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

[Hawkk]

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

Financially? Probably not.

However if we want to 'own' Tasmania - and by that I mean being the only club that has exclusive access to the region, we needed to expand the commitment to 4 games. Richmond, WB and Melbourne all showed more then a passing interest in taking up the 2 game hole left by the Saints. Richmond in particular looked seriously into taking up the offer given they were assured of playing their remaining home games at the MCG - similar to us. All of these variables only put more pressure on us to up the commitment to 4 games.

In 2010/11 when the contract comes back up for renegotiation - hopefully with increased performance, the club should be in a position to negotiating more home games at the MCG at the expense of a 1-2 of the Tassie home games, allowing us to have a more manageable 8/3 or even 9/2 split.

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

The media has only covered what we have foregone and in money terms what we receive, to date there has been no mention of the additional publicity the club could/should get in its second market. Until we have all the details, who knows if we could have negotiated the deal better. As I’ve mentioned earlier in the thread, the club is developing/co partnering programs to increase its support base (and in time membership base) in Victoria as well.

There are some elements of the deal that are dodgy - the TASMANIA logo on the jumper for example, but in the whole its not a bad deal for us - it doesn't matter how good you are at negotiating, if you get something in most cases you need to give something up. Its not a perfect deal for us, but considering our current position - a team that has failed to make a top 4 (pre finals) for the best part of 15 years, its not a bad deal.

We won't know for a number of years if we won out or lost out on the deal relative to our position without the sponsorship - we may never know...but to date the signs are promising.

 

[wahawk]

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:

as i said, you still have not come up with any alternatives to the tassie deal. Unless you think that 'we should have had Discover Tasmania' is an alternative.
The first 2 statements where you answered 'no' and 'yes' are not alternatives, they are your opinions.

now for your quotes

1)You say that they simply grabbed a fist full of $$$ without ensuring they do it on the best possible terms for the club.
Again , your opinion

2) still no alternatives

3)no,not an alternative

4)alternative???

5)we may have downgraded our sponsorship with HSBC (no longer major sponsor,thats the only downgrade)but im sure that they are still paying the same amount of money. But still this quote is not an alternative

6)I do not disagree with you here. Maybe we negotiated to the best of our ability and lost out there.But any contract has to have some give and take on both behalfs. Still it isnt an alternative to the tassie deal

7)im not the poster who said you could pop down there and see a game in the time it takes to drive to the city.So ,I struggle to see the relavence of this quote.
And like the first 6 quotes ,this is not an 'alternative to the Tassie-deal'

this is my point.
the author of this thread asked for alternatives

not for your opinions on why you dont like the deal

Does this sound familiar , 'If your going to enter into a thread MHDKA, then read the posts' or in this case read the title to the thread.
The "So, anti-Tassie-deal posters, what are your alternatives?" started at post #1

On a side note,keep posting on the other thread though, because i am learning from you.And i am not being facetious

 

[medusala]

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.

Crowds were irrelevant for the Saints as they got paid a flat $ amount.

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.

Interstate clubs would still have to travel to Melbourne.

Especially considering the high level of Hawthorn supporters in Tassie, its a smart decision.

Great logic, I could equally say given the hugely disproportionate number of supporters in Melbourne its a dumb decision.

15million short term cash?

Gross. Difference between gross and net.

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.

In case you hadnt noticed Hawthorn has dominated before.

This is different, its looking at a market that has supporter hawthorn,

Only 70k in Lton. You would think that Hawthorn is the ony club that anyone in Lton supports.

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.

Oversaturated? Thats odd given the state of football in Tas. It wont promote the growth of the brand it will hurt it. Its like Jaguar broadening its range with the X type.

 

[wahawk]

Meds , i dont understand where you are coming from with your second quote from Schreuds?

Quote ; how many poorer Melb. clubs would knock back $15 mill. to play 4 games in a state they have such a good record at.

you reply : interstate clubs would still have to travel to Melb.

what do you mean by this?

another of your replies, 'in case you hadn't noticed Hawthorn has dominated before.'

