View Full Version : Hawks deal value studied
Hawks deal value studied
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22678319-5007221,00.html
AN independent $45,000 study has been commissioned by the State Government to see if it is getting value for its $16.4 million sponsorship of AFL club Hawthorn.
The Government and Hawthorn have appointed sponsorship analysis specialist S-Comm Consulting to probe the controversial arrangement.
Tourism Minister Paula Wriedt said the report would evaluate the range of benefits to Tasmania listed in the five-year agreement...
Neville Bartos
1 Nov 2007, 10:55
Luckily it's on paper.
Brown Blood
1 Nov 2007, 10:57
seems to be an incorrect link hawkk
This is the problem making deals with governments, if they decide to change policy they do so, always a risk involved.
If they dont like it...Feel free to pay out the remaining contract in one hit.
seems to be an incorrect link hawkk
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22678319-5007221,00.html
Brown Blood
1 Nov 2007, 13:20
Seemed to me the mercury have an agenda regarding the deal and this is just another article that seems to be slightly slanted.
All the same, I have faith in the lennon government not being stupid enough to commission an "independent" consultancy study without first knowing what the reports finding will be ;).
flukeyluke
1 Nov 2007, 13:34
There has been significant uproar in Tasie regarding this deal and I couldnt believe the Tas Govmt will re-sign for a similiar or larger amount again when this contract expires.
Assuming they dont renew, I wonder if we would continue to play in Tassie??
The wheels are in motion. Hopefully the next Tassie government will give the Hawthorn deal the flick and we can go back to playing all our home games in Melbourne and not be some semi-relocated Victorian side and a laughing stock amongst the real Victorian clubs.
chaddles
1 Nov 2007, 14:33
Honestly, we have ripped off the Tassie Government haven't we?
I don't really care, if they are stupid enough to sponsor us that much in the first place then great.
Out of interest, would anyone have a clue of what would be the financial difference between a home MCG match v Tassie match? Would we lose out much, if any if we played all our home games in Melbourne?
Brown Blood
1 Nov 2007, 15:04
Honestly, we have ripped off the Tassie Government haven't we?
I don't really care, if they are stupid enough to sponsor us that much in the first place then great.
Oh really?
I don't know how you can say "we" have ripped off the tasmanaian government or they have been stupid - what is your evidence?
Do you know how much through branding and other economic benefits they are getting through the sponsorship deal - all of which will continue to build with our continued improvement on the field over the life of the deal?
When you look at it $3M a year for 5 games and name branding on the most exciting football team in australia seems to me cheap. I would think they get that benefit from the games alone so the branding is free.
And as far as the requirement to play 2 of the 4 games against victorian teams that is not a commitment that we could have made because we have no control over the draw- the AFL does - we could only have ever asked the AFL to try to accomodate this..
GoHawkers
1 Nov 2007, 16:14
With all the stuff going on with the Kangaroos I can't believe how Hawthorn supporters are still so against Tassie.
I think some people are still living in the 70's and 80's when suburban footy was at its best. The AFL have gone professional as when it switched from VFL to AFL....Australia Footblall League.
To have 10 of the AFL clubs in Victoria is just so unbalanced.
The AFL is trying to rectify the situation 2 clubs will either relocate or merge, whatever.....There will be a team in the GC and then one in West Sydney.
If Tassie can't afford to have their own team I am quite happy for them to sponsor us. It protects us somewhat from the AFL. They don't seem to have any interest in Tassie anyway and they have duped them on the draw next year.
I think Tassie did quite well from us last year and I hope next year works out ok. Like others have said it is hard being sponsored by the Govt as things can change quickly.
I hope the bond gets stronger so we can keep getting the sponsorship in years to come.
hodge-910111213
1 Nov 2007, 16:42
With all the stuff going on with the Kangaroos I can't believe how Hawthorn supporters are still so against Tassie.
I think some people are still living in the 70's and 80's when suburban footy was at its best. The AFL have gone professional as when it switched from VFL to AFL....Australia Footblall League.
To have 10 of the AFL clubs in Victoria is just so unbalanced.
The AFL is trying to rectify the situation 2 clubs will either relocate or merge, whatever.....There will be a team in the GC and then one in West Sydney.
If Tassie can't afford to have their own team I am quite happy for them to sponsor us. It protects us somewhat from the AFL. They don't seem to have any interest in Tassie anyway and they have duped them on the draw next year.
I think Tassie did quite well from us last year and I hope next year works out ok. Like others have said it is hard being sponsored by the Govt as things can change quickly.
