So, anti-Tassie-deal posters, what are your alternatives?

[dipper86]

Not quite sure about this? but if we were to relocate wouldn't atleast 75% members have to vote for the move or is that only in a merger ?

 

[Hawkk]

Not quite sure about this? but if we were to relocate wouldn't atleast 75% members have to vote for the move or is that only in a merger ?

Bingo.

For merger or relocation to occur, it requires a vote of confidence from the members - I think its the same for a name change as well?

On top of that - as I mentioned before, we already have investers with a vested interest in Hawthorn remaining strong in Victoria.

In short, a relocation or an increase in commitment simply isn't going to happen.

If you're that concerned about it, stand against the board when Kennett is up for re election and put across your concerns to the members.

 

[MHDKA]

Why did you pull out of the challenge back in 2005, when you had a chance to do so?

Nice fishing exercise but what are you talking about?

 

[Davo23]

Nice fishing exercise but what are you talking about?

It is interesting that you and hawker11 both joined here at the same time, and that your posts are so eerily similar.

And you have both strenuously maintained the Don Scott line.


Davo23

 

[MHDKA]

It is interesting that you and hawker11 both joined here at the same time, and that your posts are so eerily similar.

And you have both strenuously maintained the Don Scott line.


Davo23

Ha well we can end this conspiracy theory very quickly- although I admire scotty I wouldn't vote for him if he stood again.

& BTW - I didn't know don had studied economics!

 

[hawker11]

MHDKA, why don't you get Don, hawker11 and the rest of the oldies to challenge the Board?

Why did you pull out of the challenge back in 2005, when you had a chance to do so?

Once again you refer to a board challenge. I promise you that I am 25 years old and would have a snowflakes chance in hell of attaining a seat on the board. Though I am a member and deserve a say as much as the next. I responded to the thread title in the way it was intended - and rather than critque my response - you pull out the white flag with immature comments and conspiracy theories! I do not know MHDKA - and for him to join around the same time is simply a coincidence. But thanks MDHKA for having a say - and supporting my threads when posters dont agree with my opinion. There are more beyond this forum that share my opinion than you think...

 

[wahawk]

MHDKA

you have a graduate and post graduate degree in Economics and Finance.

Why is it that you have so much to say without saying anything?

Check out the title of the thread and re-read Gary's original post.He asked for your alternatives and the only poster to offer anything (not much that hasn't already been tried) was Hawker11.

I thought there would be some anti-tassie posters with some good alternatives , but as yet ......nothing

Rather than quote other posts just answer the question.Or take option 2 and dont post in this thread.

If you are an anti-Tassie-deal poster, what are your alternatives?

 

[MHDKA]

MHDKA

you have a graduate and post graduate degree in Economics and Finance.

Why is it that you have so much to say without saying anything?

Check out the title of the thread and re-read Gary's original post.He asked for your alternatives and the only poster to offer anything (not much that hasn't already been tried) was Hawker11.

I thought there would be some anti-tassie posters with some good alternatives , but as yet ......nothing

Rather than quote other posts just answer the question.Or take option 2 and dont post in this thread.

If you are an anti-Tassie-deal poster, what are your alternatives?

As far as commenting on my qualifications that is hardly relevent to this thread & only came up as a sideline to another thread - are you trying to be sarcastic here - so why have you brought them up?

As far as your other questions read post 12 & my other posts & then you may understand where I am coming from.

If you have any other problems with my posts - bad luck!

Don't read them!

As far as my posts go though I have responded to a number by gary but noticed he hasn't actually bothered to respond to any when he actually posted the thread so I think your post is a bit rich.

Perhaps you should be questioning him rather than me?

 

[hawker11]

Finally, I have noticed some posters supportive of the deal have ridiculed those that are not 100% behind it. Frankly the deal is not a lay-down misere & to suggest otherwise is quite naive & disrespectful to those who have spent the time to discuss their opinions and who also love HFC and are simply concerned about the future of our club.

speaking of thread 12 - Davo23 and Londoner26 - perhaps read the last paragraph which i have quoted.

Check out the title of the thread and re-read Gary's original post.He asked for your alternatives and the only poster to offer anything (not much that hasn't already been tried) was Hawker11.

Perhaps explain how they have been previously tried? Then explain how the deal benefits growth of the Victorian membership level.

 

[frankc]

MHDKA

you have a graduate and post graduate degree in Economics and Finance.

