Hawthorn should NOT be in the BIG 4.

[mojon95]

I'm tired of Hawthorn supporters claiming they should be in the big 4. The big 4 is based on:

a) Supporter Base
b) Success of Teams
c) Origin and Age of the Club
d) Rivals with others of Big 4

This table will show that Hawthorn does NOT belong in the big 4.

S07 = Supporters in 2007
P = Premierships
W = Wooden Spoons
B = Brownlows
Y = Year the club started
BR = Biggest Rival

-----------------S07--------P------W------B-------Y----------BR
____________________________________________________________ ___
Carlton--------35,431----16------3------4-----1864------Ess/Coll
Essendon------32,759----16------4------9-----1871-----Coll/Carl
Collingwood---38,587----14------2------8-----1892------Carl/Ess
Richmond-----30,044----10------6------5-----1860------Ess/Coll
____________________________________________________________ ____
Hawthorn-----31,064-----9------11-----4-----1883-------=Ess

That pretty much says it all

[Jeremias]

They aren't in the Big 4, and shouldn't be - as you said.

The Big 4 is Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond.

[boncer34]

Carlton are bigger rivals with Richmond then we are.

[SA HAWK]

We are not in the big 4 and never will be.

I would rather be in the top 4 than the big 4. All that matters to me is how many games we win this year. Not what happened in the past or how popular we are.

If it makes you feel better though then good luck to you.

[mark73]

I'm tired of Hawthorn supporters claiming they should be in the big 4.
I'm not. Because they aren't.

In fact I'd love to know where this "big 4" came from.

To me, as far as Victorian clubs are concerned, especially since the introduction of the AFL, there's only a Big 2.

Off field - Collingwood

On field - North Melbourne

[boncer34]

I'm not. Because they aren't.

In fact I'd love to know where this "big 4" came from.

To me, as far as Victorian clubs are concerned, especially since the introduction of the AFL, there's only a Big 2.

Off field - Collingwood
On field - North Melbourne

Considering Essendon is worth more.....

As for North.... I'll pay that.:thumbsu:

[Hawks 08]

I'm tired of Hawthorn supporters claiming they should be in the big 4. The big 4 is based on:

a) Supporter Base
b) Success of Teams
c) Origin and Age of the Club
d) Rivals with others of Big 4

This table will show that Hawthorn does NOT belong in the big 4.

S07 = Supporters in 2007
P = Premierships
W = Wooden Spoons
B = Brownlows
Y = Year the club started
BR = Biggest Rival

-----------------S07--------P------W------B-------Y----------BR
____________________________________________________________ ___
Carlton--------35,431----16------3------4-----1864------Ess/Coll
Essendon------32,759----16------4------9-----1871-----Coll/Carl
Collingwood---38,587----14------2------8-----1892------Carl/Ess
Richmond-----30,044----10------6------5-----1860------Ess/Coll
____________________________________________________________ ____
Hawthorn-----31,064-----9------11-----4-----1883-------=Ess

That pretty much says it all

Why do you sniff under your dog's tail, you unwashed skanky quack who seduces the maggotous nutcase and the moldy sock devouring salad for brains.

[boncer34]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=420443:o:o

[Hawkk]

I'm tired of Hawthorn supporters claiming they should be in the big 4. The big 4 is based on:

a) Supporter Base
b) Success of Teams
c) Origin and Age of the Club
d) Rivals with others of Big 4

This table will show that Hawthorn does NOT belong in the big 4.

S07 = Supporters in 2007
P = Premierships
W = Wooden Spoons
B = Brownlows
Y = Year the club started
BR = Biggest Rival

-----------------S07--------P------W------B-------Y----------BR
____________________________________________________________ ___
Carlton--------35,431----16------3------4-----1864------Ess/Coll
Essendon------32,759----16------4------9-----1871-----Coll/Carl
Collingwood---38,587----14------2------8-----1892------Carl/Ess
Richmond-----30,044----10------6------5-----1860------Ess/Coll
____________________________________________________________ ____
Hawthorn-----31,064-----9------11-----4-----1883-------=Ess

That pretty much says it all

In otherwords we've got the 4th largest membership, won 9 flags and were established in 1902

Do your homework FFS.

[Hawkk]

We are not in the big 4 and never will be.

I would rather be in the top 4 than the big 4. All that matters to me is how many games we win this year. Not what happened in the past or how popular we are.

If it makes you feel better though then good luck to you.

Why not?

Melbourne were one of the biggest clubs in the first half of the century and now they've got the smallest membership in Melbourne.

BTW, instead of using VFL/AFL premierships, why not use total silverware won by the club?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=418776

ESSENDON 16 4 9 6 1 36
CARLTON 16 2 4 5 2 31
HAWTHORN 9 - 6 9 2 26
GEELONG 7 7 8 2 - 24
RICHMOND 10 2 7 1 3 23
COLLINGWOOD 14 1 6 1 - 22
NTH MELB 5 5 4 5 1 20
MELBOURNE 12 - 4 3 - 19
SYD/SOUTH MEL 4 5 1 4 1 15
W BULL/FOOTS 1 9 - 4 - 14
FITZROY 8 1 - 2 - 11
ST KILDA 1 - 1 4 - 6

[Gilbert_Hodge]

Hahaha this guys arguement is falling apart. Poor guy. maybe you should do your homework before you post useless crap like this. And as for your pathetic attempt to promote this thread to other Essendon supports... LOL!!!!

And for your information, I couldn't care less if we were a 'Big 4' or not.

