Tasmania AFL privately seething at Hawthorn and to a lesser extent North Melbourne

[master bate]

If you take the AFL out of the equation, it really boils down to whether the other stakeholders are happy with the arrangement. Hawthorn put a lot of effort into their Tassie presence, but they don't do it out of good will - they do it because otherwise the AFL would schedule their dud games at Etihad Stadium and they'd lose money, and the Tassie govt pay them a handsome sum to play there. As far as the people of Tassie go, I'm not one so I have no idea if they're happy having 4/11th of Hawthorn each year forever or whether they want their own team outright - be it a relocated or brand new club. As far as the Tassie financials go, I don't know how much money York Park makes per game for the state, how much exposure the sponsorship brings etc. but someone might come along and say that it doesn't make economic sense for Tassie. If that day came then no sponsorship = no Hawthorn. Are Hawthorn fans, board members, players etc. happy to keep playing in Tassie forever or is there a goal to gain financial stability (which they have) then bail?

My hunch (and that's all it is) is that all parties would be happiest if Hawthorn played 11 games at the MCG and Tassie had its own team based there permanently.

There's what would make everyone happy and what would be practical.

I think the Hawks are very happy getting 1 mil a game in Tassie knowing that they won't get 11 MCG games and probably knowing that if/when they slide down the ladder they won't get good crowds to many of those 11 games anyway. Limiting themselves to 7 home games in Melbourne (with 6 away games mainly at the MCG) is a very clever tactic in itself.

Of course the people and Government of Tasmania would prefer their own home team but I can't see the AFL introducing a 19th (and 20th) team any time soon. Partial relocation doesn't seem like a move that works for anyone and full relocation involves tearing up a Victorian club and removing away crowds for games in Victoria.

If it gets to a stage where the 19th and 20th team enter the competition then I'll understand that but right now I think that's at least a decade, maybe two away from happening if at all. If a Victorian club is forced to relocate to 'survive' then I will respect that. Although I still don't really understand how it will work splitting games between the 2 towns.

Really it's the partial relocation with 6 home games in Tasmanian seems like a dud deal to me. Creating a nomadic team with 3 (or 4) home grounds. Then expecting that team to win over support in the state. I'd rather watch my team on TV then go to a couple of Hawks or Roos games just for a day at the footy to be honest if I were Tasmanian.

 

[blaisee]

If you take the AFL out of the equation, it really boils down to whether the other stakeholders are happy with the arrangement. Hawthorn put a lot of effort into their Tassie presence, but they don't do it out of good will - they do it because otherwise the AFL would schedule their dud games at Etihad Stadium and they'd lose money, and the Tassie govt pay them a handsome sum to play there. As far as the people of Tassie go, I'm not one so I have no idea if they're happy having 4/11th of Hawthorn each year forever or whether they want their own team outright - be it a relocated or brand new club. As far as the Tassie financials go, I don't know how much money York Park makes per game for the state, how much exposure the sponsorship brings etc. but someone might come along and say that it doesn't make economic sense for Tassie. If that day came then no sponsorship = no Hawthorn. Are Hawthorn fans, board members, players etc. happy to keep playing in Tassie forever or is there a goal to gain financial stability (which they have) then bail?

My hunch (and that's all it is) is that all parties would be happiest if Hawthorn played 11 games at the MCG and Tassie had its own team based there permanently.

Hawthorn cant afford to play 11 games at the MCG.

They aren't Richmond, if they could they would.

 

[coniglio_number1]

Yay another opportunity to bash gws. Obviously none of you guys are CEOs of major company's because you all seem obsessed with isolation/regression rather than aggressive expansion. I mean just imagine all the new money and supporters Aussie rules will get by plonking a team in a state with a negative population growth and not to mention how much extra talent will enter the talent pool by ignoring the 2 most populous states in the country!

 

[Glorious couch life]

The AFL can get stuffed, and I applaud any club who seeks to thwart them and their negotiated outcomes.

 

[TwentyNine]

If the AFL thought there was even the slightest realistic chance that any club in the league would agree to play the majority of their home games in Tasmania from 2017 onwards, they are absolutely off their rocker. Especially if they thought it would be Hawthorn (never gonna happen) or North (has turned a sizeable profit several years running, actively said no to relocation before).

