Opinion With the benefit of hindsight, Jeff Kennett and Tasmania

[Hawkk]

Caroline Wilson's article in tomorrow's Age...

North Melbourne pushes for three games in Hobart

http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/no...for-three-games-in-hobart-20140415-zqv68.html

North Melbourne has confirmed it will push to play three home games in Hobart next year as the AFL appears to have drawn the battle lines over the future of home-and-away football in Tasmania...

In particular this passage raised my eye...

Hawthorn chief Stuart Fox said he would schedule talks with McLachlan this month in a bid to fully understand the AFL’s strategy. ‘‘Today was the first indication of the AFL’s intent into the future,’’ Fox said. ‘‘Our view is that a hybrid eight-game model would be a better option and that it would take a Tasmanian home team being implemented for us to support removing our presence.

‘‘We’d be pretty curious as to whom the AFL sees as going there because we don’t think it’s us and we could not justify that many games there. We have 55,000 members here.’’

In 2011, the AFL offered Hawthorn $7.5 million to vacate Tasmania in favour of North, a move controversially rejected by then president Jeff Kennett.

Before and after the 2011 'land in the sand'...

Our home attendances between MCG/Aurora since 2006

2013 38419: 52809 in Victoria (4/3), 13237 (1/3)
2012 34105: 44612 in Victoria (2/5), 15687 (1/3)
2011 36363: 48161 in Victoria (5/2), 15716 (2/2)
2010 37876: 50282 in Victoria (5/2), 16159 (2/2)
2009 39635: 52339 in Victoria (4/3), 17403 (2/2)
2008 39975: 52802 in Victoria (5/2), 17526 (2/2)
2007 33186: 42205 in Victoria (5/2), 18152 (2/2)

Ive been saying this for a while but our crowds in Victoria and Tasmania are going in the complete opposite direction from each other. Our crowds and membership are both going gangbusters in Victoria (despite horrid fixtures) while our attendances and membership are dead in the water in Tasmania.

Reading between the tea leaves once 2016 occurs our presence in Tasmania is gone. With the benefit of hindsight could the 2011 rejection of the $7.5m deal brokered by the AFL prove to be one of the worst decisions we've made since the merger. Could this decision cloud Kennett's legacy at the club???

Where would we be today with a (probable) brokered MCG/Ethiad deal, $7.5m in the bank and a far more commercially appealing fixture.

 

[Pessimistic]

Sounds like hawthorn see four hawks games and four roos games until theres a home tasmanian team

Id prefer three each. Hand a home game over where we are the away team, so theres still a four game ticket for hawks members

 

[Brishawk]

Caroline Wilson's article in tomorrow's Age...

North Melbourne pushes for three games in Hobart

http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/no...for-three-games-in-hobart-20140415-zqv68.html



In particular this passage raised my eye...



Before and after the 2011 'land in the sand'...

Our home attendances between MCG/Aurora since 2006

2013 38419: 52809 in Victoria (4/3), 13237 (1/3)
2012 34105: 44612 in Victoria (2/5), 15687 (1/3)
2011 36363: 48161 in Victoria (5/2), 15716 (2/2)
2010 37876: 50282 in Victoria (5/2), 16159 (2/2)
2009 39635: 52339 in Victoria (4/3), 17403 (2/2)
2008 39975: 52802 in Victoria (5/2), 17526 (2/2)
2007 33186: 42205 in Victoria (5/2), 18152 (2/2)

Ive been saying this for a while but our crowds in Victoria and Tasmania are going in the complete opposite direction from each other. Our crowds and membership are both going gangbusters in Victoria (despite horrid fixtures) while our attendances and membership are dead in the water in Tasmania.

Reading between the tea leaves once 2016 occurs our presence in Tasmania is gone. With the benefit of hindsight could the 2011 rejection of the $7.5m deal brokered by the AFL prove to be one of the worst decisions we've made since the merger. Could this decision cloud Kennett's legacy at the club???

Where would we be today with a (probable) brokered MCG/Ethiad deal, $7.5m in the bank and a far more commercially appealing fixture.

Isn't 7.5 million about half what the sponsorship is worth before accounting for members and other benefits? How could that possibly be close to the value of staying?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

 

[Furn2]

Isn't 7.5 million about half what the sponsorship is worth before accounting for members and other benefits? How could that possibly be close to the value of staying?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

Maybe we could trying getting another sponsor.