Why is it that you have so much to say without saying anything?

Check out the title of the thread and re-read Gary's original post.He asked for your alternatives and the only poster to offer anything (not much that hasn't already been tried) was Hawker11.

I thought there would be some anti-tassie posters with some good alternatives , but as yet ......nothing

Rather than quote other posts just answer the question.Or take option 2 and dont post in this thread.

If you are an anti-Tassie-deal poster, what are your alternatives?

Wahawk, the anti-tassie group don't have any alternatives. They simply like to decry the genuine efforts of the board to strengthen the club without having any idea of the multi-faceted issues that come with running a football club in the modern era.

Instead of criticising the board, they should be congratulated. Fact is any decision that is made will have pros and cons. What must be considered is whether the postive of any decisions outweighs the negative.

While the anti-tassie bregade are probably correct that membership would be higher if the deal did not go ahead, the relatively small loss in membership is more than outweighed by the cash flow generated by the deal and the long-term benefits that may flow from the deal.

However, if one looks at the poll recently posted regarding those for and against the tassie deal, I think its 43-8 in favour. Therefore around 85% of BF members are in favour of the deal.

One would expect that the negative response from BF members to be greater and as such, I am fairly confident that well over three-quarters of Hawthorn supporters would be in favour of the deal.

 

[frankc]

Perhaps explain how they have been previously tried? Then explain how the deal benefits growth of the Victorian membership level.

The proof is already evident. 20% increase in membership compared to same time last year. Anyway, you are one of the minority who are against the deal.

Look at the poll. 43-8 in favour - end of story.

 

[MHDKA]

Wahawk, the anti-tassie group don't have any alternatives. They simply like to decry the genuine efforts of the board to strengthen the club without having any idea of the multi-faceted issues that come with running a football club in the modern era.

Instead of criticising the board, they should be congratulated. Fact is any decision that is made will have pros and cons. What must be considered is whether the postive of any decisions outweighs the negative.

While the anti-tassie bregade are probably correct that membership would be higher if the deal did not go ahead, the relatively small loss in membership is more than outweighed by the cash flow generated by the deal and the long-term benefits that may flow from the deal.

However, if one looks at the poll recently posted regarding those for and against the tassie deal, I think its 43-8 in favour. Therefore around 85% of BF members are in favour of the deal.

One would expect that the negative response from BF members to be greater and as such, I am fairly confident that well over three-quarters of Hawthorn supporters would be in favour of the deal.

Frank whilst I think your heart is probably in the right place I think you and most posters on BF are pretty naive with the unquestioning attitude to ALL aspects of the sponsorship deal.

I also think it is laughable that anyone that questions anything about the deal is treated as if they are a scum supporter or have no idea what they are talking about .

Frankly I have only seen one poster on this forum, Hawkk who seems to have the intelligence to engage in a discussion with those who don't necessarily agree with the popular view in a respectful way and admit there is some reason to question some of the aspects of the deal.

Frankly & you don't seem to get this I hope the deal does work out - fcuk I've been supporting the hawks for over 40 years - but I'm not going to be told that having TASMANIA on our jumpers and playing game in tasmania does not cause identity issues, or that this deal which is less than 10% of our revenue anyway is the answer to financial problems which aren't there or have someone say I can pop down there to see a game in the time in takes me to drive into the city (& I live in hawthorn!) without questioning it.

BTW frank a BF poll means nothing in the real world!

 

[frankc]

Frank whilst I think your heart is probably in the right place I think you and most posters on BF are pretty naive with the unquestioning attitude to ALL aspects of the sponsorship deal.

I also think it is laughable that anyone that questions anything about the deal is treated as if they are a scum supporter or have no idea what they are talking about .

Frankly I have only seen one poster on this forum, Hawkk who seems to have the intelligence to engage in a discussion with those who don't necessarily agree with the popular view in a respectful way and admit there is some reason to question some of the aspects of the deal.

Frankly & you don't seem to get this I hope the deal does work out - fcuk I've been supporting the hawks for over 40 years - but I'm not going to be told that having TASMANIA on our jumpers and playing game in tasmania does not cause identity issues, or that this deal which is less than 10% of our revenue anyway is the answer to financial problems which aren't there or have someone say I can pop down there to see a game in the time in takes me to drive into the city (& I live in hawthorn!) without questioning it.

