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

[medusala]

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.

I am not totally unsupportive of a 5 year effort to garner alot of cash and then relocate all games to Melbourne which clearly should be the long term goal.

Some of the arguments re Tas do not stand up to analysis ie arguments about "owning" the state, potential for membership increases etc.

There seems to a view of many that 11 home games in Tas would be lunacy but 4 home games is an excellent idea for reasons not solely related to the govt cash. Doesnt seem entirely consistent to me.

 

[MHDKA]

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.

Yes you have.

You accuse me of bringing up my background on this thread - saying I did this on page 1 (I challenge you to find this)

You saying I have not answered the Q as to alterntives - I have done this on numerious times.

You say I accuse you of lying when what I actually asked a Q - as to whether you were lying.

My posts have added as much to this discussion as yours have.

Rubbish, your first post on this thread is post #32 - in which you bring up my background (lifted from another thread & despite what you say had not been mentioned on this thread as you stated) as a means to say I haven't answered the original question.

Your then continue with this line in all your subsequent posts.

That is not adding to the thread.

I on the other hand have directly responded to quotes from a number of gary's & others posts on the thread topic.

You say I haven't offered alternatives - again rubbish.

I have stated with reasons my thoughts on the deal with analysis of what we should have done differently in relation to it - thus I have provided my alternative.

You might say they are not legitimate alternatives but I ask you this question -

If the deal was never done - what do you think the club would have done?

Precisely what I suggested.

You are trying to infer we had no alternative to the deal & that is rubbish as I have stated.

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.

Strangely as I have said before I am not against playing some games in tasmania - but am concerned with how much we have increased it - especially considering we couldn't get the AFL to increase our exposure to the MCG as compensation to members as the club previously promised.

As far as your proposition saying sponsors don't grow on trees despite what anybody maintains we have attracted one of the worlds largest banks as a sponsor but have chosen to downgrade them from being our naming sponsor, we also have managed to attract another organisation prepared to pay a wad of $$ over 5 years to sponsor us.

As a result and considering no one disputes we have a favorable future over the next 5 years or so why shouldn't we be able to atract other sponsors - who wish to sponsor an improving team with exciting players in the biggest sporting comp in Australia.

And also as a result why couldn't we have insisted on better terms especially around naming rights.

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

No you are simply entrenched.

 

[Hawkk]

Some of the arguments re Tas do not stand up to analysis ie arguments about "owning" the state, potential for membership increases etc.

I'm purely basing my information on word from the club;

``I believe the opportunity Tasmania can present is that, perhaps in five years, there will be 10,000 Tasmanians as members of Hawthorn.''

There seems to a view of many that 11 home games in Tas would be lunacy but 4 home games is an excellent idea for reasons not solely related to the govt cash. Doesnt seem entirely consistent to me.

Its a lunacy because it simply can't happen - as I've stated before we are contractually obligated to stay in Melbourne for at least the next 25 years, even if the Hawks could pass that obstacle, the club would need the confidence of 75% of the members and the full support of the AFL board - despite publicly stating Tasmania is way off the radar. In short there are far too many stumbling blocks for a relocation to occur.

The difference between 11 games and 4 (which is still probably a game too much) is huge. By playing all 11 games in the market, the new market takes over from the traditional market to become the clubs primary market – ultimately losing a sizable share of your old market. However, by playing 2-4 home games in a ‘secondary’ market you hold onto the vast majority of your previous market but gain an extension into a new market.

I have no doubt that our Melbourne marketplace is much greater then anything the Tasmanian marketplace could garner, however a Melbourne marketplace with an extension into a second market could better still offer a larger market to target supporters, members etc. then purely a Melbourne marketplace in isolation.

I must stress – that IMO, 4 games is probably one game too many if we want maximum efficiency – however given the nature of the deal I can cope with an extra game if it ultimately results in a huge $$$ windfall for the club. By 2011, we should be in a position to lessen our commitment to 2-3 games without losing exclusive – by that I mean being the only club to play games down there, access to the region.

