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

[wahawk]

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 if you read his post it doesn't actually sound like he is saying we will lose members.

Frankc said, 'even allowing for some drop in membership'

dont be so negative in your posts MHDKA

 

[MHDKA]

I think if you read his post it doesn't actually sound like he is saying we will lose members.

Frankc said, 'even allowing for some drop in membership'

dont be so negative in your posts MHDKA

Funny, I thought Hawkk has already clarified what franc was saying.

And I am not a negative but objective.

BTW I do find it interesting that Frank in his post has inferred that he agrees with what I have previously posted on this:

That as a result of the deal our membership is likely to be lower than it would be if we hadn't done it.

 

[medusala]

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?

Our improvement has stuff all to do with Tas.

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.

Complete nonsense. I have shown repeatedly via stats that talk of a membership harverst in Tas in nonsense and that a significant financial turnaround can and has taken place without Tas cash.

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

Wrong again. You are the one arguing out of self interest. Its obvious that the long term interests of the club involve playing all its home games in Victoria a substantially bigger and richer market.

Our winning record there and support we receive can not be ignored and it hasn't been.

Most of those games would have been won in Melbourne anyway.

No other club has had success in another region like we have.

North and St Kilda had similar levels of members. That argument doesnt stack up.

 

[illnino]

Wow, This thread is stiil seeing replies!

For god's sakes guys, the hawks will play a few games in tassie per year, so what? We are getting ********loads of money from the tas deal - ChaChing$$$. We seem to be playing well there, and more importantly, the boys love it there.

In answer to the thread's question, there are no alternatives, obviously

 

[MHDKA]

In answer to the thread's question, there are no alternatives, obviously

Why?

What would have happened if we didn't do this deal?

Its already been agreed we would probably have more members.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

In answer to the thread's question, there are no alternatives, obviously

Yes, illnino. As the member who asked the question, I find few have proffered an alternative to the Hawthorn Board of Directors' dealings to financially shore up our club's future. The majority contents herein plainly reflect difficulty anti-Tassie-deal posters have in finding a formula for our club to be on track to compete with the other 9 Victorian clubs for a share of the Victorian AFL sponsorships pie.

To the few who have answered the question and posted a plan and ideas, I say thank you and suggest you copy and paste your deliberations and e-mail them off to CEO, Ian Robson.

For me, as one who is very pleased with and have complete confidence in the Board, enough is enough. This is my final comment on the Tasmanian sponsorship issue. There is no looking back: its a cut and done signed deal. I am a member of the Hawthorn Football Club for the enjoyment of it. I am so excited about our future, on and off the field.

Bring on th '07 season and enjoy it fellow Hawkers.

 

[MHDKA]

Yes, illnino. As the member who asked the question, I find few have proffered an alternative to the Hawthorn Board of Directors' dealings to financially shore up our club's future. The majority contents herein plainly reflect difficulty anti-Tassie-deal posters have in finding a formula for our club to be on track to compete with the other 9 Victorian clubs for a share of the Victorian AFL sponsorships pie.

To the few who have answered the question and posted a plan and ideas, I say thank you and suggest you copy and paste your deliberations and e-mail them off to CEO, Ian Robson.

For me, as one who is very pleased with and have complete confidence in the Board, enough is enough. This is my final comment on the Tasmanian sponsorship issue. There is no looking back: its a cut and done signed deal. I am a member of the Hawthorn Football Club for the enjoyment of it. I am so excited about our future, on and off the field.

Bring on th '07 season and enjoy it fellow Hawkers.

Nice try gary - of course there are alternatives as the club was not about to go down the tube if we didn't do the deal. Other clubs have chosen to not to go down this route, especially with the risk it entails.

Also I ask this question to you:

What do you think the club would have done if this deal didn't happen?

You say enough is enough but now all members have to live with the decision and the negative issues associated with it for the next five years.

Already it is starting to be realised we will have less members than we otherwise would as a result of the decision. This costs us money and not only means we are less attractive to sponsors but will have less power when we negotiate with the AFL.

Our average attendance at home games will also drop (also meaning less money) - so how is this going to be used to supposedly bargain for more games at the MCG?

We also now know that unless you have foxtel , or prepared to take the family down the pub (Hawthorn the family club) , most members and supporters will not even be able to see 3 of the 4 home games that will now be played in tasmania.

There is no doubt that this deal does causes identity issues - this is why the topic of even playing any games in tasmania was put under intense scrutiny by the Board in 2001 - as Don Scott recently said:

"..... club directors had originally "hotly" debated playing two Tasmanian home games in 2001 because there was a fear of disenfranchising members.

