AFL Report: Hawks' Tassie venture has failed

[Hawkk]

hawthorns revenue comes from selling home games and pokes.hence the high revenie

Awesome, its the accurate one...

Hawthorn FC's revenue from selling home games is inclusive within its naming rights agreement with the state of Tasmania (its approximately 4m a season)

Accounting 101 suggests that if we are taxed 500k anyway for being one of the three rich clubs (cue not Essendon) and that the going rate for major sponsorship (inc naming rights) is 1.5m a season well take a hit yes, but well ultimately survive

But really thanks for the concern, perhaps if we move the games back to Victoria we might get a sponsorship through VB

 

[Hawkk]

Don't they give HFC $3Million per year sponsorship plus the club makes $400k per game down there?
Wouldn't that translate to a healthy club if based there full time?

Well not really. Even the weakest Victorian club (the W Bulldogs) has a revenue base of $32m

For Tasmania to survive on its own accord it probably needs a revenue base or 40m/60m (inc. 8m in AFL revenue)

 

[Boxhead_31]

Awesome, its the accurate one...

Hawthorn FC's revenue from selling home games is inclusive within its naming rights agreement with the state of Tasmania (its approximately 4m a season)

Accounting 101 suggests that if we are taxed 500k anyway for being one of the three rich clubs (cue not Essendon) and that the going rate for major sponsorship (inc naming rights) is 1.5m a season well take a hit yes, but well ultimately survive

But really thanks for the concern, perhaps if we move the games back to Victoria we might get a sponsorship through VB

Aren't you getting taxed for football department spending rather than revenue?

 

[Hawkk]

Aren't you getting taxed for football department spending rather than revenue?

See 'enhanced revenue' sharing

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

Also...

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...isation-measures/story-fni5f22o-1226943393706

Collingwood, West Coast and Hawthorn will have their distribution from the AFL cut by $500,000 and must also fund increases in total player payments to players of $150,000 a year over the next two seasons.

If we were to lose Tasmania I highly doubt we'll fold

 

[The_Wookie]

Awesome, its the accurate one...

Hawthorn FC's revenue from selling home games is inclusive within its naming rights agreement with the state of Tasmania (its approximately 4m a season)

Accounting 101 suggests that if we are taxed 500k anyway for being one of the three rich clubs (cue not Essendon) and that the going rate for major sponsorship (inc naming rights) is 1.5m a season well take a hit yes, but well ultimately survive

Thats nice, but dont leave out your match returns either which at 4 million were one of the highest in the league. The going rate for SOME clubs is 1.5 million per year - that would depend on the club and the prominence of the sponsorship.

 

[Rob]

Well not really. Even the weakest Victorian club (the W Bulldogs) has a revenue base of $32m

For Tasmania to survive on its own accord it probably needs a revenue base or 40m/60m (inc. 8m in AFL revenue)

Nah, assuming no off field stuff then low 30's would be fine. The problem at the Dogs (amongst other clubs) isn't their spending that's below par, it's that a big chunk of their revenue is AFL subsidies.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Wouldn't that translate to a healthy club if based there full time?

i don't know. i just have zero faith in tassie's ability to manage anything.

 

[Hawkk]

Thats nice, but dont leave out your match returns either which at 4 million were one of the highest in the league. The going rate for SOME clubs is 1.5 million per year - that would depend on the club and the prominence of the sponsorship.

How about the naming rights/front of shop guernsey sponsorship for a club that has 59000 members (assuming every single Tasmanian member drops off the cliff) on the database? Im talking direct mail out opportunities, membership promotions etc etc

A debate on what constitutes a membership aside that's quite a powerful base...the size of membership and demographic of customers was the justification given by Adidas for the apparel sponsorship

We'll be hit sure but Im confident we'll survive (imagine if we took the $7m carrot in 2010?)

That said aim sure the fundamental nature of the $64m business will change significantly on the back of losing the $4m a season sponsorship...I'm sure we'd probably drop down to Essendon, Carlton, Richmond levels with respect to equalisation

 

[brisbane13]

Awesome, its the accurate one...