 

[frankc]

I am not totally unsupportive of a 5 year effort to garner alot of cash and then relocate all games to Melbourne which clearly should be the long term goal.

Some of the arguments re Tas do not stand up to analysis ie arguments about "owning" the state, potential for membership increases etc.

There seems to a view of many that 11 home games in Tas would be lunacy but 4 home games is an excellent idea for reasons not solely related to the govt cash. Doesnt seem entirely consistent to me.

Some of the arguments stand up others may not. However I think the objective of a membership increase is very reasonable. If we can maintain and increase our Melbourne supporter base, any additional tasmanian supporters can only add to this.

I think the important point is that while this is a great deal financially, it is not a pot of gold which, on its own, guarantees the clubs future. The board must ensure it uses multiple strategies to continually strengthen the club.

As I have said previously, I feel the club has a very sound position that can be used as a springboard, however the board must be vigiliant and continue to look for other opportunties to strengthen the club. On this point I have confidence that the board will function in this manner.

 

[cantos_tevez]

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!

well if u have any problems with the tassie deal then bad luck to u too, dont support us!

 

[MHDKA]

well if u have any problems with the tassie deal then bad luck to u too, dont support us!

Another intelligent poster enters into the discussion

So did you agree with the board in 1996?

BTW, you picked out an appropriate quote of mine

 

[Hawkers]

Haven't read the whole post (apologies)

My concern is losing our identity, that and the fact that we didn't need anymore money

 

[Hawkk]

Some of the arguments stand up others may not. However I think the objective of a membership increase is very reasonable. If we can maintain and increase our Melbourne supporter base, any additional tasmanian supporters can only add to this.

I think the important point is that while this is a great deal financially, it is not a pot of gold which, on its own, guarantees the clubs future. The board must ensure it uses multiple strategies to continually strengthen the club.

As I have said previously, I feel the club has a very sound position that can be used as a springboard, however the board must be vigiliant and continue to look for other opportunties to strengthen the club. On this point I have confidence that the board will function in this manner.

Very true.

I found this little peice on the Hawks trip to Pakenham in a local rag;

http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/33600

Hawks reign in Pakenham

WELCOME rain fell in Pakenham on Friday, but that didn’t deter more than 150 kids along with a large crowd attending Toomuc Reserve to welcome the Hawthorn Football Club.

It was the Hawks’ first visit to Pakenham for an official training session, the day held in conjunction with Pakenham Junior Football Club and Cardinia Shire.

All voted it a great success, with the Hawks praising Toomuc Reserve for its excellent condition and surface, kept lush by bore water.

The Hawks went through a vigorous and intensive training session and then spent more than an hour holding free football clinics with the children.

Stars such as Sam Mitchell, Trent Croad, Buddy Franklin, Jarryd Roughead and Campbell Brown showed groups of delighted children the finer points of the game such as marking, handball and kicking.

This was followed by the chance to meet the coaches at a special forum and then players took time to mingle and chat with the crowd, sign autographs and enjoy a barbecue prepared by the Pakenham Junior Football Club.

Hawk star Shane Crawford described the day as excellent and the ground as one of the best they had trained on.

“It a credit to the shire and the club is looking at coming back again soon,” he said.

Crawford predicted exciting times ahead for the Hawks with its group of emerging young talent.

“The players really enjoyed coming here for a change of training venue, as well as the chance to meet our supporters. We have many in this area,” he said.

This was echoed by one team vicecaptain Luke Hodge.

“It was great to come out here and show our appreciation to our supporters, particularly the kids,” he said.

Cardinia Shire mayor Kate Lempriere also described the day as a great success.

“It was great for Pakenham, particularly the kids, and I hope Hawthorn comes back. In fact, I hope they make it a permanent fixture,” she said.

“We need events like this for the youth of Pakenham.”

The suburb of Pakenham is a suburb within the shire of Cardina - one of Australia's fastest growing shires, and currently has a population of over 20,000 (up from 11,000 in 2001) According to population projections the population of Pakenham is expected to more then double in size over the next 15 years - to over 50,000 by 2021. Granted, the suburb itself is located over 50km South-East of Melbourne’s CBD, but it is accessible from Melbourne via rail and with a bypass expected to be completed this year, the current transport problems can be minimized in time.