[15hodge]

I've never considered us to be in the big 4.
But your analysis is making me think we should be.

According to you:
- we have higher membership than Richmond
- we are only one flag short of Richmond
- we were established before Collingwood
- we have as many Brownlows as Carlton.
- we have a rivalry with another of the big 4 clubs, unlike Richmond.

Thanks for your insight, you put a good case forward to have us in the big 4.

[mark73]

We are not in the big 4 and never will be.

I would rather be in the top 4 than the big 4. All that matters to me is how many games we win this year. Not what happened in the past or how popular we are.
If it makes you feel better though then good luck to you.

Now here's a Hawthorn supporter who knows what it's really all about. Couldn't have said it better if I tried. :thumbsu:

[Hawkk]

Considering Essendon is worth more.....

As for North.... I'll pay that.:thumbsu:

Based on worth?

1. Collingwood
2. Essendon
3. Hawthorn
4. Geelong
10. Carlton

[smasha]

Well everyone hates Richmond.

I remember the true Australian.

The one that stood up for the underdog.

How times have changed.


Especially snotty nosed Hawthorn kids.

[dapto]

Well everyone hates Richmond.

I remember the true Australian.

The one that stood up for the underdog.

How times have changed.


Especially snotty nosed Hawthorn kids.
Read *cry for help*



Losing your dignity too

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

I'm tired of Hawthorn supporters claiming they should be in the big 4. The big 4 is based on:

a) Supporter Base
b) Success of Teams
c) Origin and Age of the Club
d) Rivals with others of Big 4

This table will show that Hawthorn does NOT belong in the big 4.

S07 = Supporters in 2007
P = Premierships
W = Wooden Spoons
B = Brownlows
Y = Year the club started
BR = Biggest Rival

-----------------S07--------P------W------B-------Y----------BR
____________________________________________________________ ___
Carlton--------35,431----16------3------4-----1864------Ess/Coll
Essendon------32,759----16------4------9-----1871-----Coll/Carl
Collingwood---38,587----14------2------8-----1892------Carl/Ess
Richmond-----30,044----10------6------5-----1860------Ess/Coll
____________________________________________________________ ____
Hawthorn-----31,064-----9------11-----4-----1883-------=Ess

That pretty much says it all

When setting up your account, how did you mistake a 'j' for an 'r' on the keyboard, they're nowhere next to each other?

:thumbsd:

[delirious1]

Dont care, 2 of the big 4 havent played regular finals in a while,

[JeffDunne]

Hawthorn sell home games interstate.

They're barely a Victorian team these days let alone a 'big' anything.

Look no further than their 'home' final last year against the Crows as evidence. Piss poor crowd and the president is on the record saying he wished he could play the game in Tasmania.

[Hawkk]

Hawthorn sell home games interstate.

They're barely a Victorian team these days let alone a 'big' anything.

Look no further than their 'home' final last year against the Crows as evidence. Piss poor crowd and the president is on the record saying he wished he could play the game in Tasmania.

Not really…

Finals at the TD
Geelong vs. Hawthorn – 44,709 (2000)
Essendon vs. West Coast – 37,475 (2002)
Hawthorn vs. Adelaide – 36,534 (2007)
Hawthorn vs. Sydney – 32,910 (2001)
Kangaroos vs. Port – 25,195 (2005)
Avg: 35,364

Same finals at the MCG
Essendon vs. West Coast – 85,656 (1996)
Hawthorn vs. Adelaide - 55,287 (1993)
Kangaroos vs. Port – 31,456 (1999)
Avg: 57,466

Coincidence

[Juddernaut08]

I've never considered us to be in the big 4.
But your analysis is making me think we should be.

According to you:
- we have higher membership than Richmond
- we are only one flag short of Richmond
- we were established before Collingwood
- we have as many Brownlows as Carlton.
- we have a rivalry with another of the big 4 clubs, unlike Richmond.

Thanks for your insight, you put a good case forward to have us in the big 4.

-You have lower membership than Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton
-You have a whopping 8 MORE WOODEN SPOONS THAN CARLTON! and more wooden spoons than any club listed here
-You were established after Carlton and Essendon and Richmond, You have less Brownlow winners than Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond

So hodge5 - If you wanna twist facts to suit ya, remember it works both ways...douche

[Tormented Tiger]

Hawthorn can't be in the Big 4 as they sold their supporters out for the Tassie dollar and now are null and void when it comes to any talk about a Big 4.

[Hawks1523]

Attempt at most potent mind imo. :rolleyes:
The big four does not really exist. It's just something made by supporters to make their clubs seem more important.

[15hodge]

-You have lower membership than Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton
-You have a whopping 8 MORE WOODEN SPOONS THAN CARLTON! and more wooden spoons than any club listed here
-You were established after Carlton and Essendon and Richmond, You have less Brownlow winners than Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond

So hodge5 - If you wanna twist facts to suit ya, remember it works both ways...douche

Ah, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

I didnt twist any facts, merely used the info supplied in the OP, but i think your knickers are in a twist judderwank88.

[Keyser Soze]

Why do you sniff under your dog's tail, you unwashed skanky quack who seduces the maggotous nutcase and the moldy sock devouring salad for brains.


http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff278/Keyser_Soze_BF/Number%20two/poster39742838.jpg

Not this time - but this is the type of post I will be handing out infractions for. Adds nothing to the topic and is just mindless personal abuse.

It doesn't even make sense.

[Groggyk]

The big 4. Hmmm....

