Special exemption clauses to WC, Richmond and Collingwood but not Hawthorn

[Gaborone]

In the Age it was reported that: "... to underline the increasing differences between the ''haves'' and the ''have nots'', the wealthier clubs such as West Coast, Richmond and Collingwood - disenchanted at having to follow receivership rules - have achieved a special clause in the new agreement. This will exempt them from having to regularly open their books to head office".

In a different place in the article, Hawthorn was mentioned as one of the four clubs that could survive without AFL help. Why has Hawthorn, similarly, not been exempted? Is this philosophical by the club or are other factors at play here?

 

[Todman]

AFL want to stick it up Jeff.

 

[beta_condition]

Hawthorn Kennedy centre undertaking

 

[Blackhawk42]

Was surprised (and impressed) that the Western Bulldogs were part of the next tier of clubs who could survive until August without assistance. Good for them.

 

[Sixpence]

In the Age it was reported that: "... to underline the increasing differences between the ''haves'' and the ''have nots'', the wealthier clubs such as West Coast, Richmond and Collingwood - disenchanted at having to follow receivership rules - have achieved a special clause in the new agreement. This will exempt them from having to regularly open their books to head office".

In a different place in the article, Hawthorn was mentioned as one of the four clubs that could survive without AFL help. Why has Hawthorn, similarly, not been exempted? Is this philosophical by the club or are other factors at play here?

It says "wealthier clubs such as ...", I think Hawthorn are included, it's just a poorly written article.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Was surprised (and impressed) that the Western Bulldogs were part of the next tier of clubs who could survive until August without assistance. Good for them.

This has more to do with them recently selling some pokies and hence have the cash at this point as a result

 

[Blackhawk42]

This has more to do with them recently selling some pokies and hence have the cash at this point as a result

The premiership, exclusive Asics deal and record membership helped too I'm sure.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

The premiership, exclusive Asics deal and record membership helped too I'm sure.

No doubt the premiership helped with a huge spike in merchandise etc and this would have helped with the clubs debts, but without the sale of the pokies, they just wouldn’t have that sort of cash reserve

 

[Gaborone]

It says "wealthier clubs such as ...", I think Hawthorn are included, it's just a poorly written article.

If that is the case it is odd to name four clubs and then only list three. Does anyone know for fact rather than opinion?

 

[Sixpence]

If that is the case it is odd to name four clubs and then only list three. Does anyone know for fact rather than opinion?

Yeh, I agree. Thought it was weird when I first read it too. I could be wrong though.

 

[Pessimistic]

We were quick to put Dingley on hold. Perhaps a convenient excuse to drop it altogether? Just hold the land as assets

 

[cryptor]

We were quick to put Dingley on hold. Perhaps a convenient excuse to drop it altogether? Just hold the land as assets

It would have been hugely irresponsible to go ahead with it after what has happened (if it were even possible with so many industries stopping work).

There was literally no way we were going to be able to move forward with it, hence it was a quick and easy decision to put it on hold.

 

[Gold Member]

They want us out of Tasmania.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

They want us out of Tasmania.

Maybe so.
more to the point, they hate that Jeff calls a spade as spade especially when he talks about clubs being on the AFL for survival

as it turns out, he is spot on

 

[Hawk Dork]

Maybe so.
more to the point, they hate that Jeff calls a spade as spade especially when he talks about clubs being on the AFL for survival

as it turns out, he is spot on

Im sure it came as no surprise to anyone.
The AFL has some very compliant clubs just were it wants them when there isnt a Covid stuffing up the game plan

 

[DannyJ]

We were quick to put Dingley on hold. Perhaps a convenient excuse to drop it altogether? Just hold the land as assets

Yeh, I agree. Thought it was weird when I first read it too. I could be wrong though.

Easy decision when limited funds spent so far and limited construction started. Pretty much every land development in the country would be pushed back if Civil works havent commenced yet.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Tassie Cryptik]

Maybe we want to keep open the chance of an AFL bailout?

 

[Yardie]

Maybe we want to keep open the chance of an AFL bailout?

And that we've got nothing to hide.

 

[moginie]

Maybe we want to keep open the chance of an AFL bailout?

There's more chance of the AFL bankrolling the crows parklands invasion than them bailing us out.

 

[cryptor]

There's more chance of the AFL bankrolling the crows parklands invasion than them bailing us out.

They'd sooner bail us out than many of the smaller, worse off clubs.

We have more fans and members (which equal money), and we're far more profitable and self-sustainable long term. It would cost less to bail us out and we could far sooner become profitable again. A club like North Melbourne would cost a bunch more and they'd continue to need the financial support ongoing, just like they did before 2020.

The only reason the AFL wouldn't would be if they were confident that Hawthorn fans would come to the rescue. But that'd be a costly risk to take if they get it wrong.

 

[Pessimistic]

They'd sooner bail us out than many of the smaller, worse off clubs.

We have more fans and members (which equal money), and we're far more profitable and self-sustainable long term. It would cost less to bail us out and we could far sooner become profitable again. A club like North Melbourne would cost a bunch more and they'd continue to need the financial support ongoing, just like they did before 2020.

The only reason the AFL wouldn't would be if they were confident that Hawthorn fans would come to the rescue. But that'd be a costly risk to take if they get it wrong.

my reasoning side agrees with you. My paranoia does not

 

[Davo23]

my reasoning side agrees with you. My paranoia does not

Your paranoia may not be paranoia: the AFL still haven’t allowed us a to have a Women’s team.

Hmm ...

 

[Pessimistic]

Your paranoia may not be paranoia: the AFL still haven’t allowed us a to have a Women’s team.

Hmm ...

playing the other seven finalists first up in 2013 was a clue

 

[cryptor]

Your paranoia may not be paranoia: the AFL still haven’t allowed us a to have a Women’s team.

Hmm ...

And that has probably actually helped us. One less cost to worry about.

Another thing that has saved us additional cost was the choice years ago to keep our partnership with Box Hill when so many other Victorian clubs decided they just needed to have their own VFL team.

We're not historically a rich club. We're simply well managed.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It wouldn't make sense for the media to name us a self sufficient club, as then their "hawthorn suck" articles are limited.

They will always promote richmond, Essendon etc. Theyll always slam us.

The only team they actually report on fairly and balanced is collingwood