What is most impressing is the large 0-15 year population in the area - 27% of the total population to be precise. The younger generation is highly impressionable and with time and money can be converted into supporters and potentially members. Just from reading between the lines the region is clearly crying out for a league influence – and has even gone as far as to publicly encourage the Hawks to make a nest there. If the club was smart they’d look at making regular trips to the region a permanent thing, and look to develop the region into a Hawthorn area under its development plan. Either way you look at it, it provides the club an enormous opportunity to grow its support and membership base over the medium term.

These are the initiatives the club needs to get more and more involved in.

 

[medusala]

I'm purely basing my information on word from the club;

Its marketing guff to keep a sponsor happy. Hawthorn are there for the cash and that is it. Smorgon and the Melb president have made that clear re their sold games in the past and North has pretty much indicated the same by burning two locations.

However, by playing 2-4 home games in a ‘secondary’ market you hold onto the vast majority of your previous market but gain an extension into a new market.

The new market is irrelevant other than govt cash.

I have no doubt that our Melbourne marketplace is much greater then anything the Tasmanian marketplace could garner, however a Melbourne marketplace with an extension into a second market could better still offer a larger market to target supporters, members etc. then purely a Melbourne marketplace in isolation.

This is comprehensively wrong as demonstrated by the membership and revenue increases gained by other clubs.

Lton has 70k population. You cant get many members from there. Its simply not possible.

. By 2011, we should be in a position to lessen our commitment to 2-3 games without losing exclusive – by that I mean being the only club to play games down there, access to the region.

Being the only club down that makes stuff all difference. It didnt make any difference to Fitzroy, the Roos and Norths in their respective places. Its a complete furphy.

 

[medusala]

However I think the objective of a membership increase is very reasonable. If we can maintain and increase our Melbourne supporter base, any additional tasmanian supporters can only add to this.

A 4 game membership to a marketing area of 150k? And still having to compete with long held loyalties to other Vic clubs?

 

[Hawkk]

Being the only club down that makes stuff all difference. It didnt make any difference to Fitzroy, the Roos and Norths in their respective places. Its a complete furphy.

I wrote a letter to Ian Dicker voicing my concerns over the Tasmanian and Gold Coast games midway through the 2005 season - when the club announced the additional 2 games interstate for the 2006 season. To cut a long story straight he sent me a well constructed and logical reply outlining the directions of the HFC and why the club initially chose to play home games in a different market - credit where credit is due, I wasn't expecting an individual reply to my letter, but he gave me one nethertheless. In fact, the reply went along way to changing my attitude towards the Tasmanian games.

The jist of it was that when the Hawks were ousted from Waverley in 1999, the club - obviously expecting a member backlash to games played at Princes Park and Docklands, undertook a year long investigation to size up the advantages of playing non home ground home games at alternate venues around the country. The investigation concluded that the 2 best areas to play these home games were York Park and Carrara Stadium on the Gold Coast. Basically the research concluded that outside Victoria, Hawthorn’s greatest support base existed in these 2 regions and were more susceptible to the Hawthorn brand.

Originally the club intended to play 1 home game in Launseston and 1 home game at Carrara – before Carrara was a relocation target. However given the response to the Hawthorn/Adelaide game at York Park in 2001 – where the crowd broke the 1960 Tasmanian football record, the board decided to scrap the Carrara game and play these non MCG home games in Launseston. From then on, Launseston has featured heavily in the clubs national support program aimed at lifting the clubs nation wide support base, along with its market in Melbourne's East.

Basically what I’m saying is that unlike the Roys, Saints, Roos, Dogs, Demons etc. who all ‘sold home games’ in a quick dash for cash, we took our time and sized up the pros and cons of playing games in a particular region. In summation this is the reason why unlike the 5 clubs mentioned above, we now have 3,000 Tasmanian members, supportive crowds and a real positive win-loss record at the ground. In short, unlike the other clubs you have mentioned that have failed, we have been – and continue to be, the success story.