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

Sadly most of the members of the Board in 2001 have now left but the concerns they expressed about playing even 2 games in tasmania remain and has now increased now that we are playing 4 home games there.

The fact is HFC is a football club that exists for its members & unless the club knows the thoughts of its members (especially those from its core market) in relation to this issue it is in no place to help resolve them.

 

[Londoner86]

Nice try gary - of course there are alternatives as the club was not about to go down the tube if we didn't do the deal. Other clubs have chosen to not to go down this route, especially with the risk it entails.

Also I ask this question to you:

What do you think the club would have done if this deal didn't happen?

You say enough is enough but now all members have to live with the decision and the negative issues associated with it for the next five years.

Already it is starting to be realised we will have less members than we otherwise would as a result of the decision. This costs us money and not only means we are less attractive to sponsors but will have less power when we negotiate with the AFL.

Our average attendance at home games will also drop (also meaning less money) - so how is this going to be used to supposedly bargain for more games at the MCG?

We also now know that unless you have foxtel , or prepared to take the family down the pub (Hawthorn the family club) , most members and supporters will not even be able to see 3 of the 4 home games that will now be played in tasmania.

There is no doubt that this deal does causes identity issues - this is why the topic of even playing any games in tasmania was put under intense scrutiny by the Board in 2001
.

Repetitive Posts Board

Can I ask if the Mods can delete posts when the same poster repeats the same posts over and over and over ....

Talk about cut & paste - you should delete all the contents of your Saved "Anti-Tasmania" posts.


LH86

 

[MHDKA]

Repetitive Posts Board

Can I ask if the Mods can delete posts when the same poster repeats the same posts over and over and over ....

Talk about cut & paste - you should delete all the contents of your Saved "Anti-Tasmania" posts.


LH86

Gee & thats original too.

What do you expect - my post is a summary of the pertinent issues in response to garry's dismissal saying we had no alternative - as a result of course it repeats a number of points that were already stated over the thread.

 

[Pessimistic]

Isn't the alternative to continue with just TWO games annually in tasmania delivering much of the hype you guys are sputing here and then use Jeff's massive contacts in victoria (which you all told me about ad nauseum) to improve our position here ?

When you all hailed Jeff as the messiah none of you mentioned Tasmaina as his 'shining achievement' and even mocked those who 'jokingly' said jeff would sell hawthorn interstate.

Jeffs 'vision' is the Dicker 'vision' x2 but delivered with more mistakes and pathetic PR.

Even if its a great deal it has been devalued considerably by the MCG away games promise and FTA promise fiascos.

 

[frankc]

Funny, I thought Hawkk has already clarified what franc was saying.

And I am not a negative but objective.

BTW I do find it interesting that Frank in his post has inferred that he agrees with what I have previously posted on this:

That as a result of the deal our membership is likely to be lower than it would be if we hadn't done it.

MHDKA, I don't think our membership will decrease, what I was saying was that, IMO, a small drop off is easily compensated for by the deal. The deal adds around $2million annually to our bottom line. If the average net membership spend is $200, this equates to 10,000 members. So if our membership fell by, say, 1,000, the club is still $1.8 million better off annually.

However, in saying this, I don't want to see any drop off. the board have clearly stated there objective is to increase membership as well as sponsorship - this objective is obvious. Personally I wish our membership was as high as possible.

The point that must be made is that membership, whilst very important, is not everything. Membership revenue represents less than 20% of our total revenue. As such, while it is an important part of our revenue base, one does not make decisions solely on the basis on retaining every possible member or keeping all member satisfied - this would lead to the wrong decision in some situation - or a misallocation of resources in economic terms.

Whether I agree or disagree with the tasmanian deal is irrelevent to a certain extent, my main concern is that the board has carefully considered all options. I personally think they have.

 

[frankc]

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.

Totally agree MHDKA - however we can't be solely reliant on membership either.

At present Collingwood have a net asset position of sum $8 million. We are currently at $6.5 million. If we keep doing the same things year in and year out, this gap will widen. People might say so what?

The problem is that the greater the amount of assets a club has, the greater the proportion of its income comes from non-football related sources. ulitmately this may result in membership income being purely incremental. If this occurs, a club would be in a very strong position as financially it is not reliant on football related income. I think this is the objective of Collingwood and if they keep generated the level of cash flow they are, and use it wisely, in around 10 to 15 years they will be in this position.

Hawthorn must look for ways to increase its revenue base, if it doesn't, we will eventually be the also rans, just making up the numbers or dying a sole death. People may scoff at this, but do the numbers. If the stronger clubs continue at the rate they are going, and the middle tier clubs don't do anything about it, they will fall so far behind to be a more pawn in the game.

