Hawthorn AGM 2023

[Charchi]

Wrong

So Very Wrong

I will happily be proven wrong in time.
We've sold the pokies which provided on-going cash, the AFL is not funding HFC via distributions to anywhere near the level of other clubs, the club admits they have not found new sources of revenue to replace the pokies (but are actively looking), the only place the funding comes from is reserves, (largely from selling the pokies) and we are embarking on the biggest spend in the club's history with the KCC. The $3M could be spent better elsewhere and is a big slice of the reserves in anyone's language.

 

[BIGHAWK23]

I will happily be proven wrong in time.
We've sold the pokies which provided on-going cash, the AFL is not funding HFC via distributions to anywhere near the level of other clubs, the club admits they have not found new sources of revenue to replace the pokies (but are actively looking), the only place the funding comes from is reserves, (largely from selling the pokies) and we are embarking on the biggest spend in the club's history with the KCC. The $3M could be spent better elsewhere and is a big slice of the reserves in anyone's language.

Will be selling Waverley

Cash flow is not an issue

 

[wahawk]

Will be selling Waverley

Cash flow is not an issue

There’s conflicting media reports on Waverley.

I’ve read & was of the belief that we bought the Sir Kenneth Luke stand from Mirvac for $1

But I’ve also read that we rent it for $1/yr

Either way, it could be kept as an investment property for cash flow with the tenants who currently occupy it & the vacancy left behind after our move.

That may be worth more than the sale (if we own it) or the surrender of lease (if we lease it)

We need on going cash flow, not an instant one off injection of cash

 

[Flukey!]

Which closed doors are they ?

He is a professional agitator so no one is letting him come through any doors.

Let him speak, for better or worse.

I'm not afraid to have anyone speak at an AGM. Thats the whole purpose.

Its healthy to have opposing views or ones that challenge the club.

 

[Flukey!]

There’s conflicting media reports on Waverley.

I’ve read & was of the belief that we bought the Sir Kenneth Luke stand from Mirvac for $1

But I’ve also read that we rent it for $1/yr

Either way, it could be kept as an investment property for cash flow with the tenants who currently occupy it & the vacancy left behind after our move.

That may be worth more than the sale (if we own it) or the surrender of lease (if we lease it)

We need on going cash flow, not an instant one off injection of cash

The agreement was after 15 years, ownership transfers to the club as below:

Written by: Jake Niall

The Age

21/4/2005

Hawthorn has all but completed the negotiations that will enable it to relocate to the former Waverley Park by early February next year. The Hawks will soon sign a contract with developer Mirvac that will give them control of their new headquarters at Waverley, with the club to begin fitting out the new high-tech facility later this year. Under the terms of the deal, the Hawks will be a rent-free tenant ($1 a year), taking control when Mirvac has sold all the properties next to the site, or failing that, after 15 years. "I believe we've negotiated all the substantial issues," Hawthorn president Ian Dicker said last night of the Waverley agreement, which took 12 months of negotiations and legal work. Remarkably, the Hawks will move into the new facility without knowing what Mirvac has spent, or the cost of the real estate it has sacrificed, on Hawthorn's behalf. "Mirvac have not told us what it's going to cost," Dicker said. Once Hawthorn has officially signed the agreement with Mirvac - Dicker said the parties were "very, very close" to that point - the club would turn its attention to its spiritual home at Glenferrie. Dicker said the club would then talk to Boorandara Council over Glenferrie Oval, because it was "a community asset". The Hawks will maintain their base at Glenferrie, having a 25-year lease and the freehold on the social club. Dicker said the club still expected to train at Glenferrie on occasion, perhaps once a week. He said the club's Waverley facility would retain the name of "the Kenneth Luke Stand", from its days as the AFL-owned stadium. He said there would be scope, however, for the Hawks naming their new training oval after a club great, such as John Kennedy snr, or another brown-and-gold legend. "We haven't discussed it anyway," Dicker said of the ground-naming possibilities. The Hawthorn-Mirvac deal was made possible when, before taking power in 1999, the Bracks Government pledged that it would retain football at Waverley - forcing the developer, Mirvac - which bought the site from the AFL - to seek a partnership with a league club. Meanwhile, the Hawks are down about 3000 in memberships compared with last year, but Dicker said it was premature to say that this membership shortfall would result in a loss for 2005 because the club was expecting a better return in gate receipts, with high-drawing home games against Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon to come.

 

[wahawk]

Its healthy to have opposing views or ones that challenge the club.

It is
But you do not need s**t stirrers causing s**t

Greene’s comments were nothing more than s**t-stirring.
Most of Scott’s comments nowadays are nothing more than s**t-stirring & a self sense of feeling relevant

 

[Flukey!]

What was the question on the fixture and the response from the club?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Until we can convince channel 7 that we are one of the big ratings drawcards

You don’t convince 7 of this though - they’ll have stats on it. There’s a reason that regardless of form the Broncos get Thursday and Friday night games because they’re guaranteed ratings. I’m sure 7 have numbers that our TV viewership peaks and troughs in line with performance.

 

[Kanga Commando]

Its healthy to have opposing views or ones that challenge the club.

Exactly.