 

[hawker11]

Basically what I’m saying is that unlike the Roys, Saints, Roos, Dogs, Demons etc. who all ‘sold home games’ in a quick dash for cash, we took our time and sized up the pros and cons of playing games in a particular region. In summation this is the reason why unlike the 5 clubs mentioned above, we now have 3,000 Tasmanian members, supportive crowds and a real positive win-loss record at the ground. In short, unlike the other clubs you have mentioned that have failed, we have been – and continue to be, the success story.

The success story where? I see over time Tasmanian support increasing and Victorian support decreasing. On a given year in recent history we have two home games a year that typically do not draw a signficant crowd (this will change when we actually go into games as favourites) - if so send them to Tasmania. To deny Victorian members home games against Victorian clubs will hurt the supporter base and dilute rivalries amongst supporter bases. Four games is too many, and the deal severely weakens our image and status as a Victorian based football club. I just hope after the 5 years we get at least two games back - and i hope the AFL let us have them back.

 

[cantos_tevez]

Another intelligent poster enters into the discussion

So did you agree with the board in 1996?

BTW, you picked out an appropriate quote of mine

haha i dont know wat u meant by the last part but no i didn't agree with the board in 96, but then again i don't think any hawthorn supporter did. i think its fair to say that there is a huge difference between selling 4 games a year for the good of our financial future and merging with another club, losing our club forever. i mean u probably love hawthorn as much as anyone in this forum - i wouldn't know - however i really would wish u'd get over the tassie deal, the whole things done and as this thread has proven, there really are no other alternatives.

 

[Hawkk]

The success story where? I see over time Tasmanian support increasing and Victorian support decreasing.

Disagree.

The growth of our Victorian support base will rely heavily on the clubs ability to branch out into the 'satellite' suburbs and cities in the South East region of Victoria. It’s critical for the club to establish permanent nests in and around areas such as Pakenham to reap the rewards in the medium to long term, and hopefully turn them into Hawthorn only areas.

If we win a premiership, I have grave doubts that any Victorian based supporters will drop off - especially given the 7 home (and the prospect of more away) games at the MCG - the clubs preferred home. Essentially what the club loses by playing games in Tassie are Telstra Dome games – we’ve been through this countless times, but if more members and supporters showed interest and went to these games we could work out a better deal for members and the club and actually make $$$ out of these games.

On a given year in recent history we have two home games a year that typically do not draw a signficant crowd (this will change when we actually go into games as favourites) - if so send them to Tasmania. To deny Victorian members home games against Victorian clubs will hurt the supporter base and dilute rivalries amongst supporter bases. Four games is too many, and the deal severely weakens our image and status as a Victorian based football club.

Disagree - if anything it strengthens the brand of the HFC. Not only is the club branching out into the outer reaches of Melbourne but it also expanding into a second market - quite successfully too. Anyone who believes it is a front runner to anything more clearly doesn’t have a brain and isn’t worth talking to. More importantly, the clubs brand amongst corporates – who are essential for the going concern of the football club, is most probably improved off the back of this deal.

BTW, I agree that in an ideal world 4 games is probably 1-2 games too many to be shifting to Tasmania, however given the circumstances it was a must.

I just hope after the 5 years we get at least two games back - and i hope the AFL let us have them back.

Myth.

The AFL can't do ******** about our relationship with the Tasmanian government, unlike all other interstate home game packages, the AFL was not involved in the Hawthorn-Tasmania sponsorship agreement at all. Like any major sponsor, if we wanted to cancel the sponsorship and bring all 11 home games back to Melbourne there is nothing the AFL could do about it. At worst they could cut off our non existent funding...

If anything, we are one of the only clubs in the league that doesn't have the AFL pulling the strings.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Good post Gary.

They have taken steps to secure the long term security of our football club and have enhanced our relationship with a market in a different state. Its a good plan and its proactive in realising the situation with Victorian clubs is going to get messy sooner or later. I have always been confident Hawthorn wouldn't be one of the clubs to fall over, but we haven't just sat around and waited to see what will happen. We have looked at options and have secured a great deal, and suddenly we are in a different league to the Kangaroos, Demons, Bulldogs etc.