BTW frank a BF poll means nothing in the real world!

Mate, my opinion has got nothing to do with my heart being in the right place. Initially I was against the deal, however I have considered the information that we has been provided to us and consider it to be in good move.

While having the Tasmania logo on the jumper is some what annoying, I can live with that as I think the club will benefit significantly not only over the next five years, but in the years beyond.

For mine, I have considered the deal and the overall strategy of the board and am comfortable with it.

of course the poll means nothing - it doesn't suit your argument. Similar to the increase in membership to date being atrributed solely to the winning of the last four games.

Anyway, I'm sick of these threads. I've given my opinion and am happy with the boards strategy - Go Hawks in 2007 - frankc out.

 

[Hawkk]

What are the alternatives?

- BUILD on the 30-35000 base membership level by endeavouring to play as many games at the MCG as possible. The Tasmanian deal has had a negative effect on our draw - and the number of games at the MCG let alone in Melbourne.

Very true, but I think part of the deal is centred on guaranteeing a piece of the MCG home game pie. With more clubs realising they can make more money at the MCG then they can at the Corporate Dome and the new AFL/MCC contract that demands the highest drawing games be played at the MCG, there isn’t much room for a club that has been dormant for the best part of 15 years to grow its share.

To put it into perspective, the AFL is obligated to play 44 league games at the venue;

14 Collingwood (home and away)
7 Hawthorn (home)
5 Carlton (home)
4 Essendon (home)
1 Geelong (home)

The rest is a combination of Richmond, Melbourne, Kangaroos and high drawing ‘blockbuster’ fixtures.

Call it a fall out plan, but it’s a nice security platform for the club to fall back on if all else fails. Its either that or we risk having more games shifted to the ground the AFL has vested interests in - the Victorian one that is.

- Get involved in VICTORIAN schools and colleges, get kids to love the Hawks - promote the playing group and its personalities (ala Dipper Dermie of the eighties) - let its supporters feel connected to the team by knowing its players - Hawthorn have not had a single player to see a reason to go and attend a match since Crawford in his prime - this is about to change *cough* Buddy *cough*

The Hawks are one of 3 Victorian based sides involved in the leagues Multicultural Development program - the other 2 being Collingwood and the WB, specifically aimed at marketing the game of Australian Rules Football to specific ethnic groups through the football clubs.

http://www.vwfl.org.au/_content/document/00049328-src.pdf

- Form rivalries with other Victorian clubs and create a tribal atmosphere amongst the supporter base. Why do you think the AFL are desperate to keep the Blues afloat? It isnt the Carlton brand thats important - its the rivalries with the Collingwoods and Essendons that draw the crowds. It is rivalries that put bums on seats

Rivalries are formed through heroic and memorable on field acts, and complimented (and encouraged by the AFL) through large crowds and attractive football. At the moment we aren't worthy of blockbuster status - that's what several years in the wilderness does to you, but this hopefully could/should change in time.

We have an excellent chance to establish a 'blockbuster' with an Easter Monday clash vs. Melbourne. If we can get an abbreviated crowd - 55,000+ and importantly fire on the big stage, perhaps we can stamp ourselves on the public holiday market.

- Promote each home game as a major event. Gimmicks Fireworks Competitions - whatever! Get in the media's face with each home game - put it on the back page. We have a high profile president that can achieve this! Essendon do this very well via Sheedy.

Couldn't agree more!

- Be stubborn, arrogant to the media and the AFL and defend the Hawthorn brand.

Being stubborn and arrogant to the AFL and media will do nothing more then inflate the problem. If anything, the media has been more then reasonable to us over the past few months - they aren't driving any agenda's and the general perception amongst the press towards Hawthorn is a team on the rise.

Taking a Carlton '******** the rest' approach does more harm then good.

Sure the two games a year that might still draw only 20,000 despite a better marketing strategy - send them to Tasmania - as marque games.

It’s not that easy. I get the impression the club wants to eliminate all Telstra Dome home games from the clubs fixture. To achieve this, the club probably has to play 2-3 games in a different market. The other point to consider is the loss of 2 AFL games from the Tasmanian football perspective; they obviously don’t want to lose any of the games they currently are contracted for. Whether or not Hawthorn played 2 or 3 games (which would probably be required to eliminate the TD home games) AFL Tasmania would have scouted another club to take up the 3rd and/or 4th game – Richmond, the Bulldogs and Melbourne were all touted as potential suitors when the Saints left. Don’t under estimate the value – from a marketing perspective, of being the only club in a state vs. having direct market competitors.