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

But they have relocated to Tasmania. It has to be said. All their premierships have asterisks, they have all been government funded subsidies.

Such an obvious troll. How you are a functioning adult confuses me.

 

[Hawkk]

Hawthorn cant afford to play 11 games at the MCG.

They aren't Richmond, if they could they would.

Spending the majority of the last three dacades insolvent is something desirable

 

[scarecrow2k1]

11, you got more than that, 2015.

Indeed we did. I meant home games

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Hawthorn cant afford to play 11 games at the MCG.

They aren't Richmond, if they could they would.

If we were garunteed early season home games vs the bigger clubs, ensuring financial gains, we wouldn't need to sell

We can't all rely on the afl handing it to us on a platter

 

[blaisee]

If we were garunteed early season home games vs the bigger clubs, ensuring financial gains, we wouldn't need to sell

We can't all rely on the afl handing it to us on a platter

If you were big enough or had any drawing power you would get big home games. You do understand that that is what the AFL wants and looks for?

There isn't a conspiracy against Hawthorn, you get what you earn through drawing power, Hawthorn just don't have it when compared to Richmond.

If they did have it, the AFL would find away to maximise crowds.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

If you were big enough or had any drawing power you would get big home games. You do understand that that is what the AFL wants and looks for?

There isn't a conspiracy against Hawthorn, you get what you earn through drawing power, Hawthorn just don't have it when compared to Richmond.

If they did have it, the AFL would find away to maximise crowds.

Umm, not sure what planet you live on, but drawing power is only relevant against small sides

Every team is garunteed a crowd vs Collingwood for example
They would also benefit from the media driven promotion

I'd love to see Richmond draw anything above 20k vs GC (in their current form) with the media not giving anything like the Hawks get

 

[blaisee]

Umm, not sure what planet you live on, but drawing power is only relevant against small sides

Every team is garunteed a crowd vs Collingwood for example
They would also benefit from the media driven promotion

I'd love to see Richmond draw anything above 20k vs GC (in their current form) with the media not giving anything like the Hawks get

Oh man, are you for real?

The Hawthorn fans delusion of grandeur makes me laugh.

You aren't in the same league, that's why you have sold your home games to Tasmania. Wake up!

 

[Hawkk]

If you were big enough or had any drawing power you would get big home games. You do understand that that is what the AFL wants and looks for?

There isn't a conspiracy against Hawthorn, you get what you earn through drawing power, Hawthorn just don't have it when compared to Richmond.

If they did have it, the AFL would find away to maximise crowds.

This is a flat out lie (and you know it)

Lifted from another thread....

Post 1991 (before attendances exploded with ground rationalization from 1994/95 forward) St Kilda for the most part were significantly better than Hawthorn.

Hawthorn from 1992-2008 didn't qualify once for top 4 after the home and away season (and were therefore never really in contention), the Saints qualified for top 4 on 4 different occasions (1997, 1998, 2004, 2005).

Since 2004 Hawthorn has made the top 4 on 6 occasions (2008, 2011-2015*) whilst the Saints have made the top 4 on 5 occasions (2004-05, 2008-2010). In terms of Victorian, MCG and Ethiad home and away averages Hawthorn is clearly in front on a like for like comparison...

St Kilda (does not include 2004 game at Kardina Park)
2004 - 40,799 in Victoria, 41,354 at the MCG (1), 40,713 at Ethiad (14)
2005 - 41,162 in Victoria, 38,255 at the MCG (4), 42,373 at Ethiad (13)
2008 - 40,043 in Victoria, 53,896 at the MCG (2), 38,069 at Ethiad (14)
2009 - 37,944 in Victoria, 36,748 at the MCG (1), 38,023 at Ethiad (15)
2010 - 39,740 in Victoria, 69,797 at the MCG (2), 35,446 at Ethiad (14)