If there needs to be 4 less games in Melbourne to secure our football clubs future, we can most certainly deal with that, especially considering the success we have had in Tassie onfield and offield.

Great comment . Tassie gives us money and time for the future to develope new ways to advance financially, and we WILL win a flag in the near future ,that fills the coffers too.This move to get support from Tasmania is a peice of brilliance . Good on JK and the board Hawthorn will always be viable!

 

[JoondalupJ]

The success story where? I see over time Tasmanian support increasing and Victorian support decreasing. On a given year in recent history we have two home games a year that typically do not draw a signficant crowd (this will change when we actually go into games as favourites) - if so send them to Tasmania. To deny Victorian members home games against Victorian clubs will hurt the supporter base and dilute rivalries amongst supporter bases. Four games is too many, and the deal severely weakens our image and status as a Victorian based football club. I just hope after the 5 years we get at least two games back - and i hope the AFL let us have them back.

Hawker11 you,re being hysterical don,t panic Tassie is close to Vic it will be a fantastic success we will be great again because of this deal.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Disagree.

The growth of our Victorian support base will rely heavily on the clubs ability to branch out into the 'satellite' suburbs and cities in the South East region of Victoria. It’s critical for the club to establish permanent nests in and around areas such as Pakenham to reap the rewards in the medium to long term, and hopefully turn them into Hawthorn only areas.

If we win a premiership, I have grave doubts that any Victorian based supporters will drop off - especially given the 7 home (and the prospect of more away) games at the MCG - the clubs preferred home. Essentially what the club loses by playing games in Tassie are Telstra Dome games – we’ve been through this countless times, but if more members and supporters showed interest and went to these games we could work out a better deal for members and the club and actually make $$$ out of these games.



Myth.

The AFL can't do ******** about our relationship with the Tasmanian government, unlike all other interstate home game packages, the AFL was not involved in the Hawthorn-Tasmania sponsorship agreement at all. Like any major sponsor, if we wanted to cancel the sponsorship and bring all 11 home games back to Melbourne there is nothing the AFL could do about it. At worst they could cut off our non existent funding...

If anything, we are one of the only clubs in the league that doesn't have the AFL pulling the strings.

Absolutely Hawkk

 

[medusala]

The jist of it was that when the Hawks were ousted from Waverley in 1999, the club - obviously expecting a member backlash to games played at Princes Park and Docklands, undertook a year long investigation to size up the advantages of playing non home ground home games at alternate venues around the country.

I cant remember talk of selling games then. I can recall Dicker talking of a deal to play 11 games at the MCG.

, we now have 3,000 Tasmanian members, supportive crowds and a real positive win-loss record at the ground. In short, unlike the other clubs you have mentioned that have failed, we have been – and continue to be, the success story.

3k is hardly any different to what the Saints got or North got in Canberra. It also needs to be considered that also includes plenty on 4 game memberships.

How has Tas been such as success story? On what possible basis?

Vic membership hasnt increased in years and the club was barely profitable til this year. As for the great onfield success, the teams we have played there were traditionally very poor travellers to Melbourne in any event.

 

[Marklar_33]

Our ability to recruit members on the mainland totally drawfs that in tasmania.

Mainland meaning Melbourne? Or mainland meaning the whole continent?

 

[MHDKA]

Mainland meaning Melbourne? Or mainland meaning the whole continent?

I would have thought it's obvious what mainland means in the context of this discussion.

Oh thats right, you support the pies!

 

[Hawkk]

Interesting take on the situation from a St.Kilda perspective;

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27003

 

[Marklar_33]

I would have thought it's obvious what mainland means in the context of this discussion.

Oh thats right, you support the pies!

Go easy!

Im only here for the Tassie perspective, not to slag your club

My point was that I wanted to see whether your comment was based on an alterior location for selling games (as I havent read the other 6 pages!) or you meant that you can find more members in Melbourne. Im pretty sure you guys were having Hawks matches broadcast in a south-east Asian language to the Box hill area not so long ago... sounds like the actions of a club who have exhausted all means of finding new supporters in the Melbourne area, at least supporters who give a rats! So Im thinking that you have more membership opportunity down here...

