228

While respecting that the AFL controls the home and away season, Hawthorn hopes to leverage from the deal to play more games in Tasmania by negotiating more games played at the MCG.

I thought the club said that they would only commit to more games in Tassie if the AFL guarenteed them the 11 games at the G. Now you have signed off on Tassie while hoping to get more games. The AFL will probably give you 11 games this year but with out a deal locked in it could get interesting in a few years.

 

[Chewy]

The Hawks are obviously keen to impress that it is still a club of Hawthorn to appease the Hawthorn members and supporters based in Melbourne, but as time goes on people will associate "the Tassie Hawks" more and more with Tasmania. More and more Hawks supporters will come from Tasmania. Then at some stage down the track it won't make commercial or logistical sense to stay in Melbourne and they will make a permanent move to Tassie.

What are the trifecta numbers for this year's Melbourne Cup and what will it pay?

 

[Grimreepah]

What are the trifecta numbers for this year's Melbourne Cup and what will it pay?

You're right. I don't know what will happen, but I think if Hawks supporters want to stop it from happening, they should be aware of the possibility now. Do you agree that the longer the "Tassie Hawks" title is used, the more the club will become associated with Tasmania?

By the way I haven't seen you around for a little while. You seem to have mellowed a bit and I have seen some good posts from you of late

 

[FuManchu]

This has to be it, I havent read the whole thread , who can be bothered??

But the amalgamation with melb failed 10 years back so you didnt become the Demons, but Tasmania bought you and now you are the tassie Devils.

Demons....... devils, whats the difference???

 

[superstar]

Just a new major sponsor as far as i'm concerned.

And one that will attract additional members. No problem from me.

 

[Fire]

I didn't really like us having "Kangaroos" engraved on the 1999 cup, would have preferred "NM". I guess it's a nice dilemma to have.

The 1999 cup cleary reads "won by North Melbourne".

so don't fret.

 

[tazhawk]

$15m seals 'Tassie Hawks' deal

Lyall Johnson
September 2, 2006

Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett yesterday assured members and fans the deal was not the beginning of a relocation for the club to Tasmania and would not result in a name change, despite saying the club would be known colloquially, and referred to on promotional merchandise, as the "Tassie Hawks".

A "Tasmania" logo will be positioned on the front left breast of the Hawthorn jumper, while the club's former naming-rights sponsor, HSBC, will become a premier sponsor and have its logo moved to the back of the jumper.

"Can I just reinforce that Hawthorn will always be called the Hawthorn Football Club. I know some … are wondering whether this might mean we are going to become the Tassie Hawks in name," Kennett said.

We are Tassie Hawks by brand and proudly Tassie Hawks, but we are the Hawthorn Football Club and we will always remain so.

 

[JeffDunne]

What the Kennett sycophants are missing in their branding argument is that sponsors usually don't dictate where home games are played.

Now I have zero problem with a club playing games at interstate venues if the need is there but clubs should only do it in such a way that it doesn’t disenfranchise existing members. There is little doubt IMO that when Hawthorn supporters see next years draw and hear more and more the term “Tassie Hawks”, many will choose to become supporters rather than members.

The biggest problem I see in this deal is that in 5 years time it may be the Tasmanian Government that decides whether or not Hawthorn remain a viable team.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

What the Kennett sycophants are missing in their branding argument is that sponsors usually don't dictate where home games are played.

Now I have zero problem with a club playing games at interstate venues if the need is there but clubs should only do it in such a way that it doesn’t disenfranchise existing members. There is little doubt IMO that when Hawthorn supporters see next years draw and hear more and more the term “Tassie Hawks”, many will choose to become supporters rather than members.

The biggest problem I see in this deal is that in 5 years time it may be the Tasmanian Government that decides whether or not Hawthorn remain a viable team.

Or if the Libs ever oust Labor in Tassie. No self-respecting Lib would do business with Kennett.

 

[Hawkk]

What the Kennett sycophants are missing in their branding argument is that sponsors usually don't dictate where home games are played.

Now I have zero problem with a club playing games at interstate venues if the need is there but clubs should only do it in such a way that it doesn’t disenfranchise existing members. There is little doubt IMO that when Hawthorn supporters see next years draw and hear more and more the term “Tassie Hawks”, many will choose to become supporters rather than members.

The biggest problem I see in this deal is that in 5 years time it may be the Tasmanian Government that decides whether or not Hawthorn remain a viable team.

You have a reasonable point BUT

Over the last 10 years we have had our worst on field decade since the 1945-1955 period, so as it stands we are probably at our lowest ebb - 6 bottom 4 finishes in 10 seasons.

We all expect Hawthorn to make the top 8 at least once in the next 5 seasons and therefore should be in a much stronger financial position when this comes up for renegotiation. Part of the long term Hawthorn membership plan/goal is to also 'own' the Eastern corridor - that along with Tasmania is where the clubs wants to expand our membership base - it's something we will now start hearing about more and more now the Tasmanian deal has been settled.

So in 5 years with both innitatives well on track I have no doubt we will be in a much much strong position financially and power wise then we are now - which will help us with draws etc. The aim is by 2011 to ease the presence in Tasmania back to 2-3 and play the rest of the games at the MCG.

While this deal potentially could isolate Melbourne based supporters and hinder our chances to grow in the Outer East, I am very confident that the HFC has and will continue to broker the deal so that it does not affect or alienate our major support/potential support base.

A quote from the club for good measure - yesterday;

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/09/01/1156817101576.html

"If we are going to survive, we have got to grow our membership and our membership is aligned from here, being the city, through Glenferrie, through Waverley, to Gippsland, Latrobe Valley to Tasmania

.

No relocation, no takeover, no name change, no jumper change....just a chance to increase our membership dramatically in the years to come.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is a tool - and yes that does include Don Scott in this instance.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

What the Kennett sycophants are missing in their branding argument is that sponsors usually don't dictate where home games are played.

Now I have zero problem with a club playing games at interstate venues if the need is there but clubs should only do it in such a way that it doesn’t disenfranchise existing members. There is little doubt IMO that when Hawthorn supporters see next years draw and hear more and more the term “Tassie Hawks”, many will choose to become supporters rather than members.

The biggest problem I see in this deal is that in 5 years time it may be the Tasmanian Government that decides whether or not Hawthorn remain a viable team.

The games were going to be played in Tas regardless of the sponsorship deal. That was just an added expense to the Tasmanian taxpayer.
In 5 years time, any Tas govt that decides to not support AFL games being played in tas (regardless of the fact that its a waste of money by a state without any to waste) knows they will struggle electorally. AFL clubs are more powerful in Tasmania than the Tasmanian government in that respect, in five years time Hawthorn will be dictating terms and getting more money without giving up any sponsorship deals.

The biggest problem is what St Kilda do in five or six years time, when they fall away again on the field and membership falls away as well.
Will they then be looking to back to Tas for a couple of games to stay allive, or forced into the same type of nomadic bull5h!t that we've taken on for no good reason.