Kind of like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny really, in so far as once you get a little older you realise that it's something that doesn't actually exist and gives immature kiddies something to believe in.

[Corpuscles]

Not this time - .

Clap Clap bravo:thumbsu:.... much better that someone gets a public forum warning first!

Well done KS you are ... on your toes and way out in front!

(Ps... don't you think he was a bit funny?:D)

[Corpuscles]

The big 6 important clubs are not even in Victoria.... why do you bother squabbling over 4th -5th place.... anyway haven't Dorks got Tassie all to themselves????:confused:

[Hawkk]

-You have lower membership than Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton
-You have a whopping 8 MORE WOODEN SPOONS THAN CARLTON! and more wooden spoons than any club listed here
-You were established after Carlton and Essendon and Richmond, You have less Brownlow winners than Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond

So hodge5 - If you wanna twist facts to suit ya, remember it works both ways...douche

- Hawthorn have more McCellend Trophies (6) than Carlton (5) and equal with Collingwood (6)...Essendon and Richmond have won 9 and 7 each
- Hawthorn have more Championship of Aust. (2) titles than Collingwood (0), Essendon (1) and the same as Carlton (2). Richmond have 3
- Hawthorn have won the most Night Series/Preseason Premierships (9), Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond have won 6, 4, 1 and 1 respectively

Twisting facts can work 3 ways ;)

[JeffDunne]

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff278/Keyser_Soze_BF/Number%20two/poster39742838.jpg

Not this time - but this is the type of post I will be handing out infractions for. Adds nothing to the topic and is just mindless personal abuse.

It doesn't even make sense.

Careful Keyser

You won't keep your job showing a sense of humour and common sense.

[dapto]

Clap Clap bravo:thumbsu:.... much better that someone gets a public forum warning first!

Well done KS you are ... on your toes and way out in front!
----------------------------
(Ps... don't you think he was a bit funny?:D)
Do you want to clarify which 50% was sarcastic and which ws serious?

[FlyingCrow]

Big 4 is not relevant in the AFL

Richmonds "membership" surely cheapens it. The Big 3 are all iconic clubs and futures are safe. But will Richmond be around if they continue to not make finals? Probably not.

Only one of these clubs has two AFL Flags.

And the NMFC is actually the most successfull Victorian club in the AFL era. On Field that is, afterall that is what we are all here for.

[Corpuscles]

Do you want to clarify which 50% was sarcastic and which ws serious?

thanks:thumbsu: you got it!!!
KS knows I luv his posts/ sense of humor...crawls on knees!

serious:)
-------
sarcastic/semi-serious:rolleyes::D

[bomba4eva]

Now here's a Hawthorn supporter who knows what it's really all about. Couldn't have said it better if I tried. :thumbsu:
Of course a Roos fan is going to ride on the coattails of that argument as they will never be near the top few clubs in terms of financial stability.
Hawthorn arent in the 'big 4'. Their fans know that.

[bomba4eva]

The big 4. Hmmm....

Kind of like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny really, in so far as once you get a little older you realise that it's something that doesn't actually exist and gives immature kiddies something to believe in.
Awwwww someone feels left out. Here is a lollipop
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/45/70/22187045.jpg

[Mitchell Madness]

we dotn want to be in the big 4, however, we want recognition for thinking outside the square and fixing a club which was imploding - twice!

We want to be recognised as a side which is on the up, and should continue rising for some time. We want recognition for turning a 30yr whipping boy into arguably the greatest side to ever grace the field in vfl/AFL history.

We want recognition for helping out the worst club in the VFA/VFL in Box Hill, who had competed 100 + yrs without a Flag. 2 yrs after the affiliation, they got one, and should have had another 2 yrs later if not for Collingwood/Williamstown, who exploited the system by playing 19 players who had played over 13 matches of AFL that season (which forced the rule change that in finals a player must have played at least 10 VFL matches in season to qualify for finals)

we want recognition for thinking outside the square in terms of sponsorship. The reason all these calls are made is because it is just that, a very large sponsorship!

[Groggyk]

Awwwww someone feels left out. Here is a lollipop
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/45/70/22187045.jpg

That's ok little girl, you keep it.;)

[Hawkk]

Of course a Roos fan is going to ride on the coattails of that argument as they will never be near the top few clubs in terms of financial stability.
Hawthorn arent in the 'big 4'. Their fans know that.

Hawthorn hasn't and proabably never will have the prestige of the traditional 4 inner city clubs...I doubt any fan will argue that, but in terms of modern football, does that matter?

In terms of financial stablity, the Hawks are the 3rd most financially stable club in Melbourne, have been in the top 4 Vic clubs for membership consistantly over a sustained period of time and have won the most premierships post 1960.

The 'Big 4' have never dominated the VFL or AFL, infact, there has never been an occasion when ALL FOUR 'members' have made the finals in the one year.

Carlton/Collingwood/Essendon/Geelong share the distinction of appearing in the finals the most amount of years.

[bomba4eva]

That's ok little girl, you keep it.;)
Im sure her mummy will buy her another one. You look like you need it more than her.

[bomba4eva]

Hawthorn hasn't and proabably never will have the prestige of the traditional 4 inner city clubs...I doubt any fan will argue that, but in terms of modern football, does that matter?

The Hawks are the 3rd wealthiest Melbourne based club (yes despite playing games in Tasmania, they are based in Melbourne) have been in the top 4 Vic clubs for membership consistantly for the past 10 years and have won the most premierships post 1960.

