View Full Version : Why are Hawks opposing a 17th team ?
Pessimistic
11 Dec 2007, 20:49
Smacks of beiing happy to take cash from these regions but also denying their own team.
Jeff is also quick to talk down the prospects of a standalone Tasmanian team - I know they have demographic problems but they have the best crowds and best stadium outside of the traditional areas.
I don't think we should have been so quixk to deny a 17th team and at the same time say clubs should not be on welfare (aimed dirctly at the kangaroos)
As a club which in 1996 felt the points of a dozen or so daggers about to be plunged in our 'back' I'm surprised we are so quick to draw our dagger
Neville Bartos
12 Dec 2007, 00:03
Clubs are selfish. They have to be or they merge or disappear. Facts of life
I think Kennett is impatient to see all clubs become self-sustaining.
The opposition is probably coming from the view that unsustainable Melbourne clubs should be making way for the clubs from new areas.
I think we and the other clubs would much prefer a relocation was done. Relocating a club not only means one less Melbourne club to subsidise but means less subsidisation of the new team because it begins with a membership base. That and the issue of raiding of player stocks for a new club to start.
In the end I doubt we'll oppose the 17th club unless the conditions are seen as too generous, but we will probably ask for cuts to subsidies for Melbourne clubs.
We will have to deal with the likelihood that delaying the Gold Coast club will add to the long-term subsidies the new club will need. The longer rivals such as the Titans get to entrench themselves the bigger the barriers to market-entry will get for the AFL.
Here's a few reasons
A dilution of the playing talent available
An extra competitor for sponsors
An extra club would be a financial black hole
We would have to surrender players to the new club to set it up , quite possibly one of our best ten.
The aim (threat) of the 17th team is to create football Darwinism in Melbourne , nothing more nothing less , and all to sate Vlad's impatience to expand his dominions and power.
Hawkers Hero
12 Dec 2007, 06:58
Here's a few reasons
A dilution of the playing talent available
An extra competitor for sponsors
An extra club would be a financial black hole
We would have to surrender players to the new club to set it up , quite possibly one of our best ten.
The aim (threat) of the 17th team is to create football Darwinism in Melbourne , nothing more nothing less , and all to sate Vlad's impatience to expand his dominions and power.
And thats what worries me :(
If the AFL stays true to form, the new club would have first dibs on any uncontracted players from the other 16 teams.
With the likes of Buddy, Roughead & Lewis along with many other youngsters out of contract at the end of next season, the Hawks could be decimated along with our grand plans for a premiership.
Robber Baron
12 Dec 2007, 07:14
Jeff knows that that Demetruio cheat will change the rules again on us just when were gunna win the premiership so he can get his trip to the gold coast every winter to get some sun on his fat arse. We dont need a 17th club and if the 17th club came in there gunna have all that AFL money and there gunna staeal of us our gun kids and try and get Clarko and there defenetely gunna try and get the best CEO of all the AFL in Ian Robbon. Thats why Jeff knows what going on and hes saying to Vlad to piss of or Jeff will get angry and then hell be looking for a new job when Jeffs finished with him. Jeffs just giving him a warning. You can forget about a 17th team ever in the AFL with Jeff around hes got to much power.
Mervyn Beasley
12 Dec 2007, 08:18
Maybe it's just because, they, like most fans dont want to see a fixture that is diluted even further, not to mention more inequitable, and furthermore, lacking in any real credibility in relation to other major codes and leagues both nationally and internationally whom play eachother twice!!
cschreuder61
12 Dec 2007, 08:40
Maybe the question should be how does the new club benefit Hawthorn?
If it doesn't, and actually could cause harm, why would we support it?
17 teams is getting too much IMO, 16 is the right amount.
Its obvious there are about 1 or 2 many clubs in Victoria, but obviously none are putting their hands up to merge or relocate so its a difficult situaiton.
But I don't support a new club, what if they take a Grant Birchall or a Jordan Lewis from us. Their players will have to come from some where.
noosa hawk mad
12 Dec 2007, 09:44
Smacks of beiing happy to take cash from these regions but also denying their own team.