You are right, Hawthorn has dominated before (and for a long period of time i might add) BUT we still dont have the members to show for it.We dominated in the late '70's and most of the '80's.We should have a massive amount of support from 20's,30's and 40's age people, but we dont.
Previous directors failed to capitalize on that sucsess , so this board had to look at alternatives.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

I see it as attempting to prosper in a over saturated market and promote growth of our brand.

medusala, you have mistaken what cschreuder61 is saying.

Oversaturated? Thats odd given the state of football in Tas.

He has made a very good point about our club going about surviving in an oversaturated market in our home state of Victoria. Well that's my take on it.

 

[Hawkk]

We dominated in the late '70's and most of the '80's.We should have a massive amount of support from 20's,30's and 40's age people, but we dont.

We probably do, we just haven't been able to put it together on the field since the early 1990's. The only times we have built momentum up on and off the field – 1999 and 2002/3, either the club has been evicted from its home ground or the form of the side has dropped off dramatically ala 2004. In 2004, the club smashed its pre season member records and had an all time high support base of 390,000 (only 8,000 behind the 8th placed Richmond) both almost stopped to a halt after the first 4-5 rounds of that home and away season. If/when we can string 2-3 good finals series together, it is then we can judge how large the clubs latent support really is, at the moment that’s almost impossible to judge.

I’m not arguing that without the deal we would be in a massive financial trouble or the club doesn’t have a support base large enough to compete in the competition, but I am arguing that if we want to compete toe to toe with the Eagles and Crows of the competition we need to look to other revenue streams – beyond Melbourne, to compete with the 50,000 clubs.

Unless we look beyond Victoria, we will never compete with the elite clubs...don't blame the club, blame the over saturation in the Victorian market.

 

[medusala]

medusala, you have mistaken what cschreuder61 is saying.

I dont think I have.

He has made a very good point about our club going about surviving in an oversaturated market in our home state of Victoria. Well that's my take on it

I disagree, I dont think its a good point, I think its completely illogical.

If the market is so saturated then how does one explain the growth in membership no's by a no of clubs? If the market was saturated then one would think this would be a very difficult thing to do.

It also failures to recognise that the Tas population has long supported Vic clubs. So not only are their stuff all people in Lton but they are hardly going to give up their long term support for Vic clubs for Hawthorn.

Its simply not a credible argument.

 

[medusala]

Meds , i dont understand where you are coming from with your second quote from Schreuds?

If Tas games are vs interstate teams such teams would still have to travel to Melbourne anyway thus placing them at a disadvantage.

You are right, Hawthorn has dominated before (and for a long period of time i might add) BUT we still dont have the members to show for it.

It was only a few years ago that we had as many members as Collingwood. The club has stagnated whilst others have progressed significantly.

In comparative terms the club has gone backwards.

 

[Fastback]

I dont think I have.



I disagree, I dont think its a good point, I think its completely illogical.

If the market is so saturated then how does one explain the growth in membership no's by a no of clubs? If the market was saturated then one would think this would be a very difficult thing to do.

It also failures to recognise that the Tas population has long supported Vic clubs. So not only are their stuff all people in Lton but they are hardly going to give up their long term support for Vic clubs for Hawthorn.

Its simply not a credible argument.

It's not just membership, saturation also covers sponsorship, fixturing, tv coverage etc etc

 

[medusala]

However if we want to 'own' Tasmania - and by that I mean being the only club that has exclusive access to the region,

Own? Are you serious? They have TV in Tas if you didnt know. You would think noone in Tas has ever supported AFL they way some go on about it.

In 2010/11 when the contract comes back up for renegotiation - hopefully with increased performance, the club should be in a position to negotiating more home games at the MCG at the expense of a 1-2 of the Tassie home games, allowing us to have a more manageable 8/3 or even 9/2 split.

Where is the logic in that? Why play 2 games? If its such a brilliant deal then why not 4? Or 0? Half pregnant.