 

[frankc]

Go easy!

Im only here for the Tassie perspective, not to slag your club

My point was that I wanted to see whether your comment was based on an alterior location for selling games (as I havent read the other 6 pages!) or you meant that you can find more members in Melbourne. Im pretty sure you guys were having Hawks matches broadcast in a south-east Asian language to the Box hill area not so long ago... sounds like the actions of a club who have exhausted all means of finding new supporters in the Melbourne area, at least supporters who give a rats! So Im thinking that you have more membership opportunity down here...

There is a simple explanation for what Hawthorn is doing - it is trying to increase membership by focussing on south-east melbourne and tasmania at the same time.

I believe the objective is to increase tasmanian based support and the club feels playing four games in tassie provides a sufficient number of games to entice additional tasmanian based supporters.

The club also feels that it can still expand its supporter base in melbourne by still having a membership providing 11 hame games in melbourne with the option of substituting any of these four games, for games in tasmania.

This is the objective - whether it works or not time will tell. The club is not looking at tasmania as a place to purely sell games to make a bit of cash short-term, I believe that the club is trying to establish a long-term presence in Tasmania.

Some BF members believe that any growth in tasmanian membership will be offset by a decline in melbourne based membership, others believe the opposite.

From my point of view I see nothing wrong with the objective of building two geographically seperate membership bases, however it is the execution of the the club's plan over the long-term which is important. However, the success of this venture will not be determined in a couple of years, in will take five years or even more before we can assess whether it has been a success.

Several key pieces of the puzzel are in place - the move to waverly as our permanent training base and securing the five year tasmania sponsorship augmented by the HSBC and Samsung deals. However there is still much work to do, however I have a real belief that with the quality of the board, football department and playing list, this venture will prove to be an outstanding success and propel Hawthorn to the number 3 club in Victoria behind Essendon and Collingwood.

 

[Hawkk]

Go easy!

Im only here for the Tassie perspective, not to slag your club

My point was that I wanted to see whether your comment was based on an alterior location for selling games (as I havent read the other 6 pages!) or you meant that you can find more members in Melbourne. Im pretty sure you guys were having Hawks matches broadcast in a south-east Asian language to the Box hill area not so long ago... sounds like the actions of a club who have exhausted all means of finding new supporters in the Melbourne area, at least supporters who give a rats! So Im thinking that you have more membership opportunity down here...

The Chinese experiment - 2002, was conducted at about the same time the club started playing a package of games in Tasmania, ideally if successful it was meant to compliment the Tasmanian expansion. I don't think all avenues have been completely exhausted in a bid to find more supporters in Melbourne - the club has publicly stated that it hopes to build its membership and support base significantly both in Victoria and Tasmania through specific board decisions put in place – whether or not they can do this is an entirely different prospect…However I do think that if Victorian based sides want to realistically compete with the bigger clubs interstate, they all need to look to areas outside Victoria to draw additional support from.

That includes the likes of Collingwood and Essendon who have both recognized these potential problems and have targeted regions such as Western Suburbs of Sydney, Darwin and even the Gold Coast in a bid to gain that elusive little bit extra to compete with the Eagles etc. abroad. Collingwood in particular have been very active in the Western suburbs of Sydney going back several years. This is no coincidence; they have recognized the problems befitting all Victorian clubs and have been very proactive in addressing them.

I don’t think support and opportunities are completely exhausted in Melbourne, however I recognize that the opportunities in Victoria are dwarfed by the opportunities the WA, SA, NSW and QLD based clubs have at their disposal. Ironically a lot of the supporters that are against the deal are strong Ian Dicker fans; interestingly – despite openly having several reservations about Jeff Kennett as the Hawks president – he has since publicly supported the deal.

 

[Hawk Dork]

interestingly – despite openly having several reservations about Jeff Kennett as the Hawks president – he has since publicly supported the deal.

You are a funny man Hawkk