The Hawks aren't in the 'big 4' but that doesn't mean they can't be one of the biggest clubs in Melbourne...either way, when was the last time all members of the 'Big 4' made the finals?

A: Its never happened
As long as you know that we can all agree.
Regarding your question, you are quite right. 'Big 4' doesnt guarantee finals. It does mean that financial problems shouldnt occur too regularly or with too much venom. More televised games on free to air is another advantage.

[Groggyk]

I look like I need it? Only one of us is posting self portraits. Did Santa give you that one?

[Hawkk]

As long as you know that we can all agree.
Regarding your question, you are quite right. 'Big 4' doesnt guarantee finals. It does mean that financial problems shouldnt occur too regularly or with too much venom. More televised games on free to air is another advantage.

Richmond appear on FTA television in only 10 games this season (less then Collingwood, Geelong, Essendon, St Kilda, Carlton, Hawthorn) and don't play in one Friday Night game this year, Carlton likewise only appeared in 9 FTA games last year.

In England, the 'Big 4' consists of Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea - the Money clubs. That is, despite Chelsea having a very modest history overall...FWIW Aston Villa are the 4th most successful club and Tottenham has the 4th largest support base in England.

The point I was trying to make is that the Big 4 isnt relevent...it doesn't even refer to the most successful, wealthiest or highest membered clubs in Melbourne yet alone across the league. All it refers to is a group of inner city Melbourne clubs who a 1920's journalist observed was the biggest 4 clubs during the day.

[unit27]

Dont care, 2 of the big 4 havent played regular finals in a while,

Hawthorn have only played in finals 3 times this decade so dont make out ur that much better than us at present ..

Carlton since 2000 have played in finals twice, richmond once and collingwood and essendon alot more times, so give up buddy.

[gopies1981]

Richmond and Cartlon Arenot in the Big 4. The big 4 Are:-


West Coast
Adelaide
Collingwood
Essendon

[jazz]

Attempt at most potent mind imo. :rolleyes:
The big four does not really exist. It's just something made by supporters to make their clubs seem more important.

Amen.

If there's a big 4 with Richmond in it then it pretty much disproves itself right there....

[matey]

They aren't in the Big 4, and shouldn't be - as you said.

The Big 4 is Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond.

No argument re Blues/Pies/Bombers.

In terms of Tigers 25 years ago Hawks were no where near the Tigers in terms of premierships/supporter base. I reckon Hawks will take over and have more premierships then the Tigers in the next 5 years. The traditional supporter base gap has narrowed due to the Hawks success in the 80's/early 90's and players like Buddy will get a few more youngsters/supporters on board for the years to come!

[Simon_Nesbit]

From my POV, there are many different arguments and statistics people draw from, but there are two groups, the "big 4" (Ess, Coll, Adel, WC) (from 4-1), and the big "2" (Coll, Ess) in Melbourne. Carlton will create a big "3" should they see success in the near future.

[bomba4eva]

I look like I need it? Only one of us is posting self portraits. Did Santa give you that one?
Yes, self portrait indeed:rolleyes:
Easter Bunny actually. Damn Bunny ran out of egg:mad:

[huggy_b]

Is the big 4 even relevant in the AFL? Seems to me to be a relic of the past (VFL). No team is bigger than the AFL, Vlad will make sure of that.....

[dave10]

Based on worth?

1. Collingwood
2. Essendon
3. Hawthorn
4. Geelong
10. Carlton


Hawkk, I know its beside the point but have to disagree with you here. Show me evidence that Collingwood is worth more than Essendon? Balance sheets have Essendon net worth at $17.5m Vs Collingwood $12m.

[LJ Garner]

I agree. I reckon Hawthorn should be included in the BIG 16. then noone would miss out.

[boncer34]

have won the most premierships post 1960.

What happened to the 1925 argument? That was going so well.:rolleyes:

[boncer34]

Based on worth?

1. Collingwood
2. Essendon
3. Hawthorn
4. Geelong
10. Carlton

Oh look. Making up stories again I see.

[Hawkk]

Oh look. Making up stories again I see.

No, not really.

There are only 3 Vic clubs that have net assets +10m, they are;

Essendon $17.5m
Collingwood $12m
Hawthorn $10.8m

I'm no accountant, but I'm guessing having positive net assets is better then having negative net assets (Carlton)

[sunnyTEE]

As far as I am concerned there is only the Big 'One', Collingwood. All the rest are insignificant.

[gopies1981]

Hawkk, I know its beside the point but have to disagree with you here. Show me evidence that Collingwood is worth more than Essendon? Balance sheets have Essendon net worth at $17.5m Vs Collingwood $12m.

But in the last 6 years Collingwood have made bigger profits then Essendon.

Collingwood's turnover is the biggest in the AFL with 55 million. Essendon is at 33 million. Collingwood do spend alot more money then Essendon. Remember 21 million is a huge difference, if Collingwood decide to cut cost's it would not take much for Collingwood to make a 6-7 million dollar profit and have a net worth of about the same as essendon in one year.

I know in the last couple of years in some business magazine they rate Collingwood as the No.1 sporting franchise. I would assume it would be based on mostly turnover, but would also take into account Attendances (Collingwood are 1st in the area), and Strong Membership base (38,587 in 2007) and Sponsorship which Collingwood are No.1 inthe AFL.

[FlyingCrow]

But in the last 6 years Collingwood have made bigger profits then Essendon.