The media has only covered what we have foregone and in money terms what we receive, to date there has been no mention of the additional publicity the club could/should get in its second market.

Why would you think publicity in Tas was worth much?

We won't know for a number of years if we won out or lost out on the deal relative to our position without the sponsorship - we may never know...but to date the signs are promising.

Wont know? I thought this was the greatest marketing coup since Saul.

 

[Hawkk]

I disagree, I dont think its a good point, I think its completely illogical.

If the market is so saturated then how does one explain the growth in membership no's by a no of clubs? If the market was saturated then one would think this would be a very difficult thing to do.

Market saturation covers more then purely just membership. Sponsorship, supporter growth etc. is reasonably bare in Victoria relative to most of the non Victorian sides. Granted support for Victorian clubs is growing (hence membership growth) albeit at a much smaller rate then the non Victorian clubs. On top of this, Victorian clubs for one reason or another are starting to place a higher emphasis on membership - compare the emphasis the Saints and Dogs place on membership today vs. 2002/3 – of course a lot of this growth can be accredited to on field performance.

Irrespective of the growth of the Victorian based sides, how many of these sides can compete directly/has the potential to compete directly – membership wise, with the 50,000 member clubs in the long term. If you listen to the clubs stance on the deal, its largely centred around developing a membership that can match these giants in the long term.

It also failures to recognise that the Tas population has long supported Vic clubs. So not only are their stuff all people in Lton but they are hardly going to give up their long term support for Vic clubs for Hawthorn.

True, but you'd imagine the club isn't just targeting Hawthorn supporters in the region but AFL fans in general looking to watch some league football at the ground. On top of this, it’s probably a venture targeted more towards the younger generation of fans coming through the system – who in 40% of cases don’t support the side their parents do.

In alot of cases, younger Tasmanians end up coming to Victoria anyway to find jobs!

It was only a few years ago that we had as many members as Collingwood. The club has stagnated whilst others have progressed significantly.

In comparative terms the club has gone backwards.

You know as well as I do that that’s just a piece of classic spin – rotations and all

Since 2001/2 - when the Hawks had a very similar number of members to the Pies, Collingwood has been successful in making 2 grand finals and a botched finals series – despite finishing 5th going into the finals series. In that time, Hawthorn has been nothing short of a laughing stock – almost 6 years out of the finals, infighting, a sacked coach, 3/4’s of the list turned over, negative media etc. etc.

All this is hardly arousing for potential members looking to sign up as members. As we all know, membership and on field performance is very heavily correlated…as a rule of thumb when the on field prospects of a football club increase so do the demand for reserve seating and various other member categories. The fact that our membership is 20% up on last years figures is testimony to that.

Even through all the fighting and humiliation we were still able to retain a strong 28-29,000 member base (despite in one year only having 5 home games) To say we have gone backwards comparative to our position on the ladder is pretty unreasonable IMO.

Where is the logic in that? Why play 2 games? If its such a brilliant deal then why not 4? Or 0? Half pregnant.

Its not half pregnant at all.

If By 2011 our on field prospects improve - as most of the football community expect - and our crowds improve, we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate our home game allocation at the MCG with the MCC and AFL. Instead of 7 home games, if the club was guaranteed 8 or even 9 home games at the ground I’m sure the club would jump. By 2011 the AFL’s expansion into the Northern markets should be well and truly under way and with the Tasmanian population and economy decreasing relative to the rest of the country, Tasmania could find itself in a difficult position. Having already invested substantially into Hawthorn – who by that stage would have a 10 year commitment in the state behind them – the Hawks could be in a really strong position to cut the commitment back to 3 games on the condition that it remains the only league club in the State.

Governments love stability…rather then trying their luck and finding another 1 or prossibly 2 clubs to replace Hawthorn – which in most likelihood will be very hard to find, I’m certain any government will be more inclined to keep the partnership going – albeit perhaps not as a high profile sponsor of the football club, even at the expense of 1 home game. Especially if the Hawks make major inroads into popularity amongst voters.