 

[Hawkk]

Isn't 7.5 million about half what the sponsorship is worth before accounting for members and other benefits? How could that possibly be close to the value of staying?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

$7.5m in one season is a pretty major boon. People forget that the Tasmanian agreement is tied to a major naming rights sponsorship. (and market rate for one of those goes for $1.5m or perhaps more)

If we were to lose all our 4 game Tasmanian members ( which number 8400) we would be provided with the basis to charge a 36% premium to our Victorian based members (which are significantly greater than in Tasmania). Who knows, with more games in Melbourne we could well generate more Victorian based members...

The Tasmanian membership thing is an interesting point of view, given we had more than 1000 members in Tasmania in 2000 before embarking on Tassie if we can't maintain at least half of those 8500 members, the 15 years of development would have all been for nothing.

Our crowds are clearly on the wane in Tasmania (they were disgraceful last year) whether the $7.5m would have allowed us to negotiate an MCG stadium contract, undergo major capital works programmes and build upon our crowds in Melbourne (ie commitments to attractive fixturing) is open to debate.

If we were pushed out of Tassie with nothing, after 16 years...it'd be a pretty big stuff up by the administration at the time

 

[Pessimistic]

From the information relayed the tassie fans are sick of getting the games v non melbourne teams, eg where freo sent a reserves team which you can sympathise with.

BUT

If a team such as north had seven or eight games there, and theee in melbourne, wouldnt it be much more of the same ? The plumb fixtures would still be in melbourne. Whats more melboune based north fans would be much less likely to travel to tassie for each of seven games rather than three., so the influx of victorians would be diluted.

For mine the answer would either be a wholly tassie based team, or three victorian teams playing three games each there. Two against the other melb teams involved and the third game against non melbourne clubs

That way the games would be much more attractive to tassie and melbourne based fans

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

I am over the Tassie thing. We make money (or importantly dont lose money on dud games), Tassie get value. It is a fair deal. Happy either way.

I am certain that when I see the beggar clubs like Melbourne, Saints et al, I do not want to be poor and uncompetitive.

 

[Hawkk]

For mine the answer would either be a wholly tassie based team, or three victorian teams playing three games each there. Two against the other melb teams involved and the third game against non melbourne clubs

That way the games would be much more attractive to tassie and melbourne based fans

The problem with 2/3 Victorian teams playing games in Tasmania is that ultimately its an over-saturation of competitive forces within a very small market. Even with Hawthorn + North Melbourne currently sharing the market, by virtue of having two clubs competing for a small football market it makes it very difficult for either club to significantly boost its membership, attendances and long run support - which if we're ultimately going to take 36% of our games to the market is an outcome that is a must...

The Tasmania paradigm began to work in our favour once St Kilda left and we had exclusive access to the state. Once North Melbourne joined us, our crowds have been in free fall, our membership has stagnated and the whole value of the exercise must now be questioned.

Our home games are the most important aspect of the club, its our best selling point and it must be protected and fostered to deliver the best long term outcome for the club.

 

[Hawkk]

I am over the Tassie thing. We make money (or importantly dont lose money on dud games), Tassie get value. It is a fair deal. Happy either way.

I am certain that when I see the beggar clubs like Melbourne, Saints et al, I do not want to be poor and uncompetitive.

I don't understand this argument. Hawthorn wouldn't join Melbourne or St Kilda in the handout queue irrespective of what we do in Tasmania. As the CEO stated, we have 55,000 plus members on the mainland. Melbourne and St Kilda would barely have 30,000 each...

 

[KAMSTAR HFC]

$7.5m in one season is a pretty major boon. People forget that the Tasmanian agreement is tied to a major naming rights sponsorship. (and market rate for one of those goes for $1.5m or perhaps more)

If we were to lose all our 4 game Tasmanian members ( which number 8400) we would be provided with the basis to charge a 36% premium to our Victorian based members (which are significantly greater than in Tasmania). Who knows, with more games in Melbourne we could well generate more Victorian based members...

The Tasmanian membership thing is an interesting point of view, given we had more than 1000 members in Tasmania in 2000 before embarking on Tassie if we can't maintain at least half of those 8500 members, the 15 years of development would have all been for nothing.

Our crowds are clearly on the wane in Tasmania (they were disgraceful last year) whether the $7.5m would have allowed us to negotiate an MCG stadium contract, undergo major capital works programmes and build upon our crowds in Melbourne (ie commitments to attractive fixturing) is open to debate.