The pro-tas team seem to think the sky is falling on Hawthorn - but it is not. We have a base of 30,000 members despite no success on-field (at one stage we were a rabble) - our attendances are the greatest - but they are very far from the worst, we have great facilities, a high profile president, and a playing group with a LOT of potential.

I’ve stated before that the HFC is probably in the top 4-5 Victorian clubs financially, but if we ever want to compete with the elite clubs in the competition we need to expand our territory into different markets – its pretty difficult to compete directly in a 10 team market when a rival has millions to draw support from. If that means we play the odd game in Launceston and relocate the club 20km down the road to a top class facility in a population hub…I’m all for it.

Ideally when the contract comes up for renegotiation, Hawthorn will be in a much stronger position both on and off the field and Tasmania will be a less attractive option for clubs looking to play the odd game in a second market. By then the Hawks could be in a stronger position to negotiate more MCG guaranteed home games and decrease its commitment to Tasmania to 2-3 games while retaining its position as a ‘one state club’ in the Tasmanian market.

 

[medusala]

Recently I was looking at the Hawthorn Financial statement and noticed a massive drop in donations and special fundraising efforts. In 2005 the figure was $1,582,269 and in 2006 it was only $276,288. The profit for 2005 was $90,937 and was only made by some generous people propping up the club.

So lets take a $1.5m loss as a starting point. The profit for this year (add back non cash item) was about $1m. So thats roughly a $2.5m turnaround on the back of 2 extra sold games (lets say they netted $500k after costs/lost revenue etc).

Lets also say for arguments sake that the slightly improved ladder position didnt have much of an effect on $.

Is this not a reflection that there are alternative methods to improving finances rather than selling games?

Has this not been the case also at Richmond who have turned around a seemingly hopeless position with better management (and no sold games)?

 

[medusala]

Wahawk, the anti-tassie group don't have any alternatives. They simply like to decry the genuine efforts of the board to strengthen the club without having any idea of the multi-faceted issues that come with running a football club in the modern era.

Complete and utter nonsense. The views of the Hawthorn board are the opposite to nearly every other Vic club. They dont want to sell games because they dont believe its in their interests financially (and that includes clubs worse off than Hawthorn). A no of club presidents have made this clear publicly.

I also know a couple of people who have worked in marketing roles at clubs (Dogs and Tigers) and both have said the same thing.

This is at best a short term dash for cash.

Its not a strategically clever thing to do. I am sure Kennett knows this but he wont let on publicly (you cant run down your sponsors).

The nonsense people sprout on this topic is unbelieavable, from the financial misology to the notion of membership riches in Tas, its absurd.

 

[medusala]

I’ve stated before that the HFC is probably in the top 4-5 Victorian clubs financially, but if we ever want to compete with the elite clubs in the competition we need to expand our territory into different markets – its pretty difficult to compete directly in a 10 team market when a rival has millions to draw support from.

A) Melbourne has over 3m people and Lton has 70k
B) Tasmanian support is split between clubs just as it is in Melbourne. This wont change any time soon.

Illogical.

 

[frankc]

Complete and utter nonsense. The views of the Hawthorn board are the opposite to nearly every other Vic club. They dont want to sell games because they dont believe its in their interests financially (and that includes clubs worse off than Hawthorn). A no of club presidents have made this clear publicly.

I also know a couple of people who have worked in marketing roles at clubs (Dogs and Tigers) and both have said the same thing.

This is at best a short term dash for cash.

Its not a strategically clever thing to do. I am sure Kennett knows this but he wont let on publicly (you cant run down your sponsors).

The nonsense people sprout on this topic is unbelieavable, from the financial misology to the notion of membership riches in Tas, its absurd.

We must agree to disagree as I think what you say is absurd.

In any case, both our views are speculation, we don't know what the boards intent is. However I like what I see and read, obviously you don't.

p.s. Naturally those couple of people who worked with the dogs and tigers have an intimate knowledge of the workings of our club. I have also spoken to certain people who think the deal is a very good move long-term, yet others I have spoken too are not so sure. Again it is only th board who know what their intent is.

I personally think that we will continue to play games in tasmania for a long-time. We might not continue playing four per season - probably more likley two.