Hawthorn FC's revenue from selling home games is inclusive within its naming rights agreement with the state of Tasmania (its approximately 4m a season)

Accounting 101 suggests that if we are taxed 500k anyway for being one of the three rich clubs (cue not Essendon) and that the going rate for major sponsorship (inc naming rights) is 1.5m a season well take a hit yes, but well ultimately survive

But really thanks for the concern, perhaps if we move the games back to Victoria we might get a sponsorship through VB

you consider hawthorn one of the big three, only because it is one of the top 3 spenders of its footy department. out side the Tasmania sponsorship deal hawthorns sponsorship levels are rather low.
hawthorn is the ultimate welfare club, pinching money off peter to pay paul

In total, Hawthorn claimed that last financial year it pumped $3.3 million of revenue from its poker machine venue, Vegas at Waverley Gardens, back into the community. However, analysis of the payments shows only $3058 - or 0.1% - was for genuine community gifts or sponsorships unrelated to running the business.

The extent to which Hawthorn has manipulated its ethical obligations to the community as an owner of a poker machine venue was revealed last week when it lodged its community benefit statement with Victoria's gambling regulator.

The $1.9 million payment, to "subsidise football operations", was listed as a community benefit. It is all the more curious as records show that Hawthorn made no such claim last year.

A spokesman for the Hawthorn Football Club said the club was busy conducting its Best and Fairest yesterday and declined to comment.

The club - which also claimed the community had benefited from the purchase of nine televisions and monitors and a calculator - has come under fire from anti-gambling groups after winning approval in July to operate 80 poker machines in the economically repressed Caroline Springs, in Melbourne's west.

 

[Hawkk]

you consider hawthorn one of the big three, only because it is one of the top 3 spenders of its footy department. out side the Tasmania sponsorship deal hawthorns sponsorship levels are rather low.

Umm, no

Read both articles. Hawthorn's revenue last season (which forms the basis of the revenue sharing) was the 2nd largest in the competition, this is fact...

You do know that Sydney's department spending was the 2nd largest in the competition and yet they are not taxed in the top tier, right?

hawthorn is the ultimate welfare club, pinching money off peter to pay paul

In total, Hawthorn claimed that last financial year it pumped $3.3 million of revenue from its poker machine venue, Vegas at Waverley Gardens, back into the community. However, analysis of the payments shows only $3058 - or 0.1% - was for genuine community gifts or sponsorships unrelated to running the business.

The extent to which Hawthorn has manipulated its ethical obligations to the community as an owner of a poker machine venue was revealed last week when it lodged its community benefit statement with Victoria's gambling regulator.

The $1.9 million payment, to "subsidise football operations", was listed as a community benefit. It is all the more curious as records show that Hawthorn made no such claim last year.

A spokesman for the Hawthorn Football Club said the club was busy conducting its Best and Fairest yesterday and declined to comment.

The club - which also claimed the community had benefited from the purchase of nine televisions and monitors and a calculator - has come under fire from anti-gambling groups after winning approval in July to operate 80 poker machines in the economically repressed Caroline Springs, in Melbourne's west.

Righto...tired arguments that don't address my point. Perhaps when we get shunted out of Tasmania, lose Caroline Springs we can sign a sponsorship with TAC and organise a flight plan

I strongly suggest you take your diatribe to the Bay, can you address my point with respect to revenue equalisation/sharing. Please and Thanks

 

[Long Live HFC]

essendon fans could learn a thing or two about "welfare", starting with player welfare.

 

[Gibbke]

i don't know. i just have zero faith in tassie's ability to manage anything.

1) Based upon what...?

2) Tasmanian Tigers.

3) Just like the Suns and the Giants, and in accordance with the rules set down for North Melbourne's quite understandably rejected move to the Gold Coast (where they were required to relinquish all control of their board to the AFL), a team in Tassie wouldn't be run by Tasmanian interests. The biggest sporting organisation in Australia wouldn't allow expansion sides in riskier areas to be run by the local hicks - too much to lose. If the team failed, it would be external factors contributing, or a plan that doesn't fit the venture (a big possibility, because mainlanders erroneously think they know f###ing everything about the state), but it won't be because of Tasmanians messing up.

And if your answer to (1) is "north-south rivalry", again, this won't get a chance to surface. Gillon's statement the other day is a clear dodge, a procrastination so that he doesn't have to answer the question again for another day, but he knows full well that any new venture in the state will be controlled by him or more likely his successor...

 

[1061]

We've been there done that.Your turn Collingwood

Bigger Clubs not medium

 

[Long Live HFC]

1) Based upon what...?

2) Tasmanian Tigers.