If we were pushed out of Tassie with nothing, after 16 years...it'd be a pretty big stuff up by the administration at the time

Doesnt help when the AFL scheduled 3 of the 4 for games on a Saturday afternoon. Pretty much all local footy being played in this time slot.

 

[Bosk]

AFL to push us out of Tassie so they can "encourage" Norf to re-locate there permanently?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...for-three-games-in-hobart-20140415-zqv68.html

 

[Hawkk]

Doesnt help when the AFL scheduled 3 of the 4 for games on a Saturday afternoon. Pretty much all local footy being played in this time slot.

Perhaps, that said we were still getting 17,000 to 21,000 for Saturday Afternoon games in the 2007-2009 period (when the agreement was at its zenith)

Since our peak in 2007 we've lost 28% of crowd support in Launceston despite our Melbourne based attendances improving by 25% in that same time - and that's with a poorer scheduled of Melbourne matches as well. Since North started playing games in Hobart we appear to have lost 3,000 fans per match (which I assume were the neutral fans in the South starved of football?)

 

[MrPremiership]

Great news. Our success was declining and there was more to be done on mainland. North come in and the AFL escort us out (with some sort of settlement terms) and then North can play down there as much as they like. Win.

 

[Tasmaniac]

Interesting to see how it play's out.

No melbourne club would want to play 8 games here, it's practically re-location. The AFL must think they are going to do some serious arm twisting for that to happen.

Tassie govt might like a say in who they sponsor too.

If it happens, From a hawks p.o.v. we have to negotiate hard with the AFL, don't want profitable games to be relocated from Aurora to break even or lose money at Etihad stadium to make up the shortfall from North or whoever getting sent to tassie. Plus Carlton wanting to relocate from Etihad to the MCG. Everyone wants to play at the G and no one at Etihad. Some club(s) are going to have to eat a s**t sandwich and I can bet we will get a taste of it.

Personally, as a tassie member I would drop my membership as would most other Tassie members I'd imagine. So the hawk number crunchers had better get their sums right. The big loss will be no longer making fat profit on low drawing interstate teams plus a small loss from the lapsed tassie members.

Wouldn't bother going to watch 'randomly selected melbourne team coerced into playing home games at tassie' either. So the crowd numbers would be interesting too.

I suspect Hawks will be poorer without it, the forced team will be distraught about it, and I don' think tassie footy goers will latch onto some povo Melbourne team sent down here either. Smacks of failure.

 

[Brishawk]

$7.5m in one season is a pretty major boon. People forget that the Tasmanian agreement is tied to a major naming rights sponsorship. (and market rate for one of those goes for $1.5m or perhaps more)

If we were to lose all our 4 game Tasmanian members ( which number 8400) we would be provided with the basis to charge a 36% premium to our Victorian based members (which are significantly greater than in Tasmania). Who knows, with more games in Melbourne we could well generate more Victorian based members...

The Tasmanian membership thing is an interesting point of view, given we had more than 1000 members in Tasmania in 2000 before embarking on Tassie if we can't maintain at least half of those 8500 members, the 15 years of development would have all been for nothing.

Our crowds are clearly on the wane in Tasmania (they were disgraceful last year) whether the $7.5m would have allowed us to negotiate an MCG stadium contract, undergo major capital works programmes and build upon our crowds in Melbourne (ie commitments to attractive fixturing) is open to debate.

If we were pushed out of Tassie with nothing, after 16 years...it'd be a pretty big stuff up by the administration at the time

1) We get about 3.5 m per season from Tassie gov for the Sponsorship.
2) We get 8500 members who provide us with:

a) membership fees
b) Merchandise purchases
c) Higher Membership count​

3) In addition we get a fantastic stadium deal which makes unprofitable games in Melbourne, profitable in Tassie.

Benefits of 1, 2a and 2b are straight forward enough. Benefits of 2c mean we can attract bigger sponsorship (more sponsors or larger dollars) from other businesses. More members equals larger marketing database. Also, having more members enables us to argue for better time slots because our national support is large. It might help us in any number of other negotiation with the AFL, sponsors, corporate entities etc. When you get a letter form the hawks that has adds for Tassie wine, its because we have a presence in Tassie.

Benefits from 3 mean mean we don't need anything like the same numbers of attendees to make the same or greater profit from each game.

So simply looking at the headline figure and the attendances is too simplistic an approach to determine the true value of the Tassie deal. It is quite possible that Tassie is worth closer to 7.5 million than 3.5 million a year to us and that it is not the premium incentive that it appears.

 

[Brishawk]

Interesting to see how it play's out.

