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

[Hawkk]

You are a funny man Hawkk

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20331385%5E19767,00.html

Hawthorn's immediate past president Ian Dicker also supported playing extra games in Tasmania.

 

[hawker11]

While the post requests suggestions for alternatives - ultimately are the supporters of this deal are claiming that playing 11 home games in Melbourne is not an alternative - and would lead to the death of the club?

Has the board publicly claimed that Hawthorn cannot trade as a 100% Victorian based club?

I simply don't see how this deal benefits the club as a Victorian based club long term and would like to see the club's strategy harnessed more specifically towards membership and supporter growth in Victoria. The more games we play away from Victoria - the quicker we lose relevance as a Victorian based club in the AFL.

 

[frankc]

While the post requests suggestions for alternatives - ultimately are the supporters of this deal are claiming that playing 11 home games in Melbourne is not an alternative - and would lead to the death of the club?

Has the board publicly claimed that Hawthorn cannot trade as a 100% Victorian based club?

I simply don't see how this deal benefits the club as a Victorian based club long term and would like to see the club's strategy harnessed more specifically towards membership and supporter growth in Victoria. The more games we play away from Victoria - the quicker we lose relevance as a Victorian based club in the AFL.

Hawker11, I don't think there is any doubt the club can operate profitably out of Victoria (at least in the medium to long-term) - it has done so for the past ten years. This begs the question - why the tasmanian deal if this is the case?

I think the answer is another question - is it good enough to be profitable to the extent we are or do we need to consider, as one option, an interstate market?

Clearly the board believes our current level of profitability is inadequate and I think they are correct in this assessment. The stronger clubs in the competition are getting stronger each year and we will not keep up, and least keep the gap to an acceptable level if we don't increase our revenue base. The issue I feel is not so much having a huge profit, but having the revenue to be able to operate at a level which allows the club to be competitive both on and off the field.

I think the issue the board is looking at is where the club will be in 10 or 15 years time. I think they fear the club becoming a marginalised if we continue with our current level of profitability.

The likes of Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon and Adelaide and the AFL powerhouses financially.

Our club is in the middle band with clubs like Geelong, Richmond, Fremantle, St Kilda etc. I think the boards strategy is for our club to be above this middle band of clubs. We don't need to be as profitable as the big four, but we do need to ensure, they don't get too far away.

The board has developed a strategy it feels will keep the club competitive with tjhe big four. Unfortunately nobody knows if it will be successful.

However I personally have faith that the board would have examined all options and considered all cash and non-cash costs in making its decisions. Further, I don't think the board is looking at the Tasmanian deal as a quick grab for cash - I think they genuinely look to Tasmania as part of the long-term plan to keep our club competitive.

As I have stated in a previous post, having a dual market seperated geographically is not bad in theory, the key is in the execution. I think the board feels four games in tassie provides sufficient games for tassie members to jump on board, while melbourne based members have enough games to keep them happy.

Only time will tell if the board's strategy is justified. However from my perspective, I believe we will look back in five years and see this deal as being successful - however I may be wrong - we will have to wait and see.

 

[MHDKA]

Hawker11, I don't think there is any doubt the club can operate profitably out of Victoria (at least in the medium to long-term) - it has done so for the past ten years. This begs the question - why the tasmanian deal if this is the case?

I think the answer is another question - is it good enough to be profitable to the extent we are or do we need to consider, as one option, an interstate market?

Clearly the board believes our current level of profitability is inadequate and I think they are correct in this assessment. The stronger clubs in the competition are getting stronger each year and we will not keep up, and least keep the gap to an acceptable level if we don't increase our revenue base. The issue I feel is not so much having a huge profit, but having the revenue to be able to operate at a level which allows the club to be competitive both on and off the field.

I think the issue the board is looking at is where the club will be in 10 or 15 years time. I think they fear the club becoming a marginalised if we continue with our current level of profitability.

The likes of Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon and Adelaide and the AFL powerhouses financially.