Hawthorn
2008 - 49,381 in Victoria, 51,429 at the MCG (10), 44,284 at Ethiad (4)
2011 - 50,277 in Victoria, 51,891 at the MCG (11), 41,399 at Ethiad (3)
2012 - 48,692 in Victoria, 50,825 at the MCG (13), 34,828 at Ethiad (2)
2013 - 49,867 in Victoria, 56,955 at the MCG (9), 37,127 at Ethiad (4)
2014 - 50,628 in Victoria, 52,635 at the MCG (11), 39,594 at Ethiad (2)
2015 - 54,215 in Victoria, 63,339 at the MCG (7), 32,926 at Ethiad (3)

Obviously the Hawks have 4 home games a season in Tasmania (though the Saints did play 2 home games in Tasmania in 2004 and 2005) and the average game scheduled in Tasmania (approx 33k if in Melbourne) would bring the average down to 46,000 to 47,000.

Our MCG average for home and away games over the last 5 seasons is 54,277 (across 51 games)...extend that back to 2008 (so you capture the lackluster 2009 and 2010 seasons) and that average is 53,054.

Further to that point 36 of 78 MCG home and away games have drawn 60,000 plus (including 6 of 7 MCG games this year) and 19 of the last 49 MCG home games (mix of games - 27 against Vic clubs, 22 v non Vic clubs)

There is no doubt Hawthorn has adequate drawing power to play the games in Melbourne (surely you cant be that stupid?)

The key here is that the AFL want Hawthorn to return the games to Melbourne but the Hawks have a vested interest playing games in Tasmania (see 9k members, $4m in games / sponsorship and a clear stadium which is worth $1m a season to the club (probably should clarify with The_Wookie ?)

To be honest I've been opposed to playing home games in Tasmania for five years now as it has a direct impact on our schedule of home games in Melbourne and our capacity to play prime time fixtures. Playing home games in Tasmania restricts the amount of home games we can play against the bigger Vic clubs

...you only have an 11 game schedule and there is no way that Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Richmond or Sydney are going down to Launceston - particularly now that Hawthorn v any combination of these teams has demonstrated 60,000 plus appeal.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...t-footy-to-clubs/story-fnp04d70-1227443224964

“There are kids who are forming bonds with Collingwood and Hawthorn and not us because we’re not getting that opportunity (on free to air TV) as much as they are, and it’s basically not fair.”

TV audiences on a Friday night have soared as high as 1.3 million this year (Hawthorn v Collingwood).

and...

“There was Thursdays, there was more Saturday afternoon games involving Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn and so someone from Victoria’s got to play in those games, which is sort of half the answer to the Carlton question that keeps on coming.

“To get that amount of games away in Victoria you’re got to have 10-12 or more Friday nights

“To get the Friday nights to be the quality they need to be from an attendance point of view and TV point of view, and then also that you’re close enough to them being the best games they can be, some of the big Victorian teams are the obvious teams that fall into those slots.

“Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, but Hawthorn tend to get less because they play four games in Tassie.

So we have justification from the AFL that Tasmania restricts the number of prime time games we play - often before and after as these games are typically in the undesirable Sunday 'grave yard' shift

 

[Hawkk]

Umm, not sure what planet you live on, but drawing power is only relevant against small sides

Every team is garunteed a crowd vs Collingwood for example
They would also benefit from the media driven promotion

I'd love to see Richmond draw anything above 20k vs GC (in their current form) with the media not giving anything like the Hawks get

This is a stupid argument.

We get dud home games at the MCG because we play home games in Tasmania. The AFL only has a set number of home and away schedules that can be played every season...by taking 4 games down to a tinpot stadium we has a direct impact on the amount of home games we play against Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond and Sydney.

Take the games back to Melbourne and we will get a significant bump in the amount of 70,000 drawing fixtures in Melbourne. Our dud home and away fixture is the byproduct of the practicalities of managing a 22 round home and away season with only 18 teams.

That said against a background of dud home and away games the fact that we are top 4 (110,000 ahead of Carlton, will probably pass Essendon this week) is remarkable given our 4 games in Tasmania.

Last year we were 'only' the 3rd highest drawing club in the competition (after home and away season) despite having 4 of the biggest 6 home and away crowds for the season (80222 and 72274 v Geelong, 72760 v Sydney, 70146 v Collingwood) because of the Tasmanian games and the subsequent fixturing that must go around it (6 day breaks from / to Sunday afternoon Tasmanian fixtures)

 

[madmug]

There's what would make everyone happy and what would be practical.



