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

[Hawkk]

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.

I've heard both 1,500 and 2,000 as well. Of course I'm only estimating a potential drop off in Tasmanian members, but it goes along way to explaining why the total numbers have dropped off this year.

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

If that was to occur we'd bring the games back to Melbourne. In 5 years - through wise investments - we should be in a stronger position financially and support strength wise to negotiate a better stadium contract and compete (revenue wise) with the top flight clubs.

I would think you could argue that if any tasmanian supporters have not signed up they may have been replaced by victorian supporters who are now happy they play 17 games in victoria.

As I've quoted, the Saints numbers are well down on last year, you can drawyour own conclusions.

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.

Innitally they launched an ambitious member campaign aimed at attracting 40,000 members this season - highlighted by the novelty of complimentary tin to every member (current or lapsed) over the past 5 years. That target has since been cut back to 32,000...

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.

I'm not saying the Tasmanian deal is the main reason for a potential drop - although it is a factor, however there is strong evidence to suggest that the games - even with an increase in membership, haven't had the effect on membership the Saints expected it to. Where will this leave the Saints 5 years into the future, when they require a total rebuild?

That's why IMO, the decision made by the Saints board was short sighted, the biggest mistake any board can make is to assume success.

 

[hawker11]

Lets hang our hat on TV allocation now?

Hang out hat? Not quite. I find the new Foxtel deal to be yet another negative cog in a complex sponsorship deal that ultimately offers Hawthorn supporters a raw deal.

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.

There is now evidence given the TV allocation that there is a significant decrease in exposure. Exposure is an extremely important part of promoting your club e.g. Friday Night games are so heavily sought after due to the exposure it gives to its supporters and sponsors.

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.

Yes we are a stronger brand - and a brand that did not need to give up so much for this sponsorship deal.

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.

That is fine - but you can play your games in Melbourne without sitting on your hands. Hawthorn needs to grow its brand and position in Victoria to survive in Victoria.

All I am seeing is short term dollars in turn for a significant change to its identity. Hawthorn is now a club you will see less of live and less of on television. As a member it should be of a huge concern! I await the club's reaction to the Foxtel deal.

 

[Pessimistic]

Like I said before I wonder how our sponsors tasmania will see this.

On one hand it a significant decrease in FTA exposure in victoria. on the other Hawks fans without foxtel will need to make the trip over to tassie to see the hawks live.

Its a big blow for all 'relocated' games as they are often on early sunday afternoon.


Just to add - all these pro arguments STILL apply when there are 2 Hawthorn games in tassie. the pro people need to justify the extra 2 games not just games in tassie per se

 

[MHDKA]

All I am seeing is short term dollars in turn for a significant change to its identity. Hawthorn is now a club you will see less of live and less of on television. As a member it should be of a huge concern! I await the club's reaction to the Foxtel deal.

Perhaps they could negotiate a discount on foxtel subscription as well as airline discounts as part of the membership package

 

[hawker11]

Hawkk - for the love of god stop comparing to the 2006 season. Last year was a disaster - and the next five run a close second to it. Bottom line - we now see our club less live and less on TV. For Hawthorn members it is in no way a positive outlook.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

Like I said before I wonder how our sponsors tasmania will see this.

The Tasmanian Government, quite right Pessi, our sponsor, the major one but one of several, would have most likely have antcipated what may happen in the TV FTA-Foxtel affair and would have taken it into account. Who knows?

Maybe one of probably several reasons why the word TASMANIA is emblazoned on our guernsey. In saying that, keep in mind that the AFL regulate the size of logos on jumpers.

 

[MHDKA]

The Tasmanian Government, quite right Pessi, our sponsor, the major one but one of several, would have most likely have antcipated what may happen in the TV FTA-Foxtel affair and would have taken it into account. Who knows?

Maybe one of probably several reasons why the word TASMANIA is emblazoned on our guernsey. In saying that, keep in mind that the AFL regulate the size of logos on jumpers.

I wonder if the club took into account the FTA-Foxtel agreement though.

Seeing probably 6 out of 7 home melbourne games will be FTA & 3 of the 4 tasmanian games are on foxtel I'm sad to say many (would be) members may find it more attractive to take out a foxtel subscription than club membership!