Our club is in the middle band with clubs like Geelong, Richmond, Fremantle, St Kilda etc. I think the boards strategy is for our club to be above this middle band of clubs. We don't need to be as profitable as the big four, but we do need to ensure, they don't get too far away.

The board has developed a strategy it feels will keep the club competitive with tjhe big four. Unfortunately nobody knows if it will be successful.

However I personally have faith that the board would have examined all options and considered all cash and non-cash costs in making its decisions. Further, I don't think the board is looking at the Tasmanian deal as a quick grab for cash - I think they genuinely look to Tasmania as part of the long-term plan to keep our club competitive.

As I have stated in a previous post, having a dual market seperated geographically is not bad in theory, the key is in the execution. I think the board feels four games in tassie provides sufficient games for tassie members to jump on board, while melbourne based members have enough games to keep them happy.

Only time will tell if the board's strategy is justified. However from my perspective, I believe we will look back in five years and see this deal as being successful - however I may be wrong - we will have to wait and see.

Its interesting that other victorian teams in the AFL who are less financial than HFC such as the cats, tigers, saints & dogs have chosen to play 17 games in victoria (30% more games than HFC).

Are their supporters happier or sadder as a result I wonder?

 

[frankc]

Its interesting that other victorian teams in the AFL who are less financial than HFC such as the cats, tigers, saints & dogs have chosen to play 17 games in victoria (30% more games than HFC).

Are their supporters happier or sadder as a result I wonder?

Again it comes back to the question, I think, of how much profitability is enough. If we are ahead of the clubs you have listed are we ahead by enough?

Further, if we are ahead, should this mean we play all our games in melbourne and forgoe the tasmanian sponsorship deal?

All these questions can be answered from both viewpoints.

IMO, I am not satisfied with our currently profitability and forgoing the tasmanian sponsorship deal would have been much worse.

What would be interesting to find out is how many games members go and see. Lets assume that the average for 75% of the membership base is, say, 8 games. The tasmanian deal will have no impact on the majority of members. However if 75% of the membership saw, on average 12 games, then the tasmanian deal may have some impact.

 

[Hawkk]

Sometimes the right decision and the decision greeted best by the majority of fans is mutally exclusive

Its interesting that other victorian teams in the AFL who are less financial than HFC such as the cats

Geelong is in a completely different boat to the other 9 Victorian clubs. For starters they actually have an exclusive home ground advantage for the vast majority of their games – unlike the Melbourne based club they don’t play the vast majority of their home games at 2 neutral venues. Secondly, they have substantial long term backing from both Ford and the Geelong city council that will always see the club remaining profitable in the long term. Significantly they are well placed to not only generate strong support in Victoria's second largest city, but also in Melbourne as well.

Even still, with all these advantages the Cats have only peaked at 32,000 members and only have revenue streams of 25 million dollars. Like Hawthorn, the question isn't whether or not the club can sustain viability it’s whether the club can compete with the 'Big 4' in the long term.

tigers and saints

Despite taking the popular route and abandoning the Tasmanian matches, St.Kilda’s membership is well below projections for the season. During the membership launch, the Saints planned to target 40,000 members this season – which included an ambitious reach out to all lapsed members over the last 5 years, this has since been pegged back to 32,000 – probably as a result of membership being 2,000 down on this time last season. Has there membership ‘peaked’ at 32,000 – if so, did the club make the right call to abandon the experiment?

To date, the Saints justifications for leaving Tasmania have been far from convincing.

Regarding the Tigers – despite being in debt, they are probably in a slightly better position then us. Recently the club toyed with the opportunity to play 2 home games in Tasmania if it meant the remaining home games and sufficient away games were played at their beloved MCG. I guess at the end of the day, they are in a stronger position to negotiate contracts then us because they are a long term tenant of the MCG and draw strongly to the Telstra Dome – despite fans disapproval of the ground.

dogs

They are only playing 17 games in Melbourne, because they have 3 legitimate ‘interstate’ matches. If/when we get such generosity from the AFL it must be noted that we too will be playing 15 home and away games in Melbourne...puts a different slant on the games?