Collingwood's turnover is the biggest in the AFL with 55 million. Essendon is at 33 million. Collingwood do spend alot more money then Essendon. Remember 21 million is a huge difference, if Collingwood decide to cut cost's it would not take much for Collingwood to make a 6-7 million dollar profit and have a net worth of about the same as essendon in one year.

I know in the last couple of years in some business magazine they rate Collingwood as the No.1 sporting franchise. I would assume it would be based on mostly turnover, but would also take into account Attendances (Collingwood are 1st in the area), and Strong Membership base (38,587 in 2007) and Sponsorship which Collingwood are No.1 inthe AFL.
I have always thought the modern Big four would be

Collingwood
WCE
Adelaide
Essendon

Big Money and Success. Three of the four have two AFL Flags and make large profits each year. All four use modern business practice to grow the club and (I am not sure about Essendon, but I am sure they do) all have top notch facilities.

Also all four start each season beleiving they can have success on the field. Carlton and Richmond do not have this. Neither are modern clubs. Carlton think they are, but they have again resorted to bending the rules (and the ideal of sportmanship) in the hope of succeeding. Richmond are just crap in all areas, apart from supporters.

[TigerGlory]

- we have a rivalry with another of the big 4 clubs, unlike Richmond.


Yeah thats why we play Collingwood every Rivalry Round :confused:

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

But in the last 6 years Collingwood have made bigger profits then Essendon.

Collingwood's turnover is the biggest in the AFL with 55 million. Essendon is at 33 million. Collingwood do spend alot more money then Essendon. Remember 21 million is a huge difference, if Collingwood decide to cut cost's it would not take much for Collingwood to make a 6-7 million dollar profit and have a net worth of about the same as essendon in one year.

I know in the last couple of years in some business magazine they rate Collingwood as the No.1 sporting franchise. I would assume it would be based on mostly turnover, but would also take into account Attendances (Collingwood are 1st in the area), and Strong Membership base (38,587 in 2007) and Sponsorship which Collingwood are No.1 inthe AFL.

The value of the Collingwood "brand" is worth a lot more than what any balance sheet can illustrate unless fully utilised and is certainly worth much more than Essendon, Adelaide & West Coast combined when it is all said and done IMO.

However, these Big 4 threads make me laugh - almost always started by insecure supporters of Carltank or Richmond who seem to need some reassurance that they are still relevant or by North, Aints and Melbourne people that have seen the Hawthorn Footy Club sprint past them and whose only comeback is to say "Well - you're not in the Big Four, are you?"

Being a realistic chance to challenge for the premiership and knowing we are financially secure now and into the future is all I'm concerned about.

Long live the BIG FOUR - great infastructure for grey nomads.

[Groggyk]

Read the first page, it was started by the Scum.

I don't know one North supporter that could give a shit about the big 4. Just gives fans of Richmond and Carlton in particular something to hang their hat on as they've been a joke on field for years.

[dave10]

But in the last 6 years Collingwood have made bigger profits then Essendon.

Collingwood's turnover is the biggest in the AFL with 55 million. Essendon is at 33 million. Collingwood do spend alot more money then Essendon. Remember 21 million is a huge difference, if Collingwood decide to cut cost's it would not take much for Collingwood to make a 6-7 million dollar profit and have a net worth of about the same as essendon in one year.

I know in the last couple of years in some business magazine they rate Collingwood as the No.1 sporting franchise. I would assume it would be based on mostly turnover, but would also take into account Attendances (Collingwood are 1st in the area), and Strong Membership base (38,587 in 2007) and Sponsorship which Collingwood are No.1 inthe AFL.

GoPies,
You need to put the above into perspective... Yes, Collingwood do turnover $55m V Essendon $36m (incidently) however you need to understand how Essendon and Collingwood operate different businesses with different philosophies. Essendon, the richest club in the AFL ($5.5m more than Collingwood) could easily do what Collingwood did and use its $7m in cash and liquid assets to buy 5 pubs.

Collingwood did buy many pubs at great cost and as a result have the most debt of any club in the AFL. Whilst Collingwood is in signficant debt it trades strongly ($2.2m profit in 2007and thus can service this debt and pay it off comfortably. For Collingwood it means it can generate an additional $20m of non football related income which it uses to re invest into its football dept etc. Now Essendon on the other hand could do exactly the same thing with its $7m in cash and take on some debt. Essendon would also turnover $55m if it purchased 4 pubs like Collingwood and it can easily afford to do it if it wanted to. So it is not accurate to just look at total turnover as a means of 'how big' a club is. Certainly, turnover is not a great indicator of financial strength. Net Assets is the determinant of financial strength from which I have quoted previously in this thread.

Essendon does not see it necessary to turnover $55m at this stage. It also made a 2007 profit of $2.2m and is on track to achieve a similar result in 2008. It appears to have increased membership in poor on field times and is also likely to confirm a new major sponsor also expected to be the most lucrative individual AFL club sponsorship ever signed. Thus, at this stage Essendon is trading strongly enough and growing its business quickly enough to still achieve strong profits. At the same time, It is developing the Windy Hill precinct into a facility which will generate exponential incremental revenue for the football club over the medium term.

So there it is. Different clubs with different philosohies. Both of similar scale with different business models.

[Chaz Pendlebury]

GoPies,
You need to put the above into perspective... Yes, Collingwood do turnover $55m V Essendon $36m (incidently) however you need to understand how Essendon and Collingwood operate different businesses with different philosophies. Essendon, the richest club in the AFL ($5.5m more than Collingwood) could easily do what Collingwood did and use its $7m in cash and liquid assets to buy 5 pubs.