Its all hypothetical but make no mistake, Hawthorn hold all the cards at the negotiation table with this deal.

Why would you think publicity in Tas was worth much?

With 40% of the young Tasmanian football community vunerable to changing teams, any publicity - especially if its exclusive - is golden.

 

[medusala]

Market saturation covers more then purely just membership. Sponsorship, supporter growth etc. is reasonably bare in Victoria relative to most of the non Victorian sides.

Reasonably bare? As I previously said other clubs have increased revenue significantly recently. They cant do this in a saturated market. To talk about supporter and sponsorship growth in Tas is ludicrous. 70k in Lton and a few more on the NW coast. People in Hobart really dont give a stuff about Lton and are notorious for not making trips to see sport. I lived in both places for quite a few years so think I have some insight in to the situation. Plus the death of the TFL, the failure of Fitzoy in Tas, St Kilda pulling out etc.

Granted support for Victorian clubs is growing (hence membership growth) albeit at a much smaller rate then the non Victorian clubs.

There is only so many members you can gather out of a 100k population. A population that has for decades already had its own loyalties.

Irrespective of the growth of the Victorian based sides, how many of these sides can compete directly/has the potential to compete directly – membership wise, with the 50,000 member clubs in the long term. If you listen to the clubs stance on the deal, its largely centred around developing a membership that can match these giants in the long term.

Yet the interstate teams suffer from lower capacity stadiums and a smaller pool of sponsorship $ in places like Adelaide. Tas does nothing to adress this issue.

Since 2001/2 - when the Hawks had a very similar number of members to the Pies, Collingwood has been successful in making 2 grand finals and a botched finals series – despite finishing 5th going into the finals series. In that time, Hawthorn has been nothing short of a laughing stock – almost 6 years out of the finals, infighting, a sacked coach, 3/4’s of the list turned over, negative media etc. etc.

And fewer games to watch in Melbourne.

All this is hardly arousing for potential members looking to sign up as members. As we all know, membership and on field performance is very heavily correlated…as a rule of thumb when the on field prospects of a football club increase so do the demand for reserve seating and various other member categories. The fact that our membership is 20% up on last years figures is testimony to that.

True but a no of clubs have increased memberships and profits without doing much on field, Richmond a good example.

To say we have gone backwards comparative to our position on the ladder is pretty unreasonable IMO.

Backwards comparative to others.

Its not half pregnant at all.

Of course it is. Brilliant to sell 4 games but not 0 or 6. Why not?

If By 2011 our on field prospects improve - as most of the football community expect - and our crowds improve, we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate our home game allocation at the MCG with the MCC and AFL.

If the club played all its games in Melbourne it would get more games at the MCG, its as simple as that.

Having already invested substantially into Hawthorn – who by that stage would have a 10 year commitment in the state behind them – the Hawks could be in a really strong position to cut the commitment back to 3 games on the condition that it remains the only league club in the State.

3? Where are such no's coming from? If the Hawks are in strong shape then why wouldnt they leave completely? What is the rational for staying if $ arent a consideration?

Governments love stability

Bollocks, govts love winning elections.

Its all hypothetical but make no mistake, Hawthorn hold all the cards at the negotiation table with this deal.

So? They would with Kalgoorlie as well.

With 40% of the young Tasmanian football community vunerable to changing teams, any publicity - especially if its exclusive - is golden.

Delusional. Clubs have a poor record of converting support in foreign territory. This was true of Fitzroy and the Saints in Tas, North in Canberra, Norths in the NRL etc. I am sure Tasmanians would jump on a team in huge numbers IF it was a Tasmanian team. They wont give up allegiances to a fly in team just as other areas havent in the past.

 

[frankc]

Great debate guys. Reading the views of Hawkk and Medusala has been very interesting.

Logic is usually supplanted by emotion and that's probably the crux of the issue. Hawkk is arguing with a supportive mindset, Medusala is arguing from an unsupportive mindset.