Jeff is also quick to talk down the prospects of a standalone Tasmanian team - I know they have demographic problems but they have the best crowds and best stadium outside of the traditional areas.
I don't think we should have been so quixk to deny a 17th team and at the same time say clubs should not be on welfare (aimed dirctly at the kangaroos)
As a club which in 1996 felt the points of a dozen or so daggers about to be plunged in our 'back' I'm surprised we are so quick to draw our daggerIMO it won,t matter what any one thinks their will be a 17th team in the AFL.The negatives of a 17th team as a Hawthorn supporter is players being poached and draft concessions all will have an impact on our club.
Brown Blood
12 Dec 2007, 10:08
I find it hard for anyone to support a 17th or even 18th club at the moment because no one not even the afl knows what they are supporting or the ramifications involved.
- the draw would be an absolute debacle with the need to introduce byes with some clubs getting one and others 2 a year!
- as a result of the problems with the draw a conference system has been mooted but how would this be decided? a top 8 and bottom 9?, would they play off against each other?, and one of the conferences would have an odd number of clubs resulting in a bye again - if the draw is currently slanted having 17 teams can only make it worse.
- how would the new club recruit personnel? I would be very unhappy if the afl said we had to nominate a couple of players that we have been nurturing for a number of years & remember the afl will be bending over backwards to make them competitive.
- how would the club be financed? we know the afl wanted to put $100 into norths move - to do a team from scratch would cost far more and what happens if there are problems & TV revenue isn't as high next time around?
- related to financing and is the cost of the ground and infrastructure (roads, public transport, parking) surrounding cararra which is substandard and also requires massive capital investment in the orders of $10's of millions - who is going to pay for this?
- further on the above instead of having 16 clubs cutting up the total revenue pie there will be 17 - how does that help any existing team?
The fact is the afl tried to railroad north to go north because it suited their growth agenda - the other fact is they haven't nearly considered all the ramifications involved - they don't even have a stadium deal.
If they haven't fully considered all the issues involved in moving an existing club who can anyone consider they understand whats involved in creating a new club.
Like other posters have pointed out I cannot see any advantage or benefit for HFC in the creation of a new club.
All I can see (like I presume kennett) is RISK for no return.
philhawk
12 Dec 2007, 10:28
Question - if we lost one of Roughead or Lewis to this 'new team' if they came about - would we get compensated?
Brown Blood
12 Dec 2007, 10:33
Question - if we lost one of Roughead or Lewis to this 'new team' if they came about - would we get compensated?
I can't see how you could be compensated.
I have vague memories when brisbane bears started and each club had to nominate (I think) 2 players to go there.
I don't remember any compensation but I do remember there was quite a difference in the quality of some of the players each club came up with to go.
Mitchell Madness
12 Dec 2007, 11:15
And thats what worries me :(
If the AFL stays true to form, the new club would have first dibs on any uncontracted players from the other 16 teams.
With the likes of Buddy, Roughead & Lewis along with many other youngsters out of contract at the end of next season, the Hawks could be decimated along with our grand plans for a premiership.
why would any of them want to leave? Especially buddy. He seems to love the club more than Lewis and Roughy Combined. We are semi-successful at the moment, which in-turn generates hype around them, and gives them more money through player sponsorship.
If any player is going to leave from our high recruits, i believe it will be X. Ellis, whichh is easily covered IMO.
As for the 17th team, it is because Kennett is a traditionalist. The interview he did on the VFL Half time show at the begininning of the year, he said so, and he also said he wants to make sure the league becomes solid before moving into other markets.
As for him opposing a tassie team, it is because we make such a profit from marketing in tasmania, losing that, or having to compete with another team, could have very bad effects on our club.
Coathanger
12 Dec 2007, 11:20
Remember the Bears..Enough said.
Hawkers Hero
12 Dec 2007, 11:58
why would any of them want to leave? Especially buddy. He seems to love the club more than Lewis and Roughy Combined. We are semi-successful at the moment, which in-turn generates hype around them, and gives them more money through player sponsorship.