3) Just like the Suns and the Giants, and in accordance with the rules set down for North Melbourne's quite understandably rejected move to the Gold Coast (where they were required to relinquish all control of their board to the AFL), a team in Tassie wouldn't be run by Tasmanian interests. The biggest sporting organisation in Australia wouldn't allow expansion sides in riskier areas to be run by the local hicks - too much to lose. If the team failed, it would be external factors contributing, or a plan that doesn't fit the venture (a big possibility, because mainlanders erroneously think they know f###ing everything about the state), but it won't be because of Tasmanians messing up.

And if your answer to (1) is "north-south rivalry", again, this won't get a chance to surface. Gillon's statement the other day is a clear dodge, a procrastination so that he doesn't have to answer the question again for another day, but he knows full well that any new venture in the state will be controlled by him or more likely his successor...

i dont think tassie has the money and the population to support a regional team. though as you say, if we're talking about a franchise plonked down on the island from above by the AFL, anything's possible i guess. not sure how much support that would have here though.

 

[Fitzey]

No deal just to play interstate clubs. Geelong, North, Footscray, Richmond, St Kilda have all played at York Park. Melbourne are not significantly bigger than any of these teams.

Melbourne have played at York Park..

 

[Power Raid]

I think Tassie is worth persisting with. One victorian side playing 5 games a year there (2 in Launceston and 3 in Hobart) would be appropriate for a decade or 2.

I can't see Tassie having the population, or the $s, to sustain an AFL side for quite some time.

 

[Power Raid]

oh and should Tassie get an AFL side, I dare say it will be a relocation of Melbourne.

"The Tasmanian Deimens"

 

[BobbyMorri]

Melbourne have played at York Park..

Not in the regular season. U had a game there in the preseason in 2009. (crowd: 8,122)

might have had another but i can only remember the one.

 

[Gibbke]

Pre season only, as is the case for Carlton. I recall seeing the NTFA take on Collingwood at York Park in 1986, but not for any type of match v Hawthorn or St Kilda, and to my knowledge Essendon have never ever set foot on the oval for any reason at all. The Bombers were, however, one of the teams that played in Hobart against Fitzroy two decades ago, and Melbourne played Fitzroy at North Hobart in the 1952 national round...

 

[madmug]

So you would completely abandon Collingwood for a Tassie team ?

Difficult question, But Its about memberships really. I followed Collingwood as my dad did. I first saw them live at Victoria Parkin 1977. I went to the 1990 grandfinal ( I'd love to tell u how difficult it was to get a ticket, it was a hell of an effort & I was very lucky!!), I rarely see them except on TV. I would buy a full Tassie membership. That doesnt mean the Pies arent part of my fabric.
How I handle that schizophrenic situation is not the point. I would support Tassie. I would support the Pies.

Perhaps I would park them in different parts of my brain Self delusion maybe.

 

[Gibbke]

I knew who I'd barrack for when the Tassie Devils took on Box Hill for the very first time - Tassie all the way. I totally understand the dilemma faced by interstate supporters during expansion in the 1980's, and they're exempt from my normal "you're pondslime if you jump teams" stance...!

It's the state team. The most one-eyed I'll ever get is when the Tigers play cricket - I can appreciate the Aussies losing, and have even barracked for the opposition if I thought it would be good for the game (no need these days, we're not good enough to warrant that sort of flippancy!), but if it's Tassie, I'm as selfish as a sports fan could ever get. I'd be the same with the footy team, providing it followed my strict rules about how the team should be formed and appear...

As for the Hawks, it is a tough question, but it would be more a question of how much daylight between them and first place, not whether they'd end up second in the first place. Wouldn't be much daylight, and thank god and the AFL I don't need to think any harder about it...in its injustice, life is actually quite convenient sometimes...

 

[BobbyMorri]

Im very much like u Gibkke in terms of Cricket. Tassie>Australia. heck i would go for any Tassie club, even the despised ones, over other another mainland club,.

u cant tell were your heart is going to go but it will be very hard to resist the allure of your home state personally. i be very confused in the first years, but i dont reckon u find a Tasmanian he wouldnt watch the first game.

 

[Papa G]

Tasmanian's just have to make the decision that they are will no longer be Victoria's bitch. Used, abused and spat out. Then, and only then they might start getting somewhere.

 

[d33my]

Tassie got good things out of the deal too. Some football is better than none. It's just that the relationship has run its course in the current format.

 

[Gibbke]

Tasmanian's just have to make the decision that they are will no longer be Victoria's bitch. Used, abused and spat out. Then, and only then they might start getting somewhere.

Said the seal being thrown around by a pod of bored killer whales...