Tasmanian Premier slams 'uncommitted' Hawthorn

[Linda Crescent]

The total lack of FTA live tassie games this year is the final insult

My take is the tasmanian govt want 5 games for no extra cash. How that works with GWS and GC I don't know.

I more strongly object to the philosopy or JK saying its good for the club for the president to change every 6 years or less, bit then lock the club into a longer term deal in his final year !!!

He might as well stay and take the flack if it goes wrong !! One or the other

With respect 'Pessimistic', these decisions have/would be made by the entire Board of the HFC. Not by the President alone.

 

[medusala]

Put it this way. Buddy is more of an asset than tassie or Jeff is

In Buddy, Hodge and Rioli we have three of the most marketable players in the league and a very high membership. If Tas wants to screw the club I doubt it will be that big an issue to get very good $ for a naming sponsor.

North doesnt have a great position to negotiate from. Hawthorn does.

 

[pipcoo]

Back door Bartlett is meeting AFL heavy weights in Melbourne today.

AFL wants Kanga's in HOBART
AFL wants Hawks in Launceston
AFL wants North v South War
AFL wants Kanga's vs Hawk's match to be played in Hobart
AFL will pay for Kanga's game in Hobart

Bartlett wants to screw us
Bartlett goes for the Kanga's
Bartlett is slowly killing AFL in Tassie so are the GREEN'S

 

[Hawk Dork]

doesnt sound like slowly killing to me

if Tassie falls through
option A - more games in Melb.
option B-a few games in NZ

both options need the AFL to include FTA

 

[CanonNo1]

And we've done pretty well out of them also.

His constituency are the people who pay a large slab of money to a professional sporting club. He needs to make sure he is getting best value for tax dollars.

This!

 

[Brad Roo]

I know some of you might have trouble seeing it, but it really is in the interests of both North and Hawthorn to be in Tasmania simultaneously.

If only one club is playing there and get's too big over time, the temptation will be for Tasmania to swallow them whole. Each club is safe whilst the other is just up the road. If one club bails then, not only will it seriously hurt the back pocket of the club leaving, but there will be serious lobbying for a full time relocation of the club that stays.

It would tactically be against Norths best interests to try to poach Hawthorns government deal. Our club is run by smart people, they know this.

 

[Rioli magic]

I know some of you might have trouble seeing it, but it really is in the interests of both North and Hawthorn to be in Tasmania simultaneously.

If only one club is playing there and get's too big over time, the temptation will be for Tasmania to swallow them whole. Each club is safe whilst the other is just up the road. If one club bails then, not only will it seriously hurt the back pocket of the club leaving, but there will be serious lobbying for a full time relocation of the club that stays.

It would tactically be against Norths best interests to try to poach Hawthorns government deal. Our club is run by smart people, they know this.

With respect I think this a very North Melbourne perspective, not being harsh but our clubs aren't the same. I like North and hope they do well whatever they do, but if you don't enter the Tassie market our chances of full relocation won't change, it won't happen. The difference is they are our sponsor, one which has made us the richest Victorian club. I do agree it could be benificial to both if we're both down there, but the threats don't so much apply to Hawthorn.

 

[Gaborone]

My take on all this is that Tasmania sees a very real chance that North will relocate - doesnt matter in the short term if they play in Launceston or Hobart . I think the pointers to this are (i) that though Richmond was the front runner they got rolled by a club with probably less going for them (especially in terms of historical connection with Tasmania), and (ii) Bartlett's statement that Hawthorn were not serious. I can think of no other reason than that the roos were more serious.
Let the cards fall where they fall ... but I will be sad if we lose the Tasmanian connection. It is great going to Launceston

 

[Linda Crescent]

I know some of you might have trouble seeing it, but it really is in the interests of both North and Hawthorn to be in Tasmania simultaneously.

If only one club is playing there and get's too big over time, the temptation will be for Tasmania to swallow them whole. Each club is safe whilst the other is just up the road. If one club bails then, not only will it seriously hurt the back pocket of the club leaving, but there will be serious lobbying for a full time relocation of the club that stays.