If any player is going to leave from our high recruits, i believe it will be X. Ellis, whichh is easily covered IMO.
My point is that it wont matter if they love the club or not - the new club could well be given a list of uncontracted players and told to pick two from each team.
That would give them 32 Players - They would then be given preferential treatment in the various drafts to top up their list.
lethalselbow
12 Dec 2007, 16:38
Here's a few reasons
A dilution of the playing talent available
An extra competitor for sponsors
An extra club would be a financial black hole
We would have to surrender players to the new club to set it up , quite possibly one of our best ten.
The aim (threat) of the 17th team is to create football Darwinism in Melbourne , nothing more nothing less , and all to sate Vlad's impatience to expand his dominions and power.
It's also designed to expand the market. Kangaroos were mad to pass on the deal. They are now the target of the AFL once the 17th team comes in.
Mitchell Madness
13 Dec 2007, 07:37
My point is that it wont matter if they love the club or not - the new club could well be given a list of uncontracted players and told to pick two from each team.
That would give them 32 Players - They would then be given preferential treatment in the various drafts to top up their list.
The player still has to agree to it. In other words, the player is given x amount of time to negotiate a new contract with his current club, only then if he declines can the new club sign him.
Also, the new club only gets x amount of AFL listed player. They arent allowed to recruit a whole team full, hence why they have draft concessions. 10 first rounders, 5 2nd, 5 3rd, 12 recycled - that was what was proposed anyway.
lethalselbow
13 Dec 2007, 08:01
Clubs wouldn't be forced to give up super stars.
I'm sure that the AFL would make it fair for all. :thumbsu:
Clubs wouldn't be forced to give up super stars.
I'm sure that the AFL would make it fair for all. :thumbsu:
Lets see , do i trust Vlad and his henchmen to be to be fair to all , i'll have to think about that one.........................nup
Clubs wouldn't be forced to give up super stars.
I'm sure that the AFL would make it fair for all. :thumbsu:
You got to be kidding right?
We have already seen the afl try to put a shotgun at the Kangaroos head to get them to move.
And as far as bringing new players into the new teams do you know what basis clubs would have to give up players? They certainly won't agree to each team putting up a couple of duds.
One thing for sure is this exercise of setting up a new club is going to cost a fortune and the AFL will need to see a return. As a consequence they will be driven more for the $$. We have already seen concessions given to the new clubs and entrants in the form of draft concessions and more favorable salary caps, many suggest this was a big aid to Brisbane and Sydney in winning flags.
Why do you think it will be any different when they will want to make the new team a success?
Hawkers Hero
13 Dec 2007, 10:47
The AFL will be gagging to make sure the new team is successful unlike the Bears outfit when they first came in.
I would not be surprised at all if Vlad and co do force teams to give up superstars to guarantee immediate success.
The AFL knows that there is no better way to get a foothold with the local population better than having a local team do well. Look at the Storm in Melbourne, they have become a success in a tough market in only 10 years courtesy of winning 2 Premierships and being right up there in most seasons.
Mitchell Madness
13 Dec 2007, 10:49
The AFL will be gagging to make sure the new team is successful unlike the Bears outfit when they first came in.
I would not be surprised at all if Vlad and co do force teams to give up superstars to guarantee immediate success.
The AFL knows that there is no better way to get a foothold with the local population better than having a local team do well. Look at the Storm in Melbourne, they have become a success in a tough market in only 10 years courtesy of winning 2 Premierships and being right up there in most seasons.
Melbourne storm picked up rejects form other clubs and turned them into stars. They would be nowhere without these guys. The likes of Slater, Ingles, turner, crocker etc. all were rejects.
Hawkers Hero
13 Dec 2007, 11:03
I know most of the Storm players were rejects. I was making the point that success is the best way to ensure survival.
Yes the Storm have done well converting the nations rejects into stars, but you cannot argue that a more surefire way of obtaining success is by having a team full of acknowledged stars rather than taking a punt in the pre season draft.
I have no problem with the idea of a 17th or 18th team in the comp providing that our team is not comprimised and there is a level playing field - not the AFL pulling every string to buy the Gold Coast team a flag.