 

[medusala]

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.

Without the current Tas deal.

As for being a power due to Tas, as above, its all due to govt cash nothing more, nothing less.

 

[cs61]

In the 2 years the new powers have been in charge, the decisions they have made, and the direction they have taken. One of the major directions has been games in Tasmania, and gaining of major sponsors for a period of time.

Just government cash?

15million from a major sponsor...... happens to be the Tasmanian Tourism Sector of the the Tasmanian Government.

In these two years we've succeeded to start becoming more stable we've been playing games in Tasmania, 3 wins there this year included.

 

[Fastback]

I wonder if the club took into account the FTA-Foxtel agreement though.

Seeing probably 6 out of 7 home melbourne games will be FTA & 3 of the 4 tasmanian games are on foxtel I'm sad to say many (would be) members may find it more attractive to take out a foxtel subscription than club membership!

hardly - a foxtel subscription is $1,000 per year, a HFC 11 game membership is $160. There are enough games to easily support an 11 game membership.

Again, you speculate and use unrealistic assumptions just for the sake of beating that boring drum.

Have you bought a membership yet?

 

[MHDKA]

hardly - a foxtel subscription is $1,000 per year, a HFC 11 game membership is $160. There are enough games to easily support an 11 game membership.

Again, you speculate and use unrealistic assumptions just for the sake of beating that boring drum.

Have you bought a membership yet?

I have actually - before Xmas as I always do: Family Social with a birthday Subscription - Total $700

this is against Foxtel $52.95 x 12 = $635.40

So not an unrealistic assumption & illustrates the point that some supporters will make a choice to get foxtel rather than club membership.

 

[wahawk]

I have actually - before Xmas as I always do: Family Social with a birthday Subscription - Total $700

this is against Foxtel $52.95 x 12 = $635.40

So not an unrealistic assumption & illustrates the point that some supporters will make a choice to get foxtel rather than club membership.

Foxtel = $635.40
Membership=$160
Victorian members could fly to Tas.=$150 return

A membership and 3 Tas.games would be cheaper than foxtel

I've got a family membership and will think serious about foxtel when the deal is actually announced.I'm also flying from Perth for a game in Tassie.I know others doing the same.

So it's not an unrealistic assumption & illustrates the point that some supporters will subsribe to foxtel and buy a membership.

For every assumption that you make , someone else can make another assumption to support their arguement.

 

[MHDKA]

Foxtel = $635.40
Membership=$160
Victorian members could fly to Tas.=$150 return

A membership and 3 Tas.games would be cheaper than foxtel

I've got a family membership and will think serious about foxtel when the deal is actually announced.I'm also flying from Perth for a game in Tassie.I know others doing the same.

So it's not an unrealistic assumption & illustrates the point that some supporters will subscribe to foxtel and buy a membership.

For every assumption that you make , someone else can make another assumption to support their arguement.

good for you wahawk that you have the money to do that.

Many other people don't especially if they have a family. The cost simply becomes prohibative to take them down to tasmania for a weekend.

And if they can't afford foxtel - which thje majority of families can't, it means that the only way their family is going to see 3 of 4 tasmanian games that will be on foxtel is at a pub.

 

[Londoner86]

They can afford Foxtel - the majority of Foxtel subscribers are families .

Quoted for accuracy

 

[wahawk]

good for you wahawk that you have the money to do that.

Many other people don't especially if they have a family. The cost simply becomes prohibative to take them down to tasmania for a weekend.

And if they can't afford foxtel - which thje majority of families can't, it means that the only way their family is going to see 3 of 4 tasmanian games that will be on foxtel is at a pub.

i have 5 children all of whom are members of Hawthorn and all live at home with me.

You are right it does cost a fair bit too take the family to Tassie and for some this is out of reach. And some cant afford Foxtel but it's all about budgeting.Deciding what you need and what you dont need.For some a pack of smokes (each day or 2) is important for others a family holiday rates higher.

Each to their own , i guess

 

[medusala]

Just government cash?

yes

15million from a major sponsor...... happens to be the Tasmanian Tourism Sector of the the Tasmanian Government.