St Kilda has been extremly short sighted and as present the attitude of Buttress is full of arrogance. However, the club's short sighted approach could result in dire consequences in the future.

In contrast, the way our board functions is ideal in the competitive environment that is AFL football. Their vision is long-term and appears very methodical. It is this, not just the Tasmanian deal, which encourages me about our future.

 

[illnino]

Whoops, my bad

I meant that we have no alternative NOW, because its a done deal.
Although I would take being financially secure for the next 5 - 10 years (fact) even if it means possibly losing some members (theory - yet to be seen), any day of the week!

The only ways I can see this deal being a downer, is if you don't have Foxtel or Bigpond to watch every game, and that you may be annoyed about not being able to go to the G or Dome as much for Hawks games as they won't have as many there (and thats only really for Victorians as us Qld's and the rest of the country get to see our beloved hawks once or maybe twice a year as it is!)

BTW. Just on the Bigpond thing. If any of you guys are itching to see any game from any team of the last few years, but dont have Bigpond, pm me!
Don't wanna paste link's here...

 

[Fastback]

Nice try gary - of course there are alternatives as the club was not about to go down the tube if we didn't do the deal. Other clubs have chosen to not to go down this route, especially with the risk it entails.

Forget other clubs, the ones you mentioned are in real strife and live off CBF, AFL and Federal funding - we don't and as a result our identity is kept intact. Look at the Kangas and Bulldogs - it's not North or Footscray anymore.

You base all your ramblings on speculative risk - nothing proven. Why not wait until all facts and figures have been disclosed, until then, all arguments re membership and identity carry little to no weight.

Also I ask this question to you:

What do you think the club would have done if this deal didn't happen?

Oh my god , are you serious? This is the question you can't answer. now you're looking for answers.

You say enough is enough but now all members have to live with the decision and the negative issues associated with it for the next five years.

Only the negative nellies have to live with it, the rest of us are just looking fwd to watching our team improve whilst the coffers receive a massive boost off the field - sits ok with me.

Already it is starting to be realised we will have less members than we otherwise would as a result of the decision. This costs us money and not only means we are less attractive to sponsors but will have less power when we negotiate with the AFL.

Again, pure speculation, no fact - same old lines. Let's see how it all pans out first before jumping up and down as if the ass has fallen out of the club.

Our average attendance at home games will also drop (also meaning less money) - so how is this going to be used to supposedly bargain for more games at the MCG?

Will it? again pessimistic viewpoint with zero fact. If we pack out carl & Coll games at TD then they will be moved to the G - plain and simple.


We also now know that unless you have foxtel , or prepared to take the family down the pub (Hawthorn the family club) , most members and supporters will not even be able to see 3 of the 4 home games that will now be played in tasmania.

Footy has been on foxtel for the last 5 years, not all hawk games were avail on FTA last season. Why is it such an issue now compared with last season?

There is no doubt that this deal does causes identity issues - this is why the topic of even playing any games in tasmania was put under intense scrutiny by the Board in 2001 - as Don Scott recently said:

Nah, were still Hawthorn, our home is the MCG, still wear brown and gold, same coach, players, board, club song, sponsors, training base etc etc

oh, we play one extra game in Tas. For big $$.

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

Sadly most of the members of the Board in 2001 have now left but the concerns they expressed about playing even 2 games in tasmania remain and has now increased now that we are playing 4 home games there.

stopped reading the article after this quote: "Scott predicted that playing four home games in Tasmania could be the forerunner to the Hawks permanent relocation."

Surely you don't believe this?


The fact is HFC is a football club that exists for its members & unless the club knows the thoughts of its members (especially those from its core market) in relation to this issue it is in no place to help resolve them.

Time to let it go and look fwd to the upcoming season. Continually banging your head against a brick wall with with no solutions makes you an easy target, totally unnecessary.

 

[medusala]

Jeffs 'vision' is the Dicker 'vision' x2 but delivered with more mistakes and pathetic PR.

The club improved from a huge loss (pre Dickers "fundraising") to a big cash profit in one year under Kennett.

I might not be doing handstands over Tas but the club certainly seems to improved its administration under Jeff.

 

[medusala]

Time to let it go and look fwd to the upcoming season. Continually banging your head against a brick wall with with no solutions makes you an easy target, totally unnecessary.

No solutions?

Two very easy steps

1) not spend the extra $1m on the football dept
2) get an extra $500k from jumper sponsorship that that Tas deal will approx cost


$1.5m a year. Plus the likelihood of additional Vic members on the back of 4 extra games. Plus extra sponsorship, corp box sales etc.