 

[cs61]

Complete and utter nonsense. The views of the Hawthorn board are the opposite to nearly every other Vic club. They dont want to sell games because they dont believe its in their interests financially (and that includes clubs worse off than Hawthorn). A no of club presidents have made this clear publicly.

There hasn't been many selling home games that have been successful as Hawthorn playing games at Aurora. Our winning % and local support have been very successful where St Kilda had a shocking record and didn't get the crowds we did.

I wonder how many poorer Melbourne clubs would turn down 15million to play 4 games in a state they have such a good winning record at. Especially considering the high level of Hawthorn supporters in Tassie, its a smart decision.

I also know a couple of people who have worked in marketing roles at clubs (Dogs and Tigers) and both have said the same thing.

This is at best a short term dash for cash.

15million short term cash? Its not like borrowing 20 dollars off your mate for a few beers, its a huge sum of money. Invested carefully will most certainly benefit us strongly for a decent period of time since we are slowly starting to get into a good financial situation anyway.

This decision wasn't just to secure our survival, but an effort to start become a power in Victoria with the help of Tasmania. To compete we need (I'm getting tired of saying the same things) dominate, not just survive and cruise along.

This decision isn't like Melbourne playing their home games against Brisbane at the Gabba. That is short term grab for cash, and in no way increases Melbourne support. Same as when Dogs played Sydney in Sydney over the years. That is purely to grab some revenue to help them break even (which they didn't anyway).

This is different, its looking at a market that has supporter hawthorn, and where hawthorn has also prospered on the field. Have been offered 15m to go ahead with the deal, so really its hard to see how it is going to be a failure financially, but could be potentially a huge success if we do reach out to two markets.

I've had enough. I'm all for supporting our club's innitiative to become a power. If people want to look at it as selling our club out, that's their opinion, not mine. I see it as attempting to prosper in a over saturated market and promote growth of our brand.

Over and out.

 

[wahawk]

As far as commenting on my qualifications that is hardly relevent to this thread & only came up as a sideline to another thread - are you trying to be sarcastic here - so why have you brought them up?

As far as your other questions read post 12 & my other posts & then you may understand where I am coming from.

If you have any other problems with my posts - bad luck!

Don't read them!

As far as my posts go though I have responded to a number by gary but noticed he hasn't actually bothered to respond to any when he actually posted the thread so I think your post is a bit rich.

Perhaps you should be questioning him rather than me?

Gary doesn't have to respond until you respond to his initial post (which you have not done)

 

[Copernicus]

.

I don't get what some anti-Tassie-deal posters are on about.

If the HFC Board directors sat on their hands and did very little or nothing to enhance and ensure our club's financial viability, the same complainants would remain on their case. There would be outcries if there were nothing done, we simply would not survive.

I ask of those posters, what are your alternative ideas to compete financially? Say, with the rich interstate clubs, Collingwood and Essendon, the latter two being most likely the only Victorian clubs that are presently financially viable apart from ours. The other clubs are on AFL social security or near to.

Survival in the AFL is to find a way in which to assure a financial future. Re-locating to Tasmania is not going to do it for us, that state simply lacks a large enough population. So you should have no fears in that sense.

So, anti-Tassie-deal posters, come up with your alternative funding plans for Hawthorn's survival? Just imagine you are on the Board and have ideas different to the incumbents. Deftly set out, in this thread, your plans and ideas which you feel would ensure Hawthorn FC's future financially.

Yours in anticipation, Gary.

I don't wish to hijack your thread overmuch, but do you think that Hawthorn is so far superior to Geelong financially? I think out of all the Vic clubs, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn and Geelong at the least are financially viable. It's hyperbole to state that only the three you listed are viable clubs.

I'd probably add St Kilda to the list also but I think their fortunes could fluctuate more than others. Geelong, at least, has the advantage of a home ground which has substantial financial benefits any time there is a decent crowd present. I can't think of many other clubs that can claim that benefit.

Anyway, carry on. (By the way, I think Hawthorn's move is a smart one, and will do much to shore up traditional tassie support as well as keep the club financial, and in this day a little stability is as important as anything else)

 

[MHDKA]

Gary doesn't have to respond until you respond to his initial post (which you have not done)

Christ its no wonder some posters on BF give the forum such a bad rep!