Comes with huge strings attached in case you hadnt noticed.

In these two years we've succeeded to start becoming more stable we've been playing games in Tasmania, 3 wins there this year included.

And yet Richmond have done even better from a similar position a couple of years ago. Spurious logic.

 

[Pessimistic]

Hawkk - for the love of god stop comparing to the 2006 season. Last year was a disaster - and the next five run a close second to it. Bottom line - we now see our club less live and less on TV. For Hawthorn members it is in no way a positive outlook.

What he said. You can argue semantics but serious blunders have been made /arisen

with this and poor MCG scheduling its as if the AFL don't like us anymore (if they ever did)

Now what upset them ? Jeff's 'style' perhaps?

When Dicker tok us to 1 and then 2 games per year in tassie they made a big point of saying the games would be on FTA melbourne. The got guarantees I think.
This disapered in 2006 bcause of the 'commonwealth games' never to resurface it seems.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

ISeeing probably 6 out of 7 home melbourne games will be FTA & 3 of the 4 tasmanian games are on foxtel I'm sad to say many (would be) members may find it more attractive to take out a foxtel subscription than club membership!

Our club will take both, the real supporter who buys a membership ticket and any who like to be couch potatoes. The 'would bes' as you put it, MHDKA, many I would imagine will in time hang-out to see our team in the flesh.

If our club, in a given year, has 30,000 paid up supporters and another 40,000 watching paid TV and barracking for us, who would complain? Give a few years of our team doing very well I believe it will turn around to, say, 40,000 -50,000. Its called the promotion of the Hawthorn brand in more ways than one. Particularly more so as paid TV operators are increasingly inclined to take advertiser's money as well as subscribers. Go to a Hawks game and watch it without adverts.

Anyway, technology is heading and improving in a way that at low cost it will be possible to catch up on seeing games alternatively irrespective of paid TV. Despite that, a successful Hawthorn team will draw the thousands to watch them in the flesh. It's great to go home and watch it all over again at a time suitable to one's self.

 

[MHDKA]

Our club will take both, the real supporter who buys a membership ticket and any who like to be couch potatoes. The 'would bes' as you put it, MHDKA, many I would imagine will in time hang-out to see our team in the flesh.

If our club, in a given year, has 30,000 paid up supporters and another 40,000 watching paid TV and barracking for us, who would complain? Give a few years of our team doing very well I believe it will turn around to, say, 40,000 -50,000. Its called the promotion of the Hawthorn brand in more ways than one. Particularly more so as paid TV operators are increasingly inclined to take advertiser's money as well as subscribers. Go to a Hawks game and watch it without adverts.

All pertinent points but all the same I'm sure the club would prefer a different split between FTA and pay TV games that encourage members to pay up their $160 membership rather than go to the odd game.

We also prefer opposition supporters to have incentive to pay to go to our home games as well.

And as far as the tassy deal goes I also think the club (and most members/supporters) would also prefer more than 1 of the 4 games to be on FTA.

 

[cs61]

yes



Comes with huge strings attached in case you hadnt noticed.



And yet Richmond have done even better from a similar position a couple of years ago. Spurious logic.

Spurious logic? Interesting choice of words.

You are saying that is not true that we have improved over two years with our current off field staff and through the decisions they have made, some of them being playing games in Tasmania thus far?

You can't just use one liners to discuss something as in depth as financial planning. Your trying to use the emotive argument rather than look at it logically.

Its obvious your main hassel is that Victoria are not getting as many games.

Fair enough, that is an issue.

But we played 4 away this year, and hardly any at the MCG. Probably our worst scheduling so far.

I was most annoyed with the home game 'away' on the Gold Coast against Brisbane. That seemed a dash for cash rather than any real positioning of the brand.

The games in Tassie are a region we are targetting at, we have played there consistently over the years and the club now considers it a little home away from home. Our winning record there and support we receive can not be ignored and it hasn't been. No other club has had success in another region like we have. North in Canberra wasn't working, I don't think it will on the Gold Coast either in terms of gathering local support. St Kilda didn't work on or off the field in Tassie IMO either.