 

[hawker11]

Every alternative that has been suggested has either been ignored, or dismissed. The way the 'tassie hawks' team carry on is like they are suggesting that there is no other aternative. Of course there are alternatives - look at the other 9 victorian clubs! Alternatives don't necessarily mean 11 home games in Victoria. A reasonable balance could bring the positives that come from 'broadening the wings' without affecting the identity of the club. The fact is members have been offered a lot less than what they have been offered in previous years. The club will have a lot less exposure in its core market than they have enjoyed in previous years. Members have been disenfranchised - and it needs to be addressed.

 

[wahawk]

Funny, I thought Hawkk has already clarified what franc was saying.

And I am not a negative but objective.

BTW I do find it interesting that Frank in his post has inferred that he agrees with what I have previously posted on this:

That as a result of the deal our membership is likely to be lower than it would be if we hadn't done it.

yeah well some posters need to be told a second time.



and even then they still dont get it



He said 'EVEN ALLOWING' not ....'likely to be lower'


you're quick to quote others but seem to mis-quote , most of the time

 

[MHDKA]

Originally Posted by MHDKA
Nice try gary - of course there are alternatives as the club was not about to go down the tube if we didn't do the deal. Other clubs have chosen to not to go down this route, especially with the risk it entails.

Forget other clubs, the ones you mentioned are in real strife and live off CBF, AFL and Federal funding - we don't and as a result our identity is kept intact. Look at the Kangas and Bulldogs - it's not North or Footscray anymore.

MHDKA: Fact is other clubs have chosen not to do this - Why do you think that is?


You base all your ramblings on speculative risk - nothing proven. Why not wait until all facts and figures have been disclosed, until then, all arguments re membership and identity carry little to no weight.

MHDKA: The deal only happened at the end of last year - all we know is there is dissatisfaction among many victorian members - issues associated with the deal are only now coming out - an example is how the club answered the phone before Xmas - members voiced their concerns and now the club answers the phone in a different way.

Another example is we found out today it looks like all 4 tasmanian games will now not be on live FTA television.

Frankly the long term effects of a deal like this won't be known for a number of years.


Also I ask this question to you:

What do you think the club would have done if this deal didn't happen?

Oh my god , are you serious? This is the question you can't answer. now you're looking for answers.

MHDKA : Do you know what a rhetorical question is?


The way posters have carried on in this forum infers if we hadn't done this deal we were doomed - well that is rubbish. We have assets, improving prospects on the field and nearly 30,000 core members that have stuck with the club through crap years, we also have sponsors.

We had no need to take the risk by doing.

But further, as we have it, it should not have been done on the terms we agreed to, the naming rights is a contentious issue, we were promised we would end up with additional away games at the MCG - never delivered, and we now find out that that all 4 games in tasmania are actually going to be live on fox.

What next?

You say enough is enough but now all members have to live with the decision and the negative issues associated with it for the next five years.

Only the negative nellies have to live with it, the rest of us are just looking fwd to watching our team improve whilst the coffers receive a massive boost off the field - sits ok with me.

MHDKA: all victorian based HFC members have to live with it and as there are negative issues that will impact the club all members ultimately will live with the consequences of it.


Already it is starting to be realised we will have less members than we otherwise would as a result of the decision. This costs us money and not only means we are less attractive to sponsors but will have less power when we negotiate with the AFL.

Again, pure speculation, no fact - same old lines. Let's see how it all pans out first before jumping up and down as if the ass has fallen out of the club.

MHDKA: Not speculation this will happen - nobody could logically say playing 4 home games in tasmania without FTA will help our sponsorship chances or being associated with 1 particular state will help a national brand.


Our average attendance at home games will also drop (also meaning less money) - so how is this going to be used to supposedly bargain for more games at the MCG?

Will it? again pessimistic viewpoint with zero fact. If we pack out carl & Coll games at TD then they will be moved to the G - plain and simple.

MHDKA: Not pessimistic just a fact, you work out the numbers - we are now playing 4 home games at a ground that takes max 22K - work it out!

We also now know that unless you have foxtel , or prepared to take the family down the pub (Hawthorn the family club) , most members and supporters will not even be able to see 3 of the 4 home games that will now be played in tasmania.

Footy has been on foxtel for the last 5 years, not all hawk games were avail on FTA last season. Why is it such an issue now compared with last season?

MHDKA: Maybe because this year we end up with 14 live games on foxtel & only 8 game FTA.


And victorian members can only see a max 13 games of their team in its home state.