Collingwood did buy many pubs at great cost and as a result have the most debt of any club in the AFL. Whilst Collingwood is in signficant debt it trades strongly ($2.2m profit in 2007and thus can service this debt and pay it off comfortably. For Collingwood it means it can generate an additional $20m of non football related income which it uses to re invest into its football dept etc. Now Essendon on the other hand could do exactly the same thing with its $7m in cash and take on some debt. Essendon would also turnover $55m if it purchased 4 pubs like Collingwood and it can easily afford to do it if it wanted to. So it is not accurate to just look at total turnover as a means of 'how big' a club is. Certainly, turnover is not a great indicator of financial strength. Net Assets is the determinant of financial strength from which I have quoted previously in this thread.

Essendon does not see it necessary to turnover $55m at this stage. It also made a 2007 profit of $2.2m and is on track to achieve a similar result in 2008. It appears to have increased membership in poor on field times and is also likely to confirm a new major sponsor also expected to be the most lucrative individual AFL club sponsorship ever signed. Thus, at this stage Essendon is trading strongly enough and growing its business quickly enough to still achieve strong profits. At the same time, It is developing the Windy Hill precinct into a facility which will generate exponential incremental revenue for the football club over the medium term.

So there it is. Different clubs with different philosohies. Both of similar scale with different business models.

Just had a squiz at both clubs 2007 annual reports (pathetic I know). You're right, Collingwoods gaming activities inflate the difference. Take out secondary activities (gaming, fitness centres, travel agencies etc) and Collingwood's revenue was about $34 million, Essendon's $25 mill. Hawthorn's incidently was about $26. Collingwood spent about $15 mill on its football dept to Essendon's $13 million. Take out the salary cap (players) and what is it, about $6 to $4 (don't know what the cap is atm)

Both revenue / profits and net assets affect a companies worth (Essentially expected net present value of future profits plus net assets). For a member-based football club though revenue streams and football spending have more meaning. Paper values of physical assets used by the team don't really mean that much. Collingwood probably don't own anything at the Lexus centre...

Essendon are a big, well supported, financially secure club. Not the biggist fish but a pretty big one all the same

For what its worth I think Hawthorn will be third in 10 to 20 years with any on field success

[Hawkk]

Just had a squiz at both clubs 2007 annual reports (pathetic I know). You're right, Collingwoods gaming activities inflate the difference. Take out secondary activities (gaming, fitness centres, travel agencies etc) and Collingwood's revenue was about $34 million, Essendon's $25 mill. Hawthorn's incidently was about $26. Collingwood spent about $15 mill on its football dept to Essendon's $13 million. Take out the salary cap (players) and what is it, about $6 to $4 (don't know what the cap is atm)

Both revenue / profits and net assets affect a companies worth (Essentially expected net present value of future profits plus net assets). For a member-based football club though revenue streams and football spending have more meaning. Paper values of physical assets used by the team don't really mean that much. Collingwood probably don't own anything at the Lexus centre...

Essendon are a big, well supported, financially secure club. Not the biggist fish but a pretty big one all the same

For what its worth I think Hawthorn will be third in 10 to 20 years with any on field success

Great post

[kaness]

Dont care, 2 of the big 4 havent played regular finals in a while,

Or maybe even 3 of the 4?;)

[Man City Blues!]

Hawthorn sell home games interstate.

They're barely a Victorian team these days let alone a 'big' anything.

Look no further than their 'home' final last year against the Crows as evidence. Piss poor crowd and the president is on the record saying he wished he could play the game in Tasmania.

Wow I agree with you for the first time.

[kolchak]

Age of club?

Hawthorn est. 1873, do some homework OP, you'll find that predates some of the so called big 4 teams.

[ARES]

Age of club?

Hawthorn est. 1873, do some homework OP, you'll find that predates some of the so called big 4 teams.

In 1925 North and Footscray were invited

Had University not folded earlier, the Mayblooms would have been just that...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets have a bit of Maybloom history

In April 1902, Alf Kosky formed a club from the various district club under the banner of Hawthorn Football Club to compete in the Metropolitan Junior Football Association. The club merged with Boroondara in 1905, and in 1912, Hawthorn merged with successful junior club the Hawthorn Rovers to form the Hawthorn City Football Club to become part of a successful council push to have a club in the prestigious VFA.

Entry to the VFL

The club was relatively late in joining the Victorian Football League (VFL), the predecessor of the AFL. It did so in 1925 as the "Hawthorn Football Club", at the same time as Footscray and North Melbourne, all three coming from the Victorian Football Association (VFA).

The Mayblooms, as they were known then became the perennial whipping boys of the competition..........Hawthorn in the first seventeen years never won more than seven games in season. The club's nickname changed from the Mayblooms or Mayflowers to Hawks in 1943, a promising season in which the club missed the finals only by percentage. However, Hawthorn immediately returned to the bottom of the ladder, consistently competing with St. Kilda for the wooden spoon. Between 1944 and 1953 the club finished last or second last in every year but one, and in 1950 they did not win a match.


Great history :rolleyes: and their supporters have the audacity to ridicule other teams....pffft

A team with more wooden spoons then premierships:thumbsd:

That is why Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond ( Even Melbourne, Geelong & Fitzroy ) did not respect such a club, with a pityful history as such.