The intention of the club is obvious, its a bold move not without risk and the positives have been laid out numerous times. Negatives could be loss of membership in Victoria but that is yet to be soon or proven as of yet so its a mute point until we get any evidence to suggest one way or another.

 

[hawker11]

Its obvious your main hassel is that Victoria are not getting as many games.

Fair enough, that is an issue.

Where a club plays and where a club is televised are extremely important factors in terms of exposure - which obviously drives sponsorship and support. Frank Costa pointed this out on SEN yesterday when commenting on the TV rights.

Hawthorn have fallen well short in both areas with this deal - which is of huge concern.

But we played 4 away this year, and hardly any at the MCG. Probably our worst scheduling so far.

I assume you mean 2006 - Again - STOP COMPARING TO 2006! It was a train wreck of a year.

The games in Tassie are a region we are targetting at, we have played there consistently over the years and the club now considers it a little home away from home. Our winning record there and support we receive can not be ignored and it hasn't been. No other club has had success in another region like we have. North in Canberra wasn't working, I don't think it will on the Gold Coast either in terms of gathering local support. St Kilda didn't work on or off the field in Tassie IMO either.

Yes there are benefits - but the club has taken this too far by offering Tas too many games - which 1 of 4 will be on free to air TV.

The intention of the club is obvious, its a bold move not without risk and the positives have been laid out numerous times. Negatives could be loss of membership in Victoria but that is yet to be soon or proven as of yet so its a mute point until we get any evidence to suggest one way or another.

The membership tally will speak for itself - though member satisfaction will no doubt drop over the years when they cannot access their team playing an interstate home game other than by an expensive trip / Foxtel Subscription / trip to the Pub. The Family Club?

The TV rights and AFL draw have pushed the negative aspects of this deal to a damaging level.

 

[cs61]

There is no damaging level because results can not be measured until we access the deal after a period of time.

Its still pre-season of year 1.

 

[frankc]

You can't just use one liners to discuss something as in depth as financial planning. Your trying to use the emotive argument rather than look at it logically.

I think this is the crux of the issue from both sides. A decision to accept the tasmanian sponsorship deal would have only come after much discussions at board level. They board would have realised that the decision may prove unpopular with some.

The main difference with the Tasmanian deal is that it is not selling games for a quick buck. The club's financial position is very sound and there is no logic in this argument as the club doesn't need the money, in isolation, to survive.

Anybody doubting this need only look at the financial statements of Richmond. People usually group Hawthorn and Richmond together as being of equal strength, however this is far from the case. Hawthorn is much stronger. Further if Hawthorn had prepared its accounts as Richmond have our profit would have been around $2 million.

People using Richmond as an example of a club succeeding due to its strategy to remain in Victoria have rocks in their head. Richmond is still in a very weak state (i.e. close to $10 million dollars in short-term debt and a negative asset position at present).

I have been trying to get the financial reports of clubs like Geelong and St. Kilda, who are often bracketed with hawthorn as middle of the road clubs, but they are no where to be found - I wonder why.

Putting the emotive arguments aside, this deal will make the club stronger even allowing for some drop off in membership. This is why I support the deal as it has probably put us with the top half-dozen clubs in the competition strength wise.

 

[MHDKA]

Putting the emotive arguments aside, this deal will make the club stronger even allowing for some drop off in membership. This is why I support the deal as it has probably put us with the top half-dozen clubs in the competition strength wise.

If we end up losing members because of this deal it will be a disaster.

HFC cannot afford to have less than 28,000 members in 5 years time.

If we do we will be a weaker not stronger club - especially relative to other victorian clubs.

We would have no bargaining position with the AFL, media or prospective sponsors.

 

[Hawkk]

If we end up losing members because of this deal it will be a disaster.

HFC cannot afford to have less than 28,000 members in 5 years time.

If we do we will be a weaker not stronger club - especially relative to other victorian clubs.

We would have no bargaining position with the AFL, media or prospective sponsors.

I think he was referring to the club losing members relative to its position without the deal.

I'd find it very hard to believe if the club only had 28-30,000 members in 2-3 years time - you can even hold me to this statement...