Opinion Jeff Kennett News, Media etc.

[Zack]

I will never understand the pokies issues with not for profit sporting clubs and people being annoyed by it.

Would you rather for profit clubs take them over. The Victorian government lives off them... if you have an issue go them.

Be aware though if you do those people will just take it online overseas and then no money stays in this country much like Facebook and Google send all their money through the Cayman Islands etc.

I do understand ppl worrying about ppl with Pokie issues but online you reckon they are going to supply gambling counselling from outside of Australia to help Australians, pff they are more likely to send a money collector with Tatts and Bikie affiliations... and someone with toecutters to pick them up, so they can do the job they were sent to do. At least here when they run out of money they won't offer them an online... lifeline and then dispose of them as they will.

 

[Hawkk]

If the alternative is an essendon supporter or someone who rats off to the afl and does us no favours while there then stay as long as you like jeff

Wow 15 years on bigfooty I never thought I’d see the day that you encouraged Jeff to stay another year :lol:

 

[Pessimistic]

Wow 15 years on bigfooty I never thought I’d see the day that you encouraged Jeff to stay another year :lol:

it was Jeffs idea to leave in the first place. I didnt agree with the tenure rule, give me something dammit!

BTW I also piped up to say hes not Racist, or at least not deliberately racist.

 

[Hodginator]

 

[flinchfree]

Not exactly stellar that it is proving so difficult to find the next in line....

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Not exactly stellar that it is proving so difficult to find the next in line....

Get the feeling you might be wanting to get a head of steam up on this flinchy, lets just keep the safety on and see how this plays out.

Looks like a tweet posted by a twit (T. Brown) wishing the sky is falling around Waverley.

Just because we haven't identified a replacement doesn't mean aren't any out there, just not the one we want.

 

[Lickmesocks]

Had a good chat on the weekend with someone with close links to the club and this is a big issue. Jeff is cooked and we are desperately trying to find the right person to send him out to pasture.

Obviously the next phase with the proposed Dingley move could define our Clubs future and is going to need a really sound board.

The project which started at 70 mill is now at 150 mill. We will be able to raise 50 mill to get us rolling but we are going to need some pretty big funding from the AFL and the State Government along with a decent sized bank loan to go with.

Massive decisions ahead!!!!

 

[Gralin]

Watch this space on board moves I guess

 

[hfc70]

Has to be Jason Dunstall - Eddie style (with media commitments)

 

[flinchfree]

............

The project which started at 70 mill is now at 150 mill. We will be able to raise 50 mill to get us rolling but we are going to need some pretty big funding from the AFL and the State Government along with a decent sized bank loan to go with.

Massive decisions ahead!!!!

WTF? Are we building the Taj or a training/administerative facility?
I know there are some fun footsteps to follow with EPL clubs and US pro teams, but sheesh.
Interesting that these constant revisions in plans and costs is never put up for discussion to the membership.
Borrowing 50-70 millions dollars to fund this development sounds like a crap idea to me.
Prefer a build as you need approach with the land already secured. Glitzy, sure, but it doesn't have to look like Tottenham's new training digs.

 

[Lickmesocks]

WTF? Are we building the Taj or a training/administerative facility?
I know there are some fun footsteps to follow with EPL clubs and US pro teams, but sheesh.
Interesting that these constant revisions in plans and costs is never put up for discussion to the membership.
Borrowing 50-70 millions dollars to fund this development sounds like a crap idea to me.
Prefer a build as you need approach with the land already secured. Glitzy, sure, but it doesn't have to look like Tottenham's new training digs.

The Plan is to have everything we need and want now. I was also told we have some excellent pieces in place on the board now to assist with everything.

 

[lethalselbow]

WTF? Are we building the Taj or a training/administerative facility?
I know there are some fun footsteps to follow with EPL clubs and US pro teams, but sheesh.
Interesting that these constant revisions in plans and costs is never put up for discussion to the membership.
Borrowing 50-70 millions dollars to fund this development sounds like a crap idea to me.
Prefer a build as you need approach with the land already secured. Glitzy, sure, but it doesn't have to look like Tottenham's new training digs.

C'mon. Every project starts with a planned figure and you can almost gurantee it will have anywhere between 50%-150% added onto the finishing total. It's a huge project that will bring in the bacon. Plan big, spend big.

 

[flinchfree]

C'mon. Every project starts with a planned figure and you can almost gurantee it will have anywhere between 50%-150% added onto the finishing total. It's a huge project that will bring in the bacon. Plan big, spend big.