No doubt that there position is improving significantly - with on field success, but even still I wouldn't use there model as a precidence for us to follow.

 

[MHDKA]

What would be interesting to find out is how many games members go and see. Lets assume that the average for 75% of the membership base is, say, 8 games. The tasmanian deal will have no impact on the majority of members. However if 75% of the membership saw, on average 12 games, then the tasmanian deal may have some impact.

The tasmanian deal will always have an impact on the majority of members - there are now 9 games interstate which deny members the opportunity to see the team live (unless you are prepared to travel which isn't always an option). In addition many of these games will end up on foxtel thus denying many members the opportunity to see the team at all.

In addition not all members have the ability to see all available games anyway due to other commitments - this deal adds to this issue because there are less available games that you can see.

 

[hawker11]

In addition not all members have the ability to see all available games anyway due to other commitments - this deal adds to this issue because there are less available games that you can see.

That is very true - Take local footballers as an example or those in careers that require them to work on one day of the weekend

 

[MHDKA]

Sometimes the right decision and the decision greeted best by the majority of fans is mutally exclusive

Irrespective of the points you put up these clubs have chosen not to go down the same route as HFC.

And I don't see their supporters complaining that they don't play more games interstate.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkk
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

The funny man, bit refered to you haveing public reservations.
Private maybe

 

[frankc]

Irrespective of the points you put up these clubs have chosen not to go down the same route as HFC.

And I don't see their supporters complaining that they don't play more games interstate.

So just because other clubs don't follow a particular route makes it wrong for us to!

 

[MHDKA]

So just because other clubs don't follow a particular route makes it wrong for us to!

Absolutely correct.

But it does show that there are alternatives which some posters on this thread believe is not the case.

 

[frankc]

Absolutely correct.

But it does show that there are alternatives which some posters on this thread believe is not the case.

What alternatives have these club followed? Ignoring the bulldogs and cats, what have the saints and tigers done?

I'm not in a position to comment as I haven't looked into it - I may have to undertake some investigation.

 

[medusala]

To date, the Saints justifications for leaving Tasmania have been far from convincing.

You think that playing in Tas for negative consideration is a worthwhile endeavour?

 

[frankc]

Regarding the Tigers – despite being in debt, they are probably in a slightly better position then us.

Hawkk, I have to disagree with you in this one. Richmond's net asset position is -$183,000. That is they have more liabilities than assets. Hawthorn's net asset position is +$6.5 million.

On the profit side, we generate more revenue (around $1million) but spent around $1.5 million more. Thus the tigers great profit was due to cost cutting, nothing more.

Remember also, our net assets doesn't include waverely.

We are well ahead of Richmond and will be even more so with the Tasmanian deal.

Interestingly, St Kilda have not released any performance figures yet - one must wonder why.

 

[Hawkk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkk
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

The funny man, bit refered to you haveing public reservations.
Private maybe

I was actualy referring to Ian Dicker.

You think that playing in Tas for negative consideration is a worthwhile endeavour?

Was it really though?

So far, the only excuses that have been given for the back down are;

a) The overheads are to big
b) They could make a higher profit in Melbourne - which fell under the assumption that the club would increase membership
c) The players didn't like it
d) They lost too much down there
e) The Saints will still be in the top 4 come 2011, so finances will be a non issue.

To me, that has a short sighted board decision written all over it.

Irrespective of the decision, the reasons for the Saints leaving York Park has little to do with us - considering we will be getting double the amount of $$$ per game the Saints were, in $$$ terms, the two deals are polls apart.

Interestingly the Saints membership is some 2,000 down on last year, perhaps the decision to leave actually had a negative affect on the clubs membership?