I hope the bond gets stronger so we can keep getting the sponsorship in years to come.
Great post GH. I'm with you 100%.
I'm sick of people bagging the Tassie deal, and if anything what has happened to North should make it look even better.
Afterall, the only real downside of the deal is that people (mainly bay 13 lunatics) have something to bag us for, but honestly, when we are winning a few flags and have 35-40 thousand members and made our presence sound in the South Eastern suburbs as well as Tassie, we'll see who's laughing.
Look at North Melbourne. Don't tell me they can get out of this one without folding or moving to the Gold Coast.
Until someone finds another sponsor which has the potential to get us more members as well as pay us a handsome amount, the Tassie deal one of the best ones the club has ever made.
Thier like getting 4 to 5000 members from VIC travelling over there, think how much 1 person spends then times it by 5000. And that's just members.
Plus the cost of being a major sponsor, plus the benifit of having games played in Tassie.
Minus what we would get at a larger capacity ground.
Members are the ones being ripped if they wish to travel thier. The inbred population on that island should consider themselves lucky.
Hawkamania!
1 Nov 2007, 18:18
One positive to come out of the study will be that Hawthorn will end up playing teams from four different states (including pre-season) in Tasmania. That will gain some exposure of Tasmania to Sydney and Brisbane fans as well as having Tasmania mentioned in their local papers.
Brown Blood
1 Nov 2007, 20:01
Members are the ones being ripped if they wish to travel thier. The inbred population on that island should consider themselves lucky.
You have branded yourself forever as an idiot - goodbye!
You have branded yourself forever as an idiot - goodbye!
I'm not paying lip service to Tasmania mate. - Get lost!
Brown Blood
1 Nov 2007, 21:20
I'm not paying lip service to Tasmania mate. - Get lost!
Really, "mate" - your comments about tasmania completely brand you as an idiot.
Really, "mate" - your comments about tasmania completely brand you as an idiot.
Thier accurate comments.
Brown Blood
1 Nov 2007, 22:18
Thier accurate comments.
If you are going to start to talk about accuracy "thier" is spelt their!
If you are going to start to talk about accuracy "thier" is spelt their!
And as far your comment saying tasmanians are all inbred I won't even start on that.
Thanks for the tip.
happy_hawks
1 Nov 2007, 22:43
I'm not paying lip service to Tasmania mate. - Get lost!
You are a dead set drop kick. Bet you've never been to the place! I'd like to see you call Tails or Birchall an inbred, or how about Pritchard or Rodney Eade or better yet Peter Hudson.
Brown Blood got it right... kolchak you are an idiot.
medusala
1 Nov 2007, 23:16
Until someone finds another sponsor which has the potential to get us more members as well as pay us a handsome amount, the Tassie deal one of the best ones the club has ever made.
The deal wont get the club more members. Selling games costs membership. I know 2 blokes who have worked for the Dogs and North and both said the same ie clubs selling games interstate causes Melbourne membership nos to drop. I doubt this would be any different at Hawthorn.
ChunkyDuckling
1 Nov 2007, 23:43
You are a dead set drop kick. Bet you've never been to the place! I'd like to see you call Tails or Birchall an inbred, or how about Pritchard or Rodney Eade or better yet Peter Hudson.
Brown Blood got it right... kolchak you are an idiot.
Agreed. You are an ignorant f**kwit kolchak. :thumbsd:
Incidentally, HAVE you been there?
No, and I'm not planning on it.
ChunkyDuckling
2 Nov 2007, 03:23
No, and I'm not planning on it.
didn't think so. have a look at a place first and then form your own opinions, don't steal them of your ignorant dad/schoolmates/whoever. :thumbsu:
They always said Hudson was a freak.
Sorry if I was a bit of a d1ck saying inbreds, but they are still an interstate venue in my mind. I'm sure you wouldn't critisize me for having a go at SA.
Robber Baron
2 Nov 2007, 09:35
The deal wont get the club more members. Selling games costs membership. I know 2 blokes who have worked for the Dogs and North and both said the same ie clubs selling games interstate causes Melbourne membership nos to drop. I doubt this would be any different at Hawthorn.