We will NEVER forget

[Mcchawk]

In 1925 North and Footscray were invited

Had University not folded earlier, the Mayblooms would have been just that...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets have a bit of Maybloom history



Great history :rolleyes: and their supporters have the audacity to ridicule other teams....pffft

A team with more wooden spoons then premierships:thumbsd:

That is why Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond ( Even Melbourne, Geelong & Fitzroy ) did not respect such a club, with a pityful history as such.

We will NEVER forget

But your kids who don't want to barrack for Richmond will forget who dad barracks for. As the kids say Dad take me to see the Hawks. I take it you'll be a little hot under the collar

[crawf_legend]

You think Essendon deserves to be in the Big 4 the way they have been playing lately? From most Essendon fans, apparently premierships mean nothing either, so dont use the premiership factor in this. Hawthorn is the better team at the current moment, therefore we are in the big 4. Too bad, too sad. Cant change it and no-one really gives a hoot.

[Hawkk]

But your kids who don't want to barrack for Richmond will forget who dad barracks for. As the kids say Dad take me to see the Hawks. I take it you'll be a little hot under the collar

The same thing what his dad did to him :confused:

This sort of thing is common practise in most Tiger households

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

Great history :rolleyes: and their supporters have the audacity to ridicule other teams....pffft

We will NEVER forget

Are you not one of us ARSE?

Your chosen team is Hawthorn is it not?

I wouldn't say NEVER, but I probably can give a pretty good garauntee that I will more than likely never forget what a bottom feeder you are.

Get back to the rabble. It's funny that PRE has been infiltrated but your counter attack is firing more blanks than Man City Blues.

[Mcchawk]

Are you not one of us ARSE?

Your chosen team is Hawthorn is it not?

I wouldn't say NEVER, but I probably can give a pretty good garauntee that I will more than likely never forget what a bottom feeder you are.

Get back to the rabble. It's funny that PRE has been infiltrated but your counter attack is firing more blanks than Man City Blues.

Has changed was a Tiger now a Hawk

[ARES]

Has changed was a Tiger now a Hawk

Why oh why do you turn on one of your own??:confused:

Go Hawkers!!

[relapse]

The big 4 concept is rubbish. West Coast and Adelaide are just as powerful as Collingwood and Essendon. Maybe the Victorian Big 4, but not the Big 4 in the AFL.

[Mcchawk]

Why oh why do you turn on one of your own??:confused:

Go Hawkers!!

Now a Blue. My Father said changing your teams is like batting for the other team :eek: Not that theirs anything wrong with that

[ARES]

I loved Hawthorn, then I read somewhere on Bay 13 Judd>Hodge :thumbsu:

[Mcchawk]

I loved Hawthorn, then I read somewhere on Bay 13 Judd>Hodge :thumbsu:

But we never loved you

[ARES]

But we never loved you

hahaha Your funny

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh Juddy!

[Neville Bartos]

Hawthorn sell home games interstate.

They're barely a Victorian team these days let alone a 'big' anything.

Look no further than their 'home' final last year against the Crows as evidence. Piss poor crowd and the president is on the record saying he wished he could play the game in Tasmania.

Coming from a saints supporter that is hilarious.

Might I remind you the saints copied hawthorn's idea, it didn't work and they left Tassie with their tail between their legs.

Plus, where is the quote that says he'd rather play a final in Tassie? that's the biggest load of crap i've ever read.

[Achilles]

The big 4 concept is rubbish. West Coast and Adelaide are just as powerful as Collingwood and Essendon. Maybe the Victorian Big 4, but not the Big 4 in the AFL.


Totally agree
as the WCE are a money making machine

at present the power clubs would have to be:

Adelaide
WCE
Collingwood

essendon was there, but with sheedy and hird gone their star has fallen

much of this is to do with publicity, and north supporters can see the value of having the media on side

richmond should be there, but given their on and off field performance they are far from it, if the tigers had an eddie they would have been huge, but then again if richo played for the cats he would be considered better than lockett

[Hawkk]

Coming from a saints supporter that is hilarious.

Might I remind you the saints copied hawthorn's idea, it didn't work and they left Tassie with their tail between their legs.

Plus, where is the quote that says he'd rather play a final in Tassie? that's the biggest load of crap i've ever read.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/hawthorn-ponders-a-tasmanian-home-final/2007/07/15/1184438150900.html

"Therefore, if it was ever to arise that there was an opportunity to play a final in Tasmania, I think it would be wonderful for the Tasmanian community and certainly would reinforce the importance of our relationship with Tasmania, as they're now a major sponsor," he said...

Kennett said of the divide between the Hawks' two home bases: "Our loyalty and our heart in many senses is still in Hawthorn, but our opportunity is in Tasmania."

[Gilbert_Hodge]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/hawthorn-ponders-a-tasmanian-home-final/2007/07/15/1184438150900.html

He said it would be wonderful for their community and the relationship between Hawthorn and their sponsor. How can you interpret that into saying he would rather play finals in Tassie than Melbourne? You're an idiot.

[dave10]

Totally agree
as the WCE are a money making machine

at present the power clubs would have to be:

Adelaide
WCE
Collingwood

essendon was there, but with sheedy and hird gone their star has fallen

much of this is to do with publicity, and north supporters can see the value of having the media on side

richmond should be there, but given their on and off field performance they are far from it, if the tigers had an eddie they would have been huge, but then again if richo played for the cats he would be considered better than lockett

Achilles - I would be interested to know on what evidence you base your contention that the Essendon star has fallen? I would argue that along with Judd and Carlton, Essendon's fresh approach and exciting new image has been one of the higher profile media footy stories of the pre season. Essendon has had the equal of any club in terms of media exposure to date.

