Hawthorn's AGM- Will you attend and are you willing to vote against any further Tassie games

[MightyFighting]

Huh? Lose money? Are you saying above what is available or real P&L?

We do lose money from playing there. Kennett admitted so himself:

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4742/newsid/105217/default.aspx

So why have we argued so strongly to extend the contract when if we left the island and played all our home games in Melbourne, we would be better off financially? Because we like being in Tasmania. Because we owe it to our Tasmanian members to continue in Tassie. Because life is not always about money. And because good relationships and partnerships should be for life.

Jeff Kennett - 15/11/2010

 

[mollyfud]

We do lose money from playing there. Kennett admitted so himself:

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4742/newsid/105217/default.aspx

Jeff Kennett - 15/11/2010

Okay, that is then the "above what is available" rather then making a loss. He doesn't say the difference and it doesn't talk about the long term positioning that this deal gives us in Tasmania and in the market of sponsorship.

 

[hawker11]

Okay, that is then the "above what is available" rather then making a loss. He doesn't say the difference and it doesn't talk about the long term positioning that this deal gives us in Tasmania and in the market of sponsorship.

What long term positioning is there when Tasmania are allocated an AFL license?

 

[QuietB]

Yes of course, if that Kangaroo-supporting idiot Bartlett gets in who knows what might happen.

.....

I want MY club to be successful, onfield and off, without relying on the whims of the AFL for survival. I don't want MY club to be the Kangaroos/Dogs/Demons, hell even the Tigers.

I want to support a club that has the financial clout to compete with the likes of Collingwood and West Coast. If MY club isn't 'favoured' by those in power, I'm happy for MY club to do whatever necessary to attain the same level.

If you want a repeat of 94-2003, then by all means return games to Melbourne, but expect to make losses, have to cut staff, reduce the size of the club, etc - whilst becoming reliant on the AFL for survival - need I point out this is the very organisation that appears to have gone out of it's way to eliminate us over the last 25 years.

Don't confuse public rhetoric and use (abuse?) of primary figures which are rubbery at best, with the actual net economic benefits of replacing low-drawing, loss-making games, with highly profitable ones.

15k in Tassie = >40k at MCG, sellout at Etihad. That's BEFORE the naming rights sponsorship is included. (It's a package deal of course, but they do split it up for whatever reason).

Put the good of the club beyond your own needs. If you want to follow a local side, then follow Box Hill, don't turn Hawthorn into a wiki article.

+1

Is anyone really willing to give away probably the best deal in the AFL just so they can watch 4 extra games at Ethihad every year? Against no one and at a massive loss?

 

[mollyfud]

What long term positioning is there when Tasmania are allocated an AFL license?

For one, I am sure that like most places, young Tasmanians leave tassie. When they come to Victoria, they will already have a club to support.

And unless a team falls over <Cough>North</cough> when do you think the AFL will be adding more clubs? Argument is there are too many now!

 

[BaliHawk]

Can I clarify that anyone who believes a 5th game in Tassie is a given then please be clear that the component of the agreement regarding another game on top of the 4 requires the AFL to increase our home games from 11 to 12 (i.e. a 24 round competition). There are some who don't believe that will ever happen, it is certainly an option being considered by the AFL however right now it is certainly not a fait a comply.

 

[QuietB]

We do lose money from playing there. Kennett admitted so himself:

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4742/newsid/105217/default.aspx

Jeff Kennett - 15/11/2010

Thats politics. He is hardly going to come out and say we have reamed them.

 

[Ordovician]

We do lose money from playing there. Kennett admitted so himself:

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4742/newsid/105217/default.aspx

So why have we argued so strongly to extend the contract when if we left the island and played all our home games in Melbourne, we would be better off financially? Because we like being in Tasmania. Because we owe it to our Tasmanian members to continue in Tassie. Because life is not always about money. And because good relationships and partnerships should be for life.

Jeff Kennett - 15/11/2010

Then what the hell are we doing playing in Tasmania?

This is getting far too weird!!!

We went to Tassie because it was such a great deal financially and now we'd make more money if we played in Melbourne!

Unbelievable.

 

[hawker11]

+1

Is anyone really willing to give away probably the best deal in the AFL just so they can watch 4 extra games at Ethihad every year? Against no one and at a massive loss?

How is it the best deal when over 40% of our home games are taken from its core supporter base and broadcasted on Foxtel?

The 4 (now 5) "extra" games would not have necessarily been played at Etihad - given that the AFL were moving North in, the club could have negotiated a 9/2 split. The new stadium deals now protect clubs from making massive losses - you would think that there are 8 other clubs on the brink of extinction by playing in front of its members in melbourne for 16-18 times a year the way some people carry on.

 

[hawker11]

For one, I am sure that like most places, young Tasmanians leave tassie. When they come to Victoria, they will already have a club to support.

And unless a team falls over <Cough>North</cough> when do you think the AFL will be adding more clubs? Argument is there are too many now!

So we have to rely on the migration to melbourne from our young tasmanian supporters, and rely on an AFL license not being issued to Tasmania.

This exercise is anything but a long term proposition in the interest of the HFC being strong in its home state.

 

[cantos_tevez]

The best protest we can have is to turn up in droves to our Melbourne games. Not by turning our AGM into a riot. Although I like the idea of having the number of interstate games capped in our constitution.

This is spot on. Hawthorn supporters really have to do their best to get to Melbourne based games.