Mate your wrong.. The Tassie deals giving us $15 milion and thats the bigest of all the other 16 AFL clubs. Jeff Kennet and Ian Rasbon got us the deal and sucking in the dumb Tassie goverment to giving us all these millions. Were gunna be a massive sucess and win premierships and thats gunna give us more then 50000 members and the Tassie people are gunna sign up if they want to go to the games and there go noone else to support with STKilda gone. Jeff said were the monopoly there and hes right theres no other AFL club there so whe else are the Tassies gunna support? Us mate, were the only ones there so that meas were signing them all up as members. Jeff said were gunna sign up 10000 or more and I recon well sign mor e when were gunna win the premiership and if you want to go to the ganrd final your gunna need to be a member. Your mates that barrak for north and dogs doesnt matter for us because there crap clubs, Hawthorn people are better and gunna sign were more loyal and were a sucessful club.
hawker11
2 Nov 2007, 11:48
The deal wont get the club more members. Selling games costs membership. I know 2 blokes who have worked for the Dogs and North and both said the same ie clubs selling games interstate causes Melbourne membership nos to drop. I doubt this would be any different at Hawthorn.
I thought it would have been pretty obvious that selling games would lower membership on the simple fact that you are watering down your core market by offering less value. I believe would have cracked 35,000 members this year if we played 9-11 games in melbourne.
Thankfully for supporters that want more melbourne home games it's looking more likely that after the 5 year deal the Tas Gov and Hawks will water down the current agreement to a more realistic deal. If our on-field fortunes continue the way they have we will be in a powerful position in any case. This all is dependent on us supporters turning up in numbers to games though - as in no more 36,000 at a TD final.
FriarTuck
2 Nov 2007, 12:00
It would make sense to review the contract. With HFC on the rise Tassie has backed a winner. Sydney to a brick that the review reflects that fact.
Kapil Hawk
2 Nov 2007, 12:11
This is the arguably the best deal going around in the AFL. The AFL has stated earlier this year that there is not enough corporate weight to have a team based out of Tasmania so we do not have to worry about any relocation fears and the reciprical tourism $$$ that have been mentioned above make it an equally as good venture for Lennon and co. Add to that accessibility to Launceston is as cheap as it will ever be and the fact that we do get 'away' games back in Melbourne (albeit in compromised conditions) make it a no brainer really.
From our end it is all positives and whilst I can see the value of the deal being capped in the future due to the ridiculous initial value the Tassie gov't have to look at not only the coin that the games bring in but also the development input we are placing down there through the community initiatives and camps earlier in the year which we have committed to be in Tasmania for teh near future. Also this year they got to see each of the top five teams on the ladder in action during the year...not bad:thumbsu:
FriarTuck
2 Nov 2007, 16:39
If you are going to start to talk about accuracy "thier" is spelt their!
They're
hawker11
2 Nov 2007, 17:19
They're
:D I was going to write that - but then it still wouldn't be a well constructed statement...
medusala
2 Nov 2007, 19:15
This is the arguably the best deal going around in the AFL.
How so?
I would have thought Collingwoods MCG deal far superior.
Also consider the Dogs and Melbournes deal. They get paid a fortune to play in Melbourne.
Hawthorn on the other hand has to buy Melbourne games.
ChunkyDuckling
2 Nov 2007, 20:33
The deal wont get the club more members. Selling games costs membership. I know 2 blokes who have worked for the Dogs and North and both said the same ie clubs selling games interstate causes Melbourne membership nos to drop. I doubt this would be any different at Hawthorn.
The difference is that the majority of Hawks fans (in my experience) are happy to play 4 games in Tassie for the revenue it produces. Happy fans keep buying memberships...
How so?
I would have thought Collingwoods MCG deal far superior.
Also consider the Dogs and Melbournes deal. They get paid a fortune to play in Melbourne.
Hawthorn on the other hand has to buy Melbourne games.
Do Collingwood get $$$ for playing games at the MCG, indirectly its a 'deal' but officially its request the MCC puts to the AFL each year to keep the peace
medusala
2 Nov 2007, 22:59
Do Collingwood get $$$ for playing games at the MCG, indirectly its a 'deal' but officially its request the MCC puts to the AFL each year to keep the peace
Could be wrong but I believe they have a contract (and think a social club type area is part of it). There is no doubt this helps them to make cash.
As for getting $ to play in Melbourne thats more directed at Melbourne and the Dogs.
That Hawthorn sells more games than these clubs is extraordinary.
Whilst everyone on here claims its a brilliant deals, other clubs are very reluctant to sell that many games even though they are in worse financial shape.
I will be amazed if the Hawks are in Tas in 10 years time. If it makes alot of money then there will be no need for it. If it doesnt then there is no point.
Not only that but if North moves thats likely one less game a year in Melbourne.
Hawks deal value studied
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22678319-5007221,00.html
And guess what, it will say have great the deal is - if the opposition commissioned it, the report would say how bad it is.