There are no right or wrong answers. In this situation, logic is in the eye of the beholder and both parties are making some good points supporting their arguments.

However the board has made its decision, the contract is signed and we are playing four games in Tasmania.

One thing I think we can all agree upon is that the board is looking at different strategies to increase the strength of the club. If we take out the identity issue (i.e. having Tasmania on the jumper etc), the board has done a very good job.

Let's get behind the team. The only way we are really going to make bridge the gap is to play some consistent finals footy.

The other point I think we can all agree on is that the club has a great base as a springboard into the future. I just salivate thinking about the strides the club will make once that elusive final piece of the puzzel falls into place - consistent finals footy.

 

[MHDKA]

as i said, you still have not come up with any alternatives to the tassie deal. Unless you think that 'we should have had Discover Tasmania' is an alternative.
The first 2 statements where you answered 'no' and 'yes' are not alternatives, they are your opinions.

now for your quotes

1)You say that they simply grabbed a fist full of $$$ without ensuring they do it on the best possible terms for the club.
Again , your opinion

2) still no alternatives

3)no,not an alternative

4)alternative???

5)we may have downgraded our sponsorship with HSBC (no longer major sponsor,thats the only downgrade)but im sure that they are still paying the same amount of money. But still this quote is not an alternative

6)I do not disagree with you here. Maybe we negotiated to the best of our ability and lost out there.But any contract has to have some give and take on both behalfs. Still it isnt an alternative to the tassie deal

7)im not the poster who said you could pop down there and see a game in the time it takes to drive to the city.So ,I struggle to see the relavence of this quote.
And like the first 6 quotes ,this is not an 'alternative to the Tassie-deal'

this is my point.
the author of this thread asked for alternatives

not for your opinions on why you dont like the deal

Does this sound familiar , 'If your going to enter into a thread MHDKA, then read the posts' or in this case read the title to the thread.
The "So, anti-Tassie-deal posters, what are your alternatives?" started at post #1

On a side note,keep posting on the other thread though, because i am learning from you.And i am not being facetious

I have posted my view of the deal including the fact that it didn't necessarily need to be done and as it was done, why is should have been negotiated in a different way.

I have also responded directly to a number of posts including the opening post to the thread.

So as far as the author asking for alternatives I have responded to his proposition and a number of subsequent posts.

 

[Hawk-eye]

However the board has made its decision, the contract is signed and we are playing four games in Tasmania.

Does anyone know if the deal has officially been signed? I haven't heard anything since Lennon said the deal wasn't finished on Dec 11 (see link):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200612/1808754.htm?tasmania

Also I just came accross an interesting open letter written by AFL Tasmania. The letter makes it quite clear that AFL Tasmania want their own team and one of the reasons for signing Hawthorn is to prove to the AFL that having a Tasmanian team is feasable. I interpret this to mean they want a brand new franchise but people can make up their own mind:

http://footballtas.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&aid=113826

 

[Hawkk]

Also I just came accross an interesting open letter written by AFL Tasmania. The letter makes it quite clear that AFL Tasmania want their own team and one of the reasons for signing Hawthorn is to prove to the AFL that having a Tasmanian team is feasable. I interpret this to mean they want a brand new franchise but people can make up their own mind:

http://footballtas.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&aid=113826

There is a big difference between wanting a team and actually getting one, to quote Scott Wade;

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,228...5006520,00.html

Wade also met AFL representatives while in Melbourne to discuss the AFL's financial strategy over the next five years, in which Queensland and New South Wales will receive an extra $100 million for game development.

"We are not disappointed with the money invested in New South Wales and Queensland because we are fully supportive of that and we are not disappointed with the money AFL contributes to Tasmania," he said.

"Our only area of agitation with the AFL will be, in the next five years, in the next generation, that a Tassie team is not even in the mix.

"What still disappoints us is that we are not on the radar as far as not even any future of our own team.

"All we would like the AFL to do is say one day Tasmania may be in the mix but I haven't heard the AFL say that.