See post #1 by gary

See post #12 - MHDKA responding to quotes from post #1

See post #19 by gary

See post #22 - MHDKA responding to quotes from post #19

BTW wahawk do you speak for gary or is wahawk an alias gary uses or are you just mini gary?

 

[Fastback]

The way I see it, we've been playing home games in Tas for the last 6 years for an 8-4 record or 75% success rate (relatively outstanding based on overall win/loss record for the period). This means we have built up 6 years of actual data to determine whether extending it contractually for another 5 years at 4 games per year (one extra game on last season), will be beneficial to the club in the long run. This is not a dash for cash as some have stated. All we have done is locked in our next 5 years of virtually the same arrangement for $15mill indexed. This is fact, to say we are relocating or losing identity is pure speculation as there is nothing to back this up. Membership has only marginally dipped because of onfield performances - this is normal for any club. Look at Carlton.
This is a clever business model that supersedes the previous one. One which did not guarantee the sustainable growth levels that we felt we needed to achieve.
Looking at the kangas current predicament and Carlton's unveiling of a cash generating project that looks very optimistic at best, I'd say we have made an excellent decision which has had about as much identity impact as an intra club training guernsey. If others feel it's more than this then fair enough - that's the way they see it.
If others also feel there are plenty of other alternatives then lets see them - HSBC are behind the move to Tas and have extended their contract a further 3 years. This says a lot.
Again, let me repeat the flow chart: Surplus funds = extra spending on areas such as research, development, recruiting etc etc = improved chance of success = improved attendences to games = games switched from TD to MCG = more attractive membership package/better value for money = more members/supporters and sponsors = more money <repeat cycle>.

 

[wahawk]

Christ its no wonder some posters on BF give the forum such a bad rep!

See post #1 by gary

See post #12 - MHDKA responding to quotes from post #1

See post #19 by gary

See post #22 - MHDKA responding to quotes from post #19

BTW wahawk do you speak for gary or is wahawk an alias gary uses or are you just mini gary?

I could not give a rats arse what rep people give BF

Post #12 does not come up with any alternatives

FYI, (not that i should have to explain myself to you) i dont speak for Gary , i am not Gary nor am i mini Gary.

I am just sick of people putting sh*t on Hawthorn , but having no alternatives.

Come up with some

 

[MHDKA]

Ok just to make it easier for you listed below is some relevent points lifted straight out of my posts. As you can see my view on this deal is:

- did we need to expand on previous arrangements - No

- could we have negotiated the deal better that was more favorable to HFC's interests - Yes.

Here are the quotes:

That does not mean however they should simply grab a fist full of $$$ without ensuring they do it on the best possible terms for the club.

As I have discussed elsewhere we have shown consistent improvement both on & off field over the last 3 years & it is incorrect to suggest that we needed the tasmanian sponsorship because we had financial issues

Considering we have already attracted one of the top 10 banks in the world as a sponsor and are a team with prospects the equal of any in the AFL over the next 5-8 years why couldn't we either attract sponsorship with more favorable terms than what we have agreed to with the Tasmanian government or attract new sponsorship - perhaps the answer is either lazy or inept management.

given our improving prospects there is no reason we shouldn't be able to increase our membership over our record of 33K in 2007 without potentially pissing of victorian members some of whom are not 100% happy with the deal. In addition there are aspects of the deal that will impinge on our ability to recruit new members and lapsed members as well as new sponsors.

the terms we have agreed to we have downgraded the sponsorship of one of the worlds greatest banks, jumped into bed with a government whose support could change at the next election or opinion poll, alienated parts of our membership base & created identity issues that will effect our ability to recruit new members.

we should have insisted the naming be "Tasmania Tourism" or "Discover Tasmania" and this should have been the logo on our jumper rather than TASMANIA.

This would have meant:

- Some HFC members would not have been pissed off that we selling part of our identity

- More value to Tasmania itself from a marketing perspective by providing a message as part of the naming

- Avoiding confusion amongst those outside the club (such as potential new members) that we are indeed Tasmania Hawks and may in fact be located in Tasmania

Naming rights is an issue we should have negotiated more strongly on.

I'm not going to be told that having TASMANIA on our jumpers and playing game in tasmania does not cause identity issues, or that this deal which is less than 10% of our revenue anyway is the answer to financial problems which aren't there or have someone say I can pop down there to see a game in the time in takes me to drive into the city (& I live in hawthorn!) without questioning it.