Scott and Greene might be wrong on what they say. I don't care.

It's an AGM and as stakeholders, they have a right to speak.

 

[wahawk]

Exactly.

Scott and Greene might be wrong on what they say. I don't care.

It's an AGM and as stakeholders, they have a right to speak.

Ask legitimate questions sure, we all have a right to that

Don’t stir un-necessary crap, you are abusing that right

 

[Kanga Commando]

Just pick up the phone to Gowers and say what you want to say

Doing it at the AGM is for Don.

Maybe Scott and Greene dont get that access...

Maybe they do and they get told to p!ss off

The AGM is for any stakeholder that wants to speak.

T

 

[Kanga Commando]

Ask legitimate questions sure, we all have a right to that

Don’t stir un-necessary crap, you are abusing that right

oh - do you want to cancel me too ?

 

[Topiary]

Exactly.

Scott and Greene might be wrong on what they say. I don't care.

It's an AGM and as stakeholders, they have a right to speak.

Regrettably, but democratically yes. However, they have other recourse. Wonder why they failed to take it??

 

[Kanga Commando]

Regrettably, but democratically yes. However, they have other recourse. Wonder why they failed to take it??

Who knows....

Maybe Scott and Greene got shutdown at the recent major stakeholder meeting and didn't like it ( totally speculation on my part )

I'd like to think the club takes the time to hear people out.... Like them or not...

I don't mind taking the bad with the good on the ability to speak up at the AGM.

 

[Rhayader]

Exactly.

Scott and Greene might be wrong on what they say. I don't care.

It's an AGM and as stakeholders, they have a right to speak.

Yep, nonsense only matters if people take it seriously. Stopping people from having their say would be overkill when all people need to do is ignore stuff they think is stupid.

 

[vaughnie]

You don’t convince 7 of this though - they’ll have stats on it. There’s a reason that regardless of form the Broncos get Thursday and Friday night games because they’re guaranteed ratings. I’m sure 7 have numbers that our TV viewership peaks and troughs in line with performance.

Agreed. Which is why I think the issue is less about the fact that we don't get games because we are bottom 4, and more about how we can become relevant when we are.

Probably not the right thread, but I think 4 games in Tassie means out of sight, out of mind, and we are seen to be irrelevant to the arm chair viewers unless we are a top 4 side.

 

[wahawk]

oh - do you want to cancel me too ?

What ??

What does this even mean ?

You’ve lost me Kanga

 

[wahawk]

I'd like to think the club takes the time to hear people out.... Like them or not...

The club did hear them out, if you believe the posters who were there.

Their questions were answered, unless you believe the media headlines

 

[Kanga Commando]

The club did hear them out, if you believe the posters who were there.

Their questions were answered, unless you believe the media headlines

Yes - which is great.
It was handled well.

So why are people whinging about Scott and Greene speaking. I have no fear from others voice in an AGM.

 

[A Diakos]

Will be selling Waverley

Cash flow is not an issue

Selling Waverley addresses short term cash flow

It doesn’t address revenue replacement

Also we ll be likely selling parts of waverley not all of it …the gym for example makes good money for us

Richmond have got into gyms and are making good money …it’s an area we ll look at

 

[thehardway]

If he didn't pop into the odd AGM, and take the lions share of the open mic, he'd just be "Don from down the pub" who used to do a podcast with Sam Newman and otherwise has no status within the community anymore.

As mentioned earlier, it's either all about Don, or at least about him feeling he has some "status".

He'll always have "status" with me for his pivotal role in saving the club from the merger. But yeah, I wish he would just shut up sometimes.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I will happily be proven wrong in time.
We've sold the pokies which provided on-going cash, the AFL is not funding HFC via distributions to anywhere near the level of other clubs, the club admits they have not found new sources of revenue to replace the pokies (but are actively looking), the only place the funding comes from is reserves, (largely from selling the pokies) and we are embarking on the biggest spend in the club's history with the KCC. The $3M could be spent better elsewhere and is a big slice of the reserves in anyone's language.

You realise we made a profit this year despite the gaming venues being sold and revenue reducing?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Selling Waverley addresses short term cash flow

It doesn’t address revenue replacement

Also we ll be likely selling parts of waverley not all of it …the gym for example makes good money for us

Richmond have got into gyms and are making good money …it’s an area we ll look at

You realise that, much like selling the gaming venues, if you sell assets you can use the proceeds to invest in other revenue producing assets?

 

[wahawk]

You realise we made a profit this year despite the gaming venues being sold and revenue reducing?

Charchi thinks that $3m could be better spent elsewhere.
I’d prefer it in the bank earning approx 5% interest pa rather than spending it & then trying to find it later , if/when needed

It’s approx $150,000 interest pa

If we spend it, then need it, then borrow it, over the course of the loan we could easily be over $1m behind, easily

 

[wahawk]

You realise that, much like selling the gaming venues, if you sell assets you can use the proceeds to invest in other revenue producing assets?

In fairness to A Diakos, it is partly what they say.
They suggest keeping the gym, which as I posted earlier, that’s something the club need to look into.
Can Waverley give us a decent revenue ?
Are we better off selling & reinvesting ?