There is no doubt that this deal does causes identity issues - this is why the topic of even playing any games in tasmania was put under intense scrutiny by the Board in 2001 - as Don Scott recently said:

Nah, were still Hawthorn, our home is the MCG, still wear brown and gold, same coach, players, board, club song, sponsors, training base etc etc

oh, we play one extra game in Tas. For big $$.

MHDKA: As we all know last year was an aberration because of the commonwealth games - and last year we didn't have TASMANIA all over our jumpers and other merchandise and we weren't known as the Tassy Hawks.


http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/foo...E19767,00.html

Sadly most of the members of the Board in 2001 have now left but the concerns they expressed about playing even 2 games in tasmania remain and has now increased now that we are playing 4 home games there.

stopped reading the article after this quote: "Scott predicted that playing four home games in Tasmania could be the forerunner to the Hawks permanent relocation."

Surely you don't believe this?

MHDKA: Don't know why you quoted this I didn't never have suggested this as I know it isn't going to happen - I try to keep relevent points in my analysis.


And BTW be careful before you start putting down someone like don scott - we wouldn't even be now the tassy hawks without him and if anyone is entitled to be $hitty about this decision it is him.



The fact is HFC is a football club that exists for its members & unless the club knows the thoughts of its members (especially those from its core market) in relation to this issue it is in no place to help resolve them.

Time to let it go and look fwd to the upcoming season. Continually banging your head against a brick wall with with no solutions makes you an easy target, totally unnecessary.

Thanks for the mock concern but No.

As a long-standing hawk supporter/member why should I accept this decision unquestionably - the club before Xmas was answering the phone Tassy Hawks - members complained - now they have changed.

It is the obligation of members who are unhappy with some aspects of this deal to let the club know - but don't think that is going to stop me enjoying seeing my club play or achieve success, I am looking forward to the season more than you could ever understand.

 

[MHDKA]

yeah well some posters need to be told a second time.

Obviously these issues are all a bit above you.

Its funny,if I respected your opinion I may take note of your post but having read your posts I don't.

bye bye

 

[wahawk]

Obviously these issues are all a bit above you.

Its funny,if I respected your opinion I may take note of your post but having read your posts I don't.

bye bye

see-ya mate

oh, before i go , thanks for yet another personal insult.

they really dont hurt anymore. not now that i've wiped away the tears.

 

[wahawk]

Obviously these issues are all a bit above you.

Its funny,if I respected your opinion I may take note of your post but having read your posts I don't.

bye bye

you must take note of my posts, you keep replying to them

 

[MHDKA]

thanks for yet another personal insult.

Hypocrite - read your own posts.

 

[wahawk]

Hypocrite - read your own posts.

I thought... hang-on




yeah, i just read your post again. You said that you dont take note of my posts.

Why would you reply to someone you dont take note of ?


And what personal insults have I sent your way ?
I actually said that I learnt something from you, and i'm not ashamed to admit that.
You are probably a really nice bloke , you just need to keep the personal insults to a minimum.

 

[Fastback]

No solutions?

Two very easy steps

1) not spend the extra $1m on the football dept

The whole cash injection excercise is to enable more funds to be spent on areas such as recruitment, scouting, research & development, coaching, marketing etc etc. This is the well documented strategy the club has employed and quite rghtly is looking to achieve in order to get the edge on other clubs. This is where footy is at these days and I'm surprised someone like yourself can not see the benefits of such a move.

2) get an extra $500k from jumper sponsorship that that Tas deal will approx cost

The Tas deal and HSBC is a synergised arrangement - very clever. We expand our brand to another state which benefits both club and current sponsors. To appoint another primary sponsor instead of Tas would have meant less value for money for HSBC - with this arrangement we don't. HSBC are very happy with the deal and have extended their suport for a further 3 years. Fact.

$1.5m a year. Plus the likelihood of additional Vic members on the back of 4 extra games. Plus extra sponsorship, corp box sales etc.

For the immediate term sounds fair, long term...risky. You are in effect banking on the club to make top 8 immediately, then top 4 and remain there to achieve any significant gains here - but what if it doesn't? Where to then? Another club will have happily snapped up the Tas market leaving us with little other options outside your typical revenue raising footy activities - this is what this whole thread is about and should have been renamed "outside the norm, what are other large scale revenue activities that the club could employ which would keep all home games in melb?" This is what we would like to see on the table. Anyone can say, cut spending here and just pick up another sponsor there...it's just doesn't work that way in a performance regulated and saturated market.

Hawk supporters will remain Hawk supporters. Memberships are driven by onfield performance - this is the only proven fact amongst all other theories in this thread - although it may look initially that the club has alienated a few members the long term benefits surely outweigh all this. Put simply, we have to take the long term view.