Hawkk, I have to disagree with you in this one. Richmond's net asset position is -$183,000. That is they have more liabilities than assets. Hawthorn's net asset position is +$6.5 million.

On the profit side, we generate more revenue (around $1million) but spent around $1.5 million more. Thus the tigers great profit was due to cost cutting, nothing more.

Remember also, our net assets doesn't include waverely.

We are well ahead of Richmond and will be even more so with the Tasmanian deal.

Interestingly, St Kilda have not released any performance figures yet - one must wonder why.

I was actually referring to the clubs ability to negotiate a ground contract and compete with the interstate clubs long term. As it stands, Richmond draw more supporters to games – especially at the Telstra Dome, therefore they are in a stronger position to negotiate how many games they play at the MCG and member packages at the Dome. Hopefully that will change in the future, but currently I’d just put them above us for this fact.

Obviously $$$$ wise we are better off, but we need to get more of our supporters to go to games to be in a strong position to demand more away games at the MCG and blockbuster fixtures - both are very important to the clubs ability to grow. Hopefully with a strong showing at this years Easter Monday game, we can get a foothold into the annual fixture.

 

[MHDKA]

Interestingly the Saints membership is some 2,000 down on last year, perhaps the decision to leave actually had a negative affect on the clubs membership?

Are you seriously suggesting that because the saints are now playing more games in melbourne supporters are not signing up?

 

[medusala]

Its constantly claimed on here that the Tas move will be a boon for membership. One wonders if this is indeed plausible.

Lets for arguments sake say the catchment area for possible membership has around 150k in it. Hobart is ignored given well documented issues re travel in Tas and the fact that even if they attended it would be unlikely to be for all 4 games. Thus its logical to suggest that Hobart membership in the main wouldnt be influenced all that greatly by games in Lton. Going on a rough memberhip rate of 10% of the population that gives a possible 15k divided by 10 Melbourne clubs. Even if the Hawks got 1/3 of it thats only 5k. So the additional possible no of members is very low (and they are less likely to take out 11 game membership).

This being the case its a bit of a struggle to understand the logic of selling 1/3 of your hame games for the prospect of (gross) one or two thousand equivalent Melbourne memberships. Its quite illogical. It can only make sense due to the govt cash, yet oddly enough the membership reasoning is constantly flouted.

BTW IIRC someone on MH stated that HSBC decreased sponsorship from $1.1m to $700k pa. Is this not correct? Does anyone have a link, I couldnt find one?

 

[hawker11]

Three out of four Tassie Hawthorn 'home' games are on a Sunday with an early timeslot. Foxtel now have exclusivity to these games. Get on a plane or pick up a Foxtel subscription - the choices the club offers to its members!

Those that dont think that Victorian Hawthorn fans are dudded with this Tasmanian arrangement have their head in the sand. Combine this years draw with its free to air TV presence and the argument for Tasmanian home games is becoming harder and harder to justify.

 

[Hawkk]

Are you seriously suggesting that because the saints are now playing more games in melbourne supporters are not signing up?

Its a factor.

St.Kilda had 2,000+ members in Tasmania, probably half of these members pulled out after the Saints pulled the plug. That puts them 1,000 safe members behind on last years totals. Obviously other factors such as sacking the coach and a decline in on field performance has a impact, but even still the justification that all 11 games in Melbourne would deliver signficantly more members has been proved false to date.

 

[cs61]

Lets hang our hat on TV allocation now?

The only reason its hard to justify at the moment is because there isn't any evidence of an increase or decrease in Victorian membership, and overall situation of our club. We can't judge until its been in place for 1 year then a proper judgement after the completion of the contract.

Clubs are already starting to look at Hawthorn as a stable brand with off field wealth. What a turn around since the laughing stock on and off the field we were after 2004. In 2 years we changed that around are starting to become a stonger brand. If we start winning on the ground this will have a synergetic affect on our overall position as a club.