 

[Hawk-eye]

There is absolutely no chance that we will relocate to Tasmania, infact there is very little chance that Tasmania will ever have its own team.

I totally agree but don't tell Tasmania that

 

[wahawk]

I have posted my view of the deal including the fact that it didn't necessarily need to be done and as it was done, why is should have been negotiated in a different way.

I have also responded directly to a number of posts including the opening post to the thread.

So as far as the author asking for alternatives I have responded to his proposition and a number of subsequent posts.

ok.



i cant find an real alternatives (to the tassie-deal) in any of your posts.

which is what i keep saying , but you just keep quoting other posts and not answering the real question.

If you dont have any answers then just simply state that , and we'll leave it there.

I agree with you in not wanting us to play games in Tassie , but i dont have any alternatives that are going to give us a minimum of $15 mill. over 5 years.

 

[MHDKA]

ok.



i cant find an real alternatives (to the tassie-deal) in any of your posts.

which is what i keep saying , but you just keep quoting other posts and not answering the real question.

If you dont have any answers then just simply state that , and we'll leave it there.

I agree with you in not wanting us to play games in Tassie , but i dont have any alternatives that are going to give us a minimum of $15 mill. over 5 years.

You really seem to have a problem with comprehension.

As I have now said countless times the deal didn't necessarily need to be done but as it was done, it should have been negotiated in way that didn't cause issues potentially detrimental to HFC.

And I have presented reasons & alternatives why in my posts.

BUT - I have never said I don't necessessarly want to play any games in tasmania (so don't agree with me on this point).

I have never said I have an issue with playing perhaps a couple of games in tasmania.

What I am concerned with is how much we have increased our exposure to tasmania & the terms we have done it on.

So don't start quoting me on things I have not said.

 

[wahawk]

You really seem to have a problem with comprehension.

As I have now said countless times the deal didn't necessarily need to be done but as it was done, it should have been negotiated in way that didn't cause issues potentially detrimental to HFC.

And I have presented reasons & alternatives why in my posts.

BUT - I have never said I don't necessessarly want to play any games in tasmania (so don't agree with me on this point).

I have never said I have an issue with playing perhaps a couple of games in tasmania.

What I am concerned with is how much we have increased our exposure to tasmania & the terms we have done it on.

So don't start quoting me on things I have not said.

personal insults dont bother me. (talk about other posters with mature responses. post #24)

espsecially when they come from someone who has not answered the question that was asked at the start.

Just incase you can not read the question is to anti-Tassie-deal posters and it asks 'What are your alternatives?'

You ,MHDKA ,have not answered that question. (unless you count 'attract new sponsors' which isnt as easy as just saying it)

I dont think i have a problem with comprehension at all.

I think you might.Either that or you still dont understand the question properly.Which might just mean that you have a problem with comprehension.

You are the poster who bragged about having a graduate and post graduate in economics and finance.As opposed to me who has a problem with comprehension.

Instead of personal insults , try to answer the question.
What are your alternatives?

 

[Fastback]

Broken record fellas...allow me to mediate this one.

MHDKA's alternatives/answers were..

1. More sponsorship $$ from new sponsors or a more lucrative sponsorship arrangement with the current sponsors.

He argues if this were achievable then why look to the Tas sposorship.

2. Now that we have done the Tas deal we should have negotiated a naming rights deal that reflected more about Tas tourism than the "perceived" Tas Hawks. Should also have negotiated less games - which of course would have meant less $ but perhaps if there were another sponsor or two added this could have compensated.

This was my understanding, but whether these are specific enough to justify an answer to the question, well I'd say no.

 

[MHDKA]

You are the poster who bragged about having a graduate and post graduate in economics and finance.As opposed to me who has a problem with comprehension.

Enough of this crap. I dont know what you are trying to prove. Anybody who doesn't agree with my posts can simply make their own opinion just as much they can look at your last 4-5 posts & then decide who is treating this discussion seriously. Do you think if you have the last post you gain some credability!