Really it's the partial relocation with 6 home games in Tasmanian seems like a dud deal to me. Creating a nomadic team with 3 (or 4) home grounds. Then expecting that team to win over support in the state. I'd rather watch my team on TV then go to a couple of Hawks or Roos games just for a day at the footy to be honest if I were Tasmanian.

Spoken from the comfortable home of 10 clubs, plus mandated finals & Grandfinal.

We'd like one team of our own. Certainly having 2 FIFO clubs suits the Hawks & Norths income profile, but does nothing for Tassie football & very little for our economy compared to our own team.

But thanks for telling us what we'd like. We get use to that.

 

[madmug]

This is a stupid argument.

We get dud home games at the MCG because we play home games in Tasmania. The AFL only has a set number of home and away schedules that can be played every seasoby taking 4 games down to a tinpot stadium we has a direct impact on the amount of home games we play against Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond and Sydney.n...

Take the games back to Melbourne and we will get a significant bump in the amount of 70,000 drawing fixtures in Melbourne. Our dud home and away fixture is the byproduct of the practicalities of managing a 22 round home and away season with only 18 teams.

That said against a background of dud home and away games the fact that we are top 4 (110,000 ahead of Carlton, will probably pass Essendon this week) is remarkable given our 4 games in Tasmania.

Last year we were 'only' the 3rd highest drawing club in the competition (after home and away season) despite having 4 of the biggest 6 home and away crowds for the season (80222 and 72274 v Geelong, 72760 v Sydney, 70146 v Collingwood) because of the Tasmanian games and the subsequent fixturing that must go around it (6 day breaks from / to Sunday afternoon Tasmanian fixtures)

Please feel free to take your club out of our tinpot stadium & out of our tinpot Treasury. Goodbye, oh wait!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Spoken from the comfortable home of 10 clubs, plus mandated finals & Grandfinal.

We'd like one team of our own. Certainly having 2 FIFO clubs suits the Hawks & Norths income profile, but does nothing for Tassie football & very little for our economy compared to our own team.

But thanks for telling us what we'd like. We get use to that.

Don't know about Hobart, but I know hawthorn basically keep Launceston alive in winter

 

[bombersfan4000]

Interesting article.
I had heard murmurs that the AFL wanted Hawthorn out of Tasmania, but interesting to see what the 2016 fixture will look like.



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-05/where-to-now-for-footy-in-tasmania

If not thread worthy, just merge or delete mods. Don't want to flood the main board.

Hawks need Tasmania for survival so why wouldn't they stay.

North cannot survive in Melbourne! There are already to many clubs as is

 

[madmug]

Don't know about Hobart, but I know hawthorn basically keep Launceston alive in winter

Alive! get your hand off it.

 

[Hawkk]

Hawks need Tasmania for survival so why wouldn't they stay.

North cannot survive in Melbourne! There are already to many clubs as is

So much this...

$30m+ in net assets and a $4m war chest (Hawthorn Forever foundation), land interests in Dingley + assets at Waverley Park, Waverley Gardens and Caroline Springs and we would be cooked without Tasmania

Brisbane13 never ceases to amaze...

 

[bombersfan4000]

So much this...

$30m+ in net assets and a $4m war chest (Hawthorn Forever foundation), land interests in Dingley + assets at Waverley Park, Waverley Gardens and Caroline Springs and we would be cooked without Tasmania

Brisbane13 never ceases to amaze...

Need to remember extra millions come along with those premiships, comes merchandise, sponsorship, prize money.

Add in the fact the Hawks pay $1 per year for Waverley, sell home games, the dodgy sponsorship with the tassie government organised by old jeff & co, still receiving extra money from the afl & the Hawks have never payed for any new faculties!

Yes all those extra hand outs and try and claim your a financial super power! The Hawks are like north but with pokes

 

[sherb]

This will be extremely controversial and unpopular, but as I said elsewhere, I personally think it'd be great for the league and for football in general if Hawthorn and North Melbourne merged to become the Tassie Hawks, and officially relocated to Tasmania and split their home games between Hobart and Launceston.