It would tactically be against Norths best interests to try to poach Hawthorns government deal. Our club is run by smart people, they know this.

Go Kangaroos. I love North, no, I love Hawthorn!

 

[Brad Roo]

With respect I think this a very North Melbourne perspective, not being harsh but our clubs aren't the same. I like North and hope they do well whatever they do, but if you don't enter the Tassie market our chances of full relocation won't change, it won't happen. The difference is they are our sponsor, one which has made us the richest Victorian club. I do agree it could be benificial to both if we're both down there, but the threats don't so much apply to Hawthorn.

I agree it won't happen the same as the North members will never support relocation. However, the political pressure would be enormous for a stand alone club with swelling Tasmanian support.

I also agree that Hawthorn are currently in a much stronger position.

However, this doesn't dilute the fact that, to varying degrees, both clubs are better off with both clubs presence in Tasmania.

 

[Brad Roo]

My take on all this is that Tasmania sees a very real chance that North will relocate

You need to explain how ~25,000 North members are going to do a complete 180 degree ideological about face.

The NMFC will never end up in Tassie. Never.

Moves are afoot to alter the club constitution to require a 75%-90% member vote to enable a voluntary relocation and even then a compliant board would have to be in place.

This would require at least 75,000 new members all voting in unison to force the vote.

If for some unforeseen reason a club went to the wall, then the only thing that could be relocated would be that particular clubs playing list. I can't see Tasmanians embracing another clubs colors, song and history.

 

[Rioli magic]

I agree it won't happen the same as the North members will never support relocation. However, the political pressure would be enormous for a stand alone club with swelling Tasmanian support.

Yeah probably but that's not our problem. We're the ones who have given them AFL games as part of a sponsorship from their government. That's already much more than any other club gives to their sponsors, of which we are rewarded financially, and frankly why Kennett and most others find it insulting the pull these polititians think they're entitled to as part of that. You don't hear Mazda coming out questioning North Melbourne publicly. Fair enough they're in a position where they are spending taxpayers money and they expect value, but it's going to take $21? million of taxpayers money to upgrade Bellerive. It's an important aspect (the sponsorship) that seems to get lost in this. Hawthorn have contributed to the development of Aurora stadium either directly or indirectly, and I understand they want a stand alone team but don't question Hawthorn's motives when you're benefiting out of the deal greatly yourselves. Hawthorn delivers on the tourism part of the sponsorship in addition to helping build infrastucure that's seems likely one day they'll say thanks for that see you later.

 

[Henry Jr]

AFL talks Tasmania, but not Hobart

AFL CHIEF executive Andrew Demetriou has met with Tasmanian premier David Bartlett in Melbourne to discuss the prospect of taking more football to the state.

However, hosting more games at Aurora Stadium in Launceston - rather than North Melbourne's bid to play home games at Hobart's Bellerive Oval - was the main focus of Friday's discussions.


The Hawks and the Tasmanian government will attempt to thrash out a new deal to extend their successful partnership in the coming weeks, which Bartlett said took priority over any move to Bellerive.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99813/default.aspx

 

[Brad Roo]

Yeah probably but that's not our problem. We're the ones who have given them AFL games as part of a sponsorship from their government. That's already much more than any other club gives to their sponsors, of which we are rewarded financially, and frankly why Kennett and most others find it insulting the pull these polititians think they're entitled to as part of that. You don't hear Mazda coming out questioning North Melbourne publicly. Fair enough they're in a position where they are spending taxpayers money and they expect value, but it's going to take $21? million of taxpayers money to upgrade Bellerive. It's an important aspect (the sponsorship) that seems to get lost in this. Hawthorn have contributed to the development of Aurora stadium either directly or indirectly, and I understand they want a stand alone team but don't question Hawthorn's motives when you're benefiting out of the deal greatly yourselves. Hawthorn delivers on the tourism part of the sponsorship in addition to helping build infrastucure that's seems likely one day they'll say thanks for that see you later.