I see a bit of the Eric Cartman 'You Can't Come' philosophy being used here by the HFC. Starve the Victorian-based supporters a little, then when we do get a home game at the 'G, really take advantage. All of the sudden in 2017/18, when we have a deal with some rich arab, the Victorian based supporters will have the worst case of blue balls reported, and we will be a high-drawing club, 50k+ to every home game from then on.**

**may or may not be taking the urine

 

[QuietB]

How is it the best deal when over 40% of our home games are taken from its core supporter base and broadcasted on Foxtel?

The 4 (now 5) "extra" games would not have necessarily been played at Etihad - given that the AFL were moving North in, the club could have negotiated a 9/2 split. The new stadium deals now protect clubs from making massive losses - you would think that there are 8 other clubs on the brink of extinction by playing in front of its members in melbourne for 16-18 times a year the way some people carry on.

Every one of those 4 games is replaced by a game in Melbourne in a standard 11 game membership.

8 other clubs on the brink of extinction - lets see. Dogs?. Dee's? North? Carlton - took a billionaire to save them. Thats close to half the teams in Melbourne.

 

[hawker11]

Every one of those 4 games is replaced by a game in Melbourne in a standard 11 game membership.

8 other clubs on the brink of extinction - lets see. Dogs?. Dee's? North? Carlton - took a billionaire to save them. Thats close to half the teams in Melbourne.

Dogs, Dees and North have never been in a sound financial state, however they are on the improve with the new stadium deal. Carlton obviously dug their own grave and are not in the same situation now.

Without comparison - Hawthorn's financial base does not justify off-shoring over 40% of our home games.

Tell the reserve seat holders that a replacement game is equal value to a home game

 

[mollyfud]

So we have to rely on the migration to melbourne from our young tasmanian supporters, and rely on an AFL license not being issued to Tasmania.

This exercise is anything but a long term proposition in the interest of the HFC being strong in its home state.

Its not like we are paying for the privilage. It is an investment. All these things were raised 5 years ago, and it is working so far. There is no evidence yet the plan won't continue to work and even if it doesn't the risk v return on this deal makes it worth doing!

 

[Hawka19]

We are not a power club. Collingwood is a power club, hence the AFL gives them the world - 18 games in Melbourne a year. We are financially secure, but we are relying on a deal that could quite easily get swept out from underneath us should Lennon lose the next Tasmanian election.

Secondly, surely it is the responsibility of the board to assess other options that both secure our viability whilst refocusing the club's vision towards our core constituency.

....and this clearly shows just how out of touch some Hawks supporters are.

David Bartlett is currently running the state.

 

[mollyfud]

Dogs, Dees and North have never been in a sound financial state, however they are on the improve with the new stadium deal. Carlton obviously dug their own grave and are not in the same situation now.

Without comparison - Hawthorn's financial base does not justify off-shoring over 40% of our home games.

Tell the reserve seat holders that a replacement game is equal value to a home game

I think there are some against and some for the deal. I hardly think that there is a huge majority against the deal as you would need to make it worth challenging (but I could be wrong).

Oh and I am a reserve seat holder and I am fine with the replacement arrangements!

 

[Pessimistic]

I think there are some against and some for the deal. I hardly think that there is a huge majority against the deal as you would need to make it worth challenging (but I could be wrong).

Oh and I am a reserve seat holder and I am fine with the replacement arrangements!

I have silver M15 and considering maybe 60% of the reserved seats around me never get filled I'm sure there are plenty of people who are happy with it !

 

[Roughies Boys]

No Thanks.

 

[tslomovic]

So what are you saying here?

61 people voting represents the entire Hawthorn BF contingent?

Or that only 300 (1200/4) posters bothered to open your thread and liked it so much they came back 4 times (but still only 20% of them voted)?

I refused to vote on it, as I suspect many did, because you totally misrepresented the situation to suit your own ends.[/quote]

Me to. 5 games only if its a 24 game season which is highly speculative. Also be honest and say you would like see Hawthorn play GWS or the Suns at Etihad with neglible attendance for a loss than Aurora with a profit for the club and a full house.

 

[Goldhawk]

Then what the hell are we doing playing in Tasmania?

This is getting far too weird!!!

We went to Tassie because it was such a great deal financially and now we'd make more money if we played in Melbourne!

Unbelievable.

Of cause we make money when our sponsorship is worth over $3.4 mill.how can we lose.

Wake up to yourself.

 

[The BIG X]

Of cause we make money when our sponsorship is worth over $3.4 mill.how can we lose.

Wake up to yourself.

People please read and understand this.

This type of money is not readily available in this climate

 

[aquila]

People please read and understand this.

This type of money is not readily available in this climate

Then why did Jeff say it? Either he is lying to his members, or we could make more money from games in Melbourne. Can't have it both ways.

 

[QuietB]

Then why did Jeff say it? Either he is lying to his members, or we could make more money from games in Melbourne. Can't have it both ways.

Or the issue is very sensitive politically in Tasmania and Jeff is a politician and understands this and he is trying to pretect Hawthorn's key partner in the deal.

What do people really want him to say - "we just did the best deal in history, we are going to make a fortune, we will need a charter plane to bring all the cash back and if they think we will relocate permanently they are dreaming - suckers"

 

[Messenger]

I'm curious.

By what mechanism will members get a vote on this arrangement?

 

[The BIG X]

I'm curious.

By what mechanism will members get a vote on this arrangement?

the way I see it Messenger - We have appointed a Board to handle our affairs in the best way for our Club.

If people do not like it or think they can do better - then stand for the Board.