And as I stated previously I didn't respond to your posts initially but to a number of garys so if anybody has an issue with my posts it should be him as i was directly responding to his posts and I have still not yet had a response.

Further you know it is complete & utter BS saying I bragged about my educational background - I mentioned it in response to davo23 who inferred on another thread because of the fact he did commerce what I was saying in regards to a statement about Price Theory was incorrect. I merely then stated my educational background as I also have relevant qualifications and then I went on to explain the applicability of the Price Theory to the analysing the impact of reducing games in victoria

And don't be so hypocritical - you have even praised some of the content of my posts in that thread saying you were learning something about economics and that was not being facetious saying this - or were you liaring when you bsaid this.

Frankly wahawk as this is a forum at the end of the day you stand by your posts, & I am happy to stand by what I have posted on this thread and the analysis I have put in rather than your cheap shots & repetitive posts that at the end of the day have added nothing.

 

[Londoner86]

rather than your cheap shots & repetitive posts that at the end of the day have added nothing.

Ha ha

Pot ... Kettle



LH86

 

[MHDKA]

Ha ha

Pot ... Kettle



LH86

Thats rich Londoner, I still notice you haven't responded to my last post on that thread.

Obviously you now understand that it is possible to have a theory that is a fact and have now have got nothing to say as a result apart from trying to jump onto this post which when you look at the 2 situations is quite different.

 

[wahawk]

Enough of this crap. I dont know what you are trying to prove. Anybody who doesn't agree with my posts can simply make their own opinion just as much they can look at your last 4-5 posts & then decide who is treating this discussion seriously. Do you think if you have the last post you gain some credability!

i'm not trying to prove anything, i just want to see what posters alternatives are. There doesn't seem to be any realistic ones. It's not as easy as just saying,find other sponsors.
You are right people can make their own opinions on your posts.(i never said they couldn't.)
I am taking this discussion that serious that I want to hear legitimate alternatives.(not just someone saying find another sponsor.)
I actually want you to have the last post.I want you to post a legitimate alternative.This isn't about my credability.It's about the Tassie deal.

And as I stated previously I didn't respond to your posts initially but to a number of garys so if anybody has an issue with my posts it should be him as i was directly responding to his posts and I have still not yet had a response.

Anyone who is a member of BF can respond to your post , just like you can respond to anyone else's.Thats what BF is all about.

Further you know it is complete & utter BS saying I bragged about my educational background - I mentioned it in response to davo23 who inferred on another thread because of the fact he did commerce what I was saying in regards to a statement about Price Theory was incorrect. I merely then stated my educational background as I also have relevant qualifications and then I went on to explain the applicability of the Price Theory to the analysing the impact of reducing games in victoria

If its BS then why even say it. You didn't just say it in another thread, you mentioned it in this thread (just in a round-about way. it's back on page 1)

And don't be so hypocritical - you have even praised some of the content of my posts in that thread saying you were learning something about economics and that was not being facetious saying this - or were you liaring when you bsaid this.

I'm not being hypocritical. I did learn something from the other thread, as i do have an interest in economics and accounting.There was no sarcasm at all.The hypocritical poster is you. You have a go at Londoner for doing exactly what you do.

Frankly wahawk as this is a forum at the end of the day you stand by your posts, & I am happy to stand by what I have posted on this thread and the analysis I have put in rather than your cheap shots & repetitive posts that at the end of the day have added nothing

.

You are right , this is a forum.

I think if you read the entire thread again , you will see that I have not made any cheap shots against you. It's more the opposite.
You are the poster who said that I dont comprehend. You also accused me of lying.
My posts have added as much to this discussion as yours have. Which in some peoples opinions would be sweet FA. But im not against the Tassie deal. I can see it for what it is and nothing more.I wish we didnt play games in Tassie but we need a sponsor and they dont just grow on trees now , do they.

Add another cheap shot if you want , but try to answer the question with something constructive instead. You might walk away feeling better for it.

My posts are repetative (I admit that) but thats because you have not answered the question.
Thats all I want.