No melbourne club would want to play 8 games here, it's practically re-location. The AFL must think they are going to do some serious arm twisting for that to happen.

Tassie govt might like a say in who they sponsor too.

If it happens, From a hawks p.o.v. we have to negotiate hard with the AFL, don't want profitable games to be relocated from Aurora to break even or lose money at Etihad stadium to make up the shortfall from North or whoever getting sent to tassie. Plus Carlton wanting to relocate from Etihad to the MCG. Everyone wants to play at the G and no one at Etihad. Some club(s) are going to have to eat a s**t sandwich and I can bet we will get a taste of it.

Personally, as a tassie member I would drop my membership as would most other Tassie members I'd imagine. So the hawk number crunchers had better get their sums right. The big loss will be no longer making fat profit on low drawing interstate teams plus a small loss from the lapsed tassie members.

Wouldn't bother going to watch 'randomly selected melbourne team coerced into playing home games at tassie' either. So the crowd numbers would be interesting too.

I suspect Hawks will be poorer without it, the forced team will be distraught about it, and I don' think tassie footy goers will latch onto some povo Melbourne team sent down here either. Smacks of failure.

Tasmanian Government Will not likely want to sponsor a team that plays 8 games a year in Tasmania. The big incentive for sponsoring the Hawks is because we give Tasmania national exposure and attract tourists to the state through people wanting to watch their team play and also through the advertising they get every time the Hawks suit up. A local team will not deliver the same exposure so they will not represent as good a value proposition. The return on investment presently is very high because Hawthorn are successful. It is probably the cheapest way to advertise the state given the number of people that logo reaches, let alone all the times we pump up Tasmania as a destination. I don't see a local team providing that exposure because the majority of people interested are Tasmanians.

 

[Henry Jr]

We need to be very careful that the AFL doesn't just say to us.. you know what.. we are not going to schedule you for any games in Launie. Then where does that leave us?

 

[Hawkk]

1) We get about 3.5 m per season from Tassie gov for the Sponsorship.
2) We get 8500 members who provide us with:

a) membership fees
b) Merchandise purchases
c) Higher Membership count​

3) In addition we get a fantastic stadium deal which makes unprofitable games in Melbourne, profitable in Tassie.

Benefits of 1, 2a and 2b are straight forward enough. Benefits of 2c mean we can attract bigger sponsorship (more sponsors or larger dollars) from other businesses. More members equals larger marketing database. Also, having more members enables us to argue for better time slots because our national support is large. It might help us in any number of other negotiation with the AFL, sponsors, corporate entities etc. When you get a letter form the hawks that has adds for Tassie wine, its because we have a presence in Tassie.

Benefits from 3 mean mean we don't need anything like the same numbers of attendees to make the same or greater profit from each game.

So simply looking at the headline figure and the attendances is too simplistic an approach to determine the true value of the Tassie deal. It is quite possible that Tassie is worth closer to 7.5 million than 3.5 million a year to us and that it is not the premium incentive that it appears.

Agree but so to is the assumption that we wouldn't be able to hold at least half those Tasmanian members and/or potentially generate more Victorian members on the back of bringing games home. Before we went to Tasmania we had 1,000 members, in 15 years of being based in Tasmania we now have 8,400 Tasmanian members (which is stagnant). If we can't hold 40% to 50% of these members with the investment we have put into Tasmania its a pretty poor outcome really...

I also understand that getting a $7.5m lump sum to leave Tasmania, losing our major naming rights partner and being in a position of power to negotiate fixture/stadium requirements with the AFL would have significant benefits for the club. An upfront compensation package in itself would be quite beneficial as it would allow the club to invest into diversifying revenue streams and potentially set the club up for the next 40-50 years.

The alternative is what we have now, declining crowds/attendances when our brand is at its strongest in history, an uncertain history in Tasmania post 2016 with no compensation to be had and with it no soft landing.

If we were to leave Tasmania in 2016 with no compensation, particularly when the club has spent 1,000,000's upgrading the Aurora facilities and developing the game in Tasmania, the decision by Kennett to knock back the AFL 'offer to good to refuse' could well go down as a decision that unnecessarily put the club at risk...

As an aside, to say that Tassie could well be worth $7.5m to our bottom line is incredibly rubbery...

 

[Hawkk]

Interesting to see how it play's out.

No melbourne club would want to play 8 games here, it's practically re-location. The AFL must think they are going to do some serious arm twisting for that to happen.