Wouldn't be great for Tassie. Nor for the two clubs concerned.

 

[Hawkk]

Need to remember extra millions come along with those premiships, comes merchandise, sponsorship, prize money.

Add in the fact the Hawks pay $1 per year for Waverley, sell home games, the dodgy sponsorship with the tassie government organised by old jeff & co, still receiving extra money from the afl & the Hawks have never payed for any new faculties!

Yes all those extra hand outs and try and claim your a financial super power! The Hawks are like north but with pokes

Ring a ding ding we have a stupid post.

Hawthorn generated $68m in revenue last year, $7m behind Collingwood but $8m ahead of the next biggest club in the league.

All those numbers (aside from the peppercorn rent at Waverley - the Hawks now own that asset outright by the way) all have an impact on revenue not profit.

Fact is Hawthorn have the 2nd biggest revenue in the league, more than 30m in net assets, the 2nd biggest membership year in, year out (whatever that actually means?) and features in the top 4-5 clubs for attendances more often than not in spite of Tasmania.

Yet we are North Melbourne with pokies

 

[The_Wookie]

Add in the fact the Hawks pay $1 per year for Waverley, sell home games, the dodgy sponsorship with the tassie government organised by old jeff & co, still receiving extra money from the afl & the Hawks have never payed for any new faculties!

You keep repeating this garbage every time the Hawks come up. And its never any truer than the time before.

The Hawks own 85% of the buildings at Waverly according to this article.

This will mean letting go of the Ricoh Centre at Waverley Park, where the Hawks moved late in 2004 and own 85 per cent of the building (freehold), in a complicated deal involving the developer Mirvac and the state government.

This article says that the Hawks own the Oval outright and part of the buildings outright.

Under the terms of the deal, the oval and immediate surrounds were to remain for sporting purposes. Mirvac needed a club to occupy the oval. The Hawks, under the board of president Dicker, struck a deal that could be football's answer to Kerry Packer selling Channel Nine to Alan Bond – ie, it happens only once in a lifetime.

Hawthorn paid $1 and, in return, received the freehold on the entire oval and a portion of what is now the administrative buildings. Thus, the club gained millions of dollars of real estate – a freehold that gave the club serious assets on the balance sheet, a buffer for bad times and no rental costs – for nothing. The Hawks also bought the gymnasium at Waverley and receive a tidy return of about 8 per cent a year.

And who has paid for their facilities anyway? All clubs use state and federal funding to get their facilities built as communtiy facilities.

Sell home games

It hardly is grounds for complaint. So has North, St Kilda, GWS, Melbourne and the Westerm Bulldogs. Carlton sold a game to Gold Coast after North left, and Richmond played in Darwin and Cairns for a number of years.

Dodgy sponsorship? It appears to fall within commercial realities given the Hawks success and members, compared to sponsorships of the same type at other clubs. With a clean stadium component at that. Theres nothing dodgy about it.

Extra money from the AFL

In 2014 they received $650,000 from the future fund - only Collingwood and Essendon got less last year. Collingwood as a net contributor to the league via the new equalisation measures. Money designated as other includes prize money, pourage, signage, and other centralised revenue shares that the club is entitled to.

Yes all those extra hand outs and try and claim your a financial super power! The Hawks are like north but with pokes

Thrown in 30,000 extra members. 4 times the Tasmanian membership. Funding the Box Hill Hawks. Owning 73% of the Waverly Gardens facility, and 100% of the Caroline Springs facility. 30 million in assets, including 9 million in cash at hand.

They are a financial superpower in the league -most clubs have pokie facilities. Like it or not, the Hawks have an excellent sponsorship with Tasmania - the Tasmanian government keeps renewing it like clockwork, they make more from merchandise than anyone else - by a fair margin. Make the most in match day income - by a fair margin. Have a decent membership income.

 

[Tuco]

So what was this the foiled '1 team model' the AFL is upset about having to postpone? Did it involve booting the Hawks and letting North have a more lucrative deal?

Did it involve rotating poorer/struggling clubs through Tasmania on some hellish equalisation merry-go-round?

Seems odd.