The whole point is trying to create ourselves as a power, and to do that we couldn't sit still and just be another surviving Victorian club.

 

[frankc]

Three out of four Tassie Hawthorn 'home' games are on a Sunday with an early timeslot. Foxtel now have exclusivity to these games. Get on a plane or pick up a Foxtel subscription - the choices the club offers to its members!

Those that dont think that Victorian Hawthorn fans are dudded with this Tasmanian arrangement have their head in the sand. Combine this years draw with its free to air TV presence and the argument for Tasmanian home games is becoming harder and harder to justify.

Hawker 11, this is a matter of perception. From my perspective, I feel I have not been dudded, I will get to see the games I want to see.

From my point of view the question to be asked is whether the benefits of the deal outweigh the costs? The drawback is that instead of having 17 games in melbourne to choose from, I'll have 13. The benefit is the club will benefit financially and increase the gap it has on the middle road clubs such as Richmond.

Does the increase in financial benefit outweigh the the restricted amount of games I have to choose from? For me it is an overwhelming yes. Naturally from your point of view it is a no.

I'm sure that if the club could have obtained sponsorship in melbourne equivalent, or close to, the tasmanian deal they would have. obviously at this moment they can't.

I have, in another post, analysed where we sit financially against Richmond. We are well ahead of the tigers based on our balance sheet (which it must be said is presented conservativey - our net asset position is closer to $10 million not the $6.5 million reported). Our reported profit was some $600,000 less, however if we convert the Hawthorn statements to those showed by Richmond, our profit would be closer to $2 million. The impairment loss of $900,000 will be reversed in the not too distant future and also the hawks have booked around $800,000 in asset changes (changes in the value of short-term assets). This is around $1.7 million that would be added to the bottom line.

We are, on a comparative basis between $1 -$2 million ahead of thre tigers annually. This will be doubled with the tasmanian deal. Based on this analysis, if I was a Richmond board member I would be concerned that I was falling behind.

Far from being an adverse outcome, this sponsorship deal has lifted the Hawks above the middle road clubs and augers well for the future.

 

[MHDKA]

Its a factor.

St.Kilda had 2,000+ members in Tasmania, probably half of these members pulled out after the Saints pulled the plug. That puts them 1,000 safe members behind on last years totals. Obviously other factors such as sacking the coach and a decline in on field performance has a impact, but even still the justification that all 11 games in Melbourne would deliver signficantly more members has been proved false to date.

You have a way Hawkk of pulling out figures and then making insinuations that can't be backed up with fact.

I heard the saints had 1500 members in tasmania but we will go by your figures. How do you come up with the estimate that half of them haven't signed up. This would suggest that tasmanian supporters are not very sticky.

(what is going to happen to when the tasmanian govt loses it taste for a footy team & we play less games there).

I would think you could argue that if any tasmanian supporters have not signed up they may have been replaced by victorian supporters who are now happy they play 17 games in victoria.

Remember part of the reason the saints aren''t playing more games in tasmania is they believe they have a higher ability to recruit members in victoria than in tasmania.

The fact is there are too many factors involved to say with any certainty at all why membership has dropped (& it may still end up higher overall for 2007 anyway) but it is a very long shot to say because they have left tasmania they have lost members overall.

That is like saying the more games they play there the more members they end up with & we know that is not the case.

 

[Pessimistic]

Quote:

The biggest change for Victorian fans will be a reduction in the number of free-to-air games each week from five to four, with the early Sunday afternoon game - previously telecast by Channel Nine - now going exclusively to Foxtel. The pay TV operator will also televise Sunday twilight games.

-No doubt some will spin this as a positive

 

[MHDKA]

Hawker 11, this is a matter of perception. From my perspective, I feel I have not been dudded, I will get to see the games I want to see.

You have an interesting perspective frank.

Most fans want to be able to see their team.

Unless you have foxtel or want to go to a pub (not what I would call family friendly) it will not even be possible to see 3 out of the 4 tasmanian games.