Hey, I agree, it's shitty conduct on Bartletts behalf, but we are talking about politicians here after all.

 

[Brad Roo]

AFL talks Tasmania, but not Hobart

AFL CHIEF executive Andrew Demetriou has met with Tasmanian premier David Bartlett in Melbourne to discuss the prospect of taking more football to the state.

However, hosting more games at Aurora Stadium in Launceston - rather than North Melbourne's bid to play home games at Hobart's Bellerive Oval - was the main focus of Friday's discussions.


The Hawks and the Tasmanian government will attempt to thrash out a new deal to extend their successful partnership in the coming weeks, which Bartlett said took priority over any move to Bellerive.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99813/default.aspx

Excellent, it's good to see Vlad intervene on behalf of Hawthorns interests.

That is what he's supposed to do anyway.

 

[Rioli magic]

Excellent, it's good to see Vlad intervene on behalf of Hawthorns interests.

That is what he's supposed to do anyway.

Yeah WTF? Vlad and Bartlett are going to arrange how many games Hawthorn will play at Aurora and then we can try and get paid for it. Surely these discussions should have all parties represented.

 

[Hawk Dork]

You need to explain how ~25,000 North members are going to do a complete 180 degree ideological about face.

The NMFC will never end up in Tassie. Never.

Moves are afoot to alter the club constitution to require a 75%-90% member vote to enable a voluntary relocation and even then a compliant board would have to be in place.

This would require at least 75,000 new members all voting in unison to force the vote.

If for some unforeseen reason a club went to the wall, then the only thing that could be relocated would be that particular clubs playing list. I can't see Tasmanians embracing another clubs colors, song and history.

A North relocation would be the AFL long term dream.(i am sure they would have loved the Hawks to morph into the Tassie team)
It might not have to be a full relocation but start with a few games and build from there over decades.While still maintaining a Melbourne base too.
Bottom line is money and supporters keep a club going.You get it and them where ever you can with out selling your soul too much.Its either sponsors, pokies, AFL hand outs, selling games, relocating or partially relocating.

 

[Henry Jr]

They could move North or whatever they are calling themselves this week down there and no one would flutter an eyelid over it.

 

[Rioli magic]

"Tasmania will consider a 20-year AFL deal with Hawthorn - but only if the Hawks relocate there."

"On Wednesday, Bartlett questioned Hawthorn's long-term commitment to Tasmania and this prompted Kennett to say the Hawks were prepared to commit to a Launceston deal for 20 years."

"Any 20-year deal with Hawthorn or any other football club would necessarily include full relocation," Bartlett said today.

"I'm not sure what the Hawthorn president or the Melbourne-based fans of Hawthorn think about that, but I'm open to discussions about a full relocation of Hawthorn if there is a 20-year deal on the table."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-relocation-to-apple-isle-20100806-11o66.html

Bartlett is a w***er.

 

[Brad Roo]

They could move North or whatever they are calling themselves this week down there and no one would flutter an eyelid over it.

Actually, "they" can't.

 

[Brad Roo]

"Tasmania will consider a 20-year AFL deal with Hawthorn - but only if the Hawks relocate there."

"On Wednesday, Bartlett questioned Hawthorn's long-term commitment to Tasmania and this prompted Kennett to say the Hawks were prepared to commit to a Launceston deal for 20 years."

"Any 20-year deal with Hawthorn or any other football club would necessarily include full relocation," Bartlett said today.

"I'm not sure what the Hawthorn president or the Melbourne-based fans of Hawthorn think about that, but I'm open to discussions about a full relocation of Hawthorn if there is a 20-year deal on the table."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-relocation-to-apple-isle-20100806-11o66.html

Bartlett is a w***er.

You're not buying any of that are you?

This is the downside with having to deal with politicians.

Interestingly, I see the Bulldogs mentioned on the bottom of that article. Maybe things with North have stalled?

 

[Tas]

AFL talks Tasmania, but not Hobart

AFL CHIEF executive Andrew Demetriou has met with Tasmanian premier David Bartlett in Melbourne to discuss the prospect of taking more football to the state.