So if it's 150 before we've dug a shovel full, you're telling me we're more likely to be 250 -350 before we've finished?
If we are seriously looking at that sort of coin, we should be ending up with our own boutique home ground to get ALL the gate receipts from and sell ALL the ground advertising as well as naming rights.
Think we could probably raise 10-15mil a year extra over our AFL 'dispensation' if we had our own joint to run.

 

[Hawkk]

Is the Hawthorn Football Club as an entity in a position to actually execute this development?

As it stands right now (as per the Age article last week) the cost of the development has already blown out to $110m (and now we are talking about $150m) from an original commitment of $70m.

According to the Annual Report, the Hawthorn FC has a net asset position of $56.6m and a consolidated revenue of $76.2m.

With 29% of revenue generated from non-club related activities ($76.2m revenue consolidated, $54.7m from club related activities) I guess we have a degree of protection from the vagaries from on field performance (i.e. increase / decrease in membership, attendances and corporate sponsorship, Tasmania etc)

My concern relates to the significant capital that could be tied up in a development project that won't generate significant ROI and depending on the nature of the footpint is likely decades away from residential development.

From what I understand (and apologies if I am ill-informed) like Waverley Park the asset might have a book value when fully realised but is likely to have little tangible value (i.e. who could we sell the site too if we found ourselves in a hole?)

If you look at the current make up of our Club Board we have very little experience with complex development projects.

Of course there is an obvious successor to Jeff Kennett who does have experience with development projects, who played 300 club games for the club and won 4 premierships, but he is rarely sighted when we talk about potential successors (Chris Langford)

 

[Mississippi]

Has to be Jason Dunstall - Eddie style (with media commitments)

I hope you're joking.
Dunstall would be an absolute disaster as a club president.
Not the right fit in any sense.

 

[lethalselbow]

So if it's 150 before we've dug a shovel full, you're telling me we're more likely to be 250 -350 before we've finished?
If we are seriously looking at that sort of coin, we should be ending up with our own boutique home ground to get ALL the gate receipts from and sell ALL the ground advertising as well as naming rights.
Think we could probably raise 10-15mil a year extra over our AFL 'dispensation' if we had our own joint to run.

I've got no idea on the costs. Just know that all major projects end up costing more than first estimated. There are some talented minds and people behind the project.

 

[Randy Campbell]

Is the Hawthorn Football Club as an entity in a position to actually execute this development?

As it stands right now (as per the Age article last week) the cost of the development has already blown out to $110m (and now we are talking about $150m) from an original commitment of $70m.

According to the Annual Report, the Hawthorn FC has a net asset position of $56.6m and a consolidated revenue of $76.2m.

With 29% of revenue generated from non-club related activities ($76.2m revenue consolidated, $54.7m from club related activities) I guess we have a degree of protection from the vagaries from on field performance (i.e. increase / decrease in membership, attendances and corporate sponsorship, Tasmania etc)

My concern relates to the significant capital that could be tied up in a development project that won't generate significant ROI and depending on the nature of the footpint is likely decades away from residential development.

From what I understand (and apologies if I am ill-informed) like Waverley Park the asset might have a book value when fully realised but is likely to have little tangible value (i.e. who could we sell the site too if we found ourselves in a hole?)

If you look at the current make up of our Club Board we have very little experience with complex development projects.

Of course there is an obvious successor to Jeff Kennett who does have experience with development projects, who played 300 club games for the club and won 4 premierships, but he is rarely sighted when we talk about potential successors (Chris Langford)

When I was younger I used to think Chris Langford was Clark Kent/Superman.
I am a lot older now, but I still think he could be the one to save us.

 

[flinchfree]

When I was younger I used to think Chris Langford was Clark Kent/Superman.
I am a lot older now, but I still think he could be the one to save us.

Agree, and surely he's made enough money now to take a break and head the club up for 6-8 years?
Would be our greatest hire since Clarko.

 

[wahawk]

When I was younger I used to think Chris Langford was Clark Kent/Superman.
I am a lot older now, but I still think he could be the one to save us.

save us ?

Are we in trouble ?

 

[Flukey!]

12 months to find a replacement for Jeff is hardly an issue.
And the club has enough smart people on the board to drive a $100M+ project if that is what is deemed to be needed.

Seriously....I don't see the need for gloom or doom just yet.

 

[Carl Spackler]

12 months to find a replacement for Jeff is hardly an issue.
And the club has enough smart people on the board to drive a $100M+ project if that is what is deemed to be needed.

Seriously....I don't see the need for gloom or doom just yet.

Sure, try and brush a crisis under the carpet. Sycophant!

 

[Carl Spackler]

 

[Carl Spackler]

 

[MrPremiership]

gee some of you panic quickly

 

[Randy Campbell]

save us ?

Are we in trouble ?

No.
But if we were he could save us.