The Essendon communications dept is so far out in front of any other clubs media deptarment its not funny. Their community camp was closely followed by all major newspapers, they have successfully convinced their supporters and the football world in general that post Sheedy Essendon will be an attacking, faster / harder running and more accountable team. To date their NAB cup performance backs up their claims... They continue to convince all media (TV and Radio) to promote the clubs membership campaign at the conclusion of player / coach interviews - other clubs are not as proactive!

The facts also contradict your argument. Membership has topped 35,000 and will reach 40,000 in total - representing a near 10% rise Vs 2007 following the closure of the Sheedy / Hird era. So much for the doomsdayers who told us Essendon had no future post Sheedy and its 'star had fallen'. On top of that, we await the announcent at years end that Samsung will become the clubs major sponsor - injecting $2.5m per year which makes it easily the biggest single club sponsorship ever signed by an AFL club.

So I am still to be convinced that Essendon is spent force in the AFL and to be relegated to also ran status - it won't happen!

[Achilles]

Achilles - I would be interested to know on what evidence you base your contention that the Essendon star has fallen? I would argue that along with Judd and Carlton, Essendon's fresh approach and exciting new image has been one of the higher profile media footy stories of the pre season. Essendon has had the equal of any club in terms of media exposure to date.

The Essendon communications dept is so far out in front of any other clubs media deptarment its not funny. Their community camp was closely followed by all major newspapers, they have successfully convinced their supporters and the football world in general that post Sheedy Essendon will be an attacking, faster / harder running and more accountable team. To date their NAB cup performance backs up their claims... They continue to convince all media (TV and Radio) to promote the clubs membership campaign at the conclusion of player / coach interviews - other clubs are not as proactive!

The facts also contradict your argument. Membership has topped 35,000 and will reach 40,000 in total - representing a near 10% rise Vs 2007 following the closure of the Sheedy / Hird era. So much for the doomsdayers who told us Essendon had no future post Sheedy and its 'star had fallen'. On top of that, we await the announcent at years end that Samsung will become the clubs major sponsor - injecting $2.5m per year which makes it easily the biggest single club sponsorship ever signed by an AFL club.

So I am still to be convinced that Essendon is spent force in the AFL and to be relegated to also ran status - it won't happen!

i'm not saying they are gone

[RangaInTeal]

Sorry but i think the Big 4 is now, Collingwood, West Coast, Carlton, Adelaide!

[Mitchell Madness]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/hawthorn-ponders-a-tasmanian-home-final/2007/07/15/1184438150900.html
you are a nobhead

It is the writer who wrote that, Kennett Never said HAwthorn want to play Finals in Tassie. He did say however that finals would be good for Tasmania.

He also mentioned that he didnt want a bloody 22k attendance for a final (like the kangaroos did verse port)

[raff23]

I'm tired of Hawthorn supporters claiming they should be in the big 4. The big 4 is based on:

a) Supporter Base
b) Success of Teams
c) Origin and Age of the Club
d) Rivals with others of Big 4

This table will show that Hawthorn does NOT belong in the big 4.

S07 = Supporters in 2007
P = Premierships
W = Wooden Spoons
B = Brownlows
Y = Year the club started
BR = Biggest Rival

-----------------S07--------P------W------B-------Y----------BR
____________________________________________________________ ___
Carlton--------35,431----16------3------4-----1864------Ess/Coll
Essendon------32,759----16------4------9-----1871-----Coll/Carl
Collingwood---38,587----14------2------8-----1892------Carl/Ess
Richmond-----30,044----10------6------5-----1860------Ess/Coll
____________________________________________________________ ____
Hawthorn-----31,064-----9------11-----4-----1883-------=Ess

That pretty much says it all
id like to see the statistics from 1960 onwards in regards to premieships. I think you will find we have more than a fair case going. More members than richmond and one less premiership pretty even if you ask me.

[raff23]

Hawthorn sell home games interstate.

They're barely a Victorian team these days let alone a 'big' anything.

Look no further than their 'home' final last year against the Crows as evidence. Piss poor crowd and the president is on the record saying he wished he could play the game in Tasmania.
this coming from a supporter of the most shithouse club in australia. Think before you speak idiot.

[Mitchell Madness]

In 1925 North and Footscray were invited

Had University not folded earlier, the Mayblooms would have been just that...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets have a bit of Maybloom history



Great history :rolleyes: and their supporters have the audacity to ridicule other teams....pffft

A team with more wooden spoons then premierships:thumbsd:

That is why Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond ( Even Melbourne, Geelong & Fitzroy ) did not respect such a club, with a pityful history as such.

We will NEVER forget

read your own facts first. You stated yourself the club was a jr. club. now come on, a bunch of jr's competing against men? corse they are going to be the whipping boy

[j-top]

Sorry but i think the Big 4 is now, Collingwood, West Coast, Carlton, Adelaide!

I would love to agree,
But i would place the dons in this list instead
revist in 2 years time

[Gene Simmons]

They aren't in the Big 4, and shouldn't be - as you said.

The Big 4 is Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond.

Is it just a coincidence that 3 out of your supposed Big 4 are bottom 4 sides on the ladder?

Carlton & Richmond have won the last 4 wooden spoons between them?

Essendon will get the wooden spoon in 2008..

The AFL is in a sad state If we are relying on the bottom sides propping us up!

[DynamoUltra]

I thought the big 4 were;
PWC
Deloittes
E&Y
KPMG