However, hosting more games at Aurora Stadium in Launceston - rather than North Melbourne's bid to play home games at Hobart's Bellerive Oval - was the main focus of Friday's discussions.


The Hawks and the Tasmanian government will attempt to thrash out a new deal to extend their successful partnership in the coming weeks, which Bartlett said took priority over any move to Bellerive.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99813/default.aspx

It is not really our bid. It was Richmond's bid, which was rejected by the AFL which kinda morphed over to them asking us if we were interested.

There are two separate issues. One is with AFL and The Tasmanian government to play games in Launceston. The other is Tasmanian Cricket Association interested in playing games in Hobart for profit to themselves. We are only in discussion with TCA, has nothing really to do with the Tasmanian government, they said they wont be funding it, they are pretty much a non-entity in it.

Tasmanian government is paying Hawthorn a lot of money for naming rights and development, that isn't what is being asked of us, they just want access to four games which will help them get Federal funding to improve the stadium for Cricket purposes, AFL is just there to make some money for them, they don't care about their own team, they just care about their cricket facilities and money to fund Tasmanian Cricket, it is just a pure business venture for them and they aren't after us to relocate.

Tasmanian Government, Football Tasmania and the AFL are a different kettle of fish. They want a team in Tasmania and they are investing a lot more time, effort and money into Launceston and the Hawks than they ever would in the Hobart deal.

If Hawks would walk away from the Launceston deal then a number of clubs would queue up to take it over, but, the issue is not taking it over, the issue is what they want and they know, like the Gold Coast knew, that relocating a team is a much easier way into the AFL than getting a brand new team and what they are asking or expecting I doubt any other club would want to walk into that.

 

[ManicMiner]

This just went up on the Tassie govt website:

The Premier, David Bartlett, today said he’d enjoyed a productive meeting with AFL CEO, Andrew Demetriou, and other league executives.


“I came here today to compare notes with Mr Demetriou, and develop a shared understanding about the future of AFL football in Tasmania,” Mr Bartlett said.


“The Government will soon enter fresh sponsorship negotiations with the Hawthorn Football Club. As the body responsible for rostering matches, the AFL’s views and priorities will naturally have a key bearing on those negotiations.


“I’ll let the AFL speak for itself on those matters, but am very pleased with our general discussions today.


“As I’ve consistently said, our number one priority is to negotiate a new deal with Hawthorn, to secure at least four games at Aurora Stadium each season, and hopefully more.

“The Hawthorn deal has been great for Tasmania. I’m totally determined to negotiate the best possible renewal of that deal for Tasmanian taxpayers. I won’t be letting anyone simply walk into negotiations, and name their price,” Mr Bartlett said.

“This morning, I’ve also met briefly with North Melbourne FC President, James Brayshaw, to follow-up our phone conversation a few weeks ago.
“Mr Brayshaw repeated his club’s interest in playing games in Tasmania, and I thanked him for taking an interest in Tasmanian football.
“As I’ve also consistently said, the Government is not opposed to the AFL scheduling games at Bellerive Oval, but it will not be funding those games.
“I’ve also had productive conversations with Hawthorn FC President, Jeff Kennett, in the last few days.
“I understand the considerable interest in these negotiations. Many Tasmanians are passionate about growing AFL football in their State. So is the Government.
“Our ultimate longer-term goal is to see a Tasmanian team in the AFL,” he said.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Pull up stumps gents. Pull up the tassie stumps

 

[Jables]

A 20 year major sponsorship is ridiculous, surely he meant that's an estimate of how long the Hawks want to keep a substantial presence there? I fail to see how it would be in either sides interest.

I don't hate the Tassie deal as it is and wouldn't mind seeing us play another game or two there, I don't quite understand what a "partial relocation" is, you're either relocated or you're not. Everyone knows this is a Victorian club and always will be, but playing a couple more games at the G wouldn't win over anymore Victorian kids than we do currently, and if we can keep our roughly 10000 Tasmanian members happy and increase our support there why not?