Tassie govt might like a say in who they sponsor too.

If it happens, From a hawks p.o.v. we have to negotiate hard with the AFL, don't want profitable games to be relocated from Aurora to break even or lose money at Etihad stadium to make up the shortfall from North or whoever getting sent to tassie. Plus Carlton wanting to relocate from Etihad to the MCG. Everyone wants to play at the G and no one at Etihad. Some club(s) are going to have to eat a s**t sandwich and I can bet we will get a taste of it.

Personally, as a tassie member I would drop my membership as would most other Tassie members I'd imagine. So the hawk number crunchers had better get their sums right. The big loss will be no longer making fat profit on low drawing interstate teams plus a small loss from the lapsed tassie members.

Wouldn't bother going to watch 'randomly selected melbourne team coerced into playing home games at tassie' either. So the crowd numbers would be interesting too.

I suspect Hawks will be poorer without it, the forced team will be distraught about it, and I don' think tassie footy goers will latch onto some povo Melbourne team sent down here either. Smacks of failure.

Why?

We have 2,000 members in WA and 1,000 plus members QLD, NSW and SA who all sign up year after year despite limited opportunities to watch the Hawks play.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

I don't understand this argument. Hawthorn wouldn't join Melbourne or St Kilda in the handout queue irrespective of what we do in Tasmania. As the CEO stated, we have 55,000 plus members on the mainland. Melbourne and St Kilda would barely have 30,000 each...

When playing some of the lesser interstate clubs you can drop up to $250K per match, especially if they are at Etihad.

 

[Pessimistic]

Is it a matter of limiting loss making games any more ?

How much of the tassie money will go to other clubs via the afls new equalisation taxes ?


Lets say for a victorian club there are five other teams seen as attractive opponenents. Theres seventeen other clubs in total that makes 61% of your games which arent particularly attracive and potential loss makers in a blockbuste obsessed afl

Roughly eight of the 11 home games, some seasons nine of the eleven when the rough end of the pineapple is being passed around

The whole thing needs to be re assesed. Clearly a 50 k and a 100 k stadium of whick, perversely the 100 k one has a lower break even crowd figure

The architects of this stadium structure envisaged much less tems and probably not gold coast and w syd. The whole structure is stuffed not just hawthorn and tassies bit

 

[cs61]

Isn't 7.5 million about half what the sponsorship is worth before accounting for members and other benefits? How could that possibly be close to the value of staying?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

Also, don't you need to be comparing the analysis of what Hawthorn would be drawing at the Dome playing interstate sides, and what the club would lose compared to money gained playing in Tassie? We talk about MCG success, if we could get all of our games at the MCG, I would have no issue, but what is there to suggest we wouldn't get every Tassie game currently, back at the dome?

Carlton are also wanting to move fully to the MCG, where are their games going to come from?

 

[cs61]

Given how brilliantly our club is run, I find it strange that they wouldn't know what is best for our future. We've got to where we are now from 2004 because of their decisions. Fox is an excellent CEO, Dunstall is still involved, even though it appears he's stepped away. If these people now and over the years think there is a significant benefit in playing in Tasmania, I am in no position to disagree.

People seem to throw Kennett's name around because it brings all sorts of emotions. Well he's not there anyone, and people that most supporters should have a lot of respect for are still supportive of Tasmania. Why are they so supportive of it?

 

[Hawkk]

Is the Hawthorn/Dome thing a bit overstated?

The only time we played a home game at the Dome in recent years was the West Coast game last year and that drew a reasonable crowd (33527)

Given the size of our membership, our reserve seating and the fact we now get $100k for every home game in Melbourne (which wasn't agreed upon at time of the 2007 and 2011 deals) does it really matter if we lose on the gate? In 2006 we had 8000 reserve seat holders at the MCG, we now have 25,000 - if these reserve seat holders don't turn up to the gate do we really lose money on games?

 

[Bosk]

We need to be very careful that the AFL doesn't just say to us.. you know what.. we are not going to schedule you for any games in Launie. Then where does that leave us?

Assuming we were still being sponsored by Tassie then I assume the Tasmanian government would have legal grounds to take aim at Vlad or Rompingwins' brother.


But yeah, as Tasmaniac said 8 games is defacto relocation. Even Brayshaw would have a tough time convincing Norf's supporters to go for it, and you'd like to think our club would never entertain it as a possibility in the first place.

The only other club can I think might be desperate enough to go for something like that is St.Kilda, though they seem to have earmarked NZ for their future expansion plans.