Moved Thread Hawthorn "sucking Tasmania dry" ... calls for them to GTFO

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why not have a thread about how all clubs are "bleeding their major sponsors dry"? It just amazes me the excuses people find to criticise Hawthorn. A simple sponsorship deal that cane me terminated at any time. Tasmania wants AFL in their back yard, the AFL won't give it to them. By sponsoring the Hawks, they raise their profile and also bring AFL football to their state. Why people think it's something to criticise I have no idea .... but then again I rarely ever understand the dribble posted on this forum.

 

[Hawk Dork]

A government decision that the majority of the state want to change - wow what a thought! Let me guess you agree with everything your state government does.

I respect Hawthorn - do not feel the need to keep giving them $'s

don't be a patronizing git

Its a commercial agreement they get their name on the jumper and a few games in Tassie in return for increased visitor numbers and the money they bring.
If it wasnt in the Tassie governments interests they wouldnt do it

 

[Scotland]

Hawthorn's arrangement with Tassie definitely isn't a 'simple sponsorship deal'. It's tied into playing 4 home games there each year which has flow on effects outside the 4 walls. If their sponsorship with Adidas ended they wouldn't stop having guernseys to play in, they'd just source another supplier. If the Tasmania sponsorship ends then it means they would revert to playing 11 home games in Melbourne which affects the AFL fixturing etc.

I don't really care about the motivations for either party (club makes money, sponsor gets exposure) but I wouldn't have thought it is that lucrative for the Tasmanian govt. Hawthorn are a much bigger club than they were 10-15 years ago so I wouldn't be surprised to see the arrangement end at some point. How many Melbourne based members would vote for 7 home games (and away games to make up for it) over 11 home games?

 

[Abasi]

A government decision that the majority of the state want to change - wow what a thought! Let me guess you agree with everything your state government does.

I respect Hawthorn - do not feel the need to keep giving them $'s

don't be a patronizing git

The majority?

I’m sure you have some data to back up this claim?

 

[Verdun]

The majority?

I’m sure you have some data to back up this claim?

That you are a patronising git - fairly self evident. Your interest is Hawthorn I understand that; your interest is not Tasmania.

 

[Hawk Dork]

That you are a patronising git - fairly self evident. Your interest is Hawthorn I understand that; your interest is not Tasmania.

Tasmania is a big boy they need to make decisions in their best interests.
If its telling Hawthorn to piss off and get their own team great ,their choice.
If its stick with North and get more games down there thats good too
If its to continue sponsoring Hawthorn thats good to

 

[Verdun]

Tasmania is a big boy they need to make decisions in their best interests.
If its telling Hawthorn to piss off and get their own team great ,their choice.
If its stick with North and get more games down there thats good too
If its to continue sponsoring Hawthorn thats good to

Very good post

 

[Dogs till i die]

Tasmania is a big boy they need to make decisions in their best interests.
If its telling Hawthorn to piss off and get their own team great ,their choice.
If its stick with North and get more games down there thats good too
If its to continue sponsoring Hawthorn thats good to

The Hawks have certainly benefited financially for many years from this deal, has been lucrative, so good on them.

Some agitation brewing between them and the AFL over the deal and the AFL's long term plan for Tassie. Doubt their plan includes the Hawks. Will certainly be interesting when the current deal expires.

Maybe the Hawks have done as much as they can for Tassie, maybe they've grown their Tassie membership as far as it can grow? Maybe the mutual beneficial arrangement has gone as far as it can?

Serious question for Hawks supporters - how is their Tassie based membership trending?

 

[Hawkk]

The Hawks have certainly benefited financially for many years from this deal, has been lucrative, so good on them.

Some agitation brewing between them and the AFL over the deal and the AFL's long term plan for Tassie. Doubt their plan includes the Hawks. Will certainly be interesting when the current deal expires.

Maybe the Hawks have done as much as they can for Tassie, maybe they've grown their Tassie membership as far as it can grow? Maybe the mutual beneficial arrangement has gone as far as it can?

Serious question for Hawks supporters - how is their Tassie based membership trending?

Fair to say that growth has stalled…

The Tasmanian membership numbers are always itemised in the Hawthorn FC Annual Report…

And they are always singled out as a special part of the club membership but the numbers leave a bit to be desired…

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/club/reports-and-policies/annual-reports

• In 2008 we had 41,686 club members (4,180 in Tasmania or 10.02% of the total membership)
• In 2009 we had 52,929 club members (7,335 in Tasmania or 13.8% of the total membership)
• In 2010 we had 54,473 club members (8,222 in Tasmania or 15.09% of the total membership)
• In 2011 we had 56,643 club members (8,500 in Tasmania or 15.00% of the total membership neat)
• In 2012 we had 60,841 club members (8,731 in Tasmania or 14.3% of the total membership)
• In 2013 we had 63,353 club members (8,567 in Tasmania or 13.52% of the total membership)
• In 2014 we had 68,650 club members (8,740 in Tasmania or 12.73% of the total membership)
• In 2015 we had 72,925 club members (8,947 in Tasmania or 12.22% of the total membership)
• In 2016 we had 75,351 club members (9,249 in Tasmania or 12.27% of the total membership)
• In 2017 we had 75,663 club members (9,550 in Tasmania or 12.62% of the total membership)
• In 2018 we had 80,302 club members (about 9,000 in Tasmania according to the clubs press release)

There is a myth perpetrated by Hawthorn that Tasmanian’s have embraced Hawthorn and that’s why the Hawks are now an off field power.

In fact in terms of membership growth in Tasmania, North Melbourne have proven much more effective...

I’m sure the sponsorship revenue and the clean stadium is a big reason for that but the only credible source to call Hawthorn out on this is Caroline Wilson.

I mean take this flowery statement about Tasmania in the 2017 Hawthorn FC Annual Report…

Its just BS to be honest...

Tasmania

In the first year of its third five-year partnership, Hawthorn’s relationship with Tasmania has reached a new level of maturity and mutual awareness. The Club’s efforts to participate in a range of Government programs that seek to address critical social and cultural challenges have been well received at state, regional and local levels. After 16 years of operation in Tasmania our relationship has never had more depth or meaning. Our home games in Launceston shine a light on the unique cultural flavours of Tasmania to a valuable local and broadcast audience, and our partnership with TasTafe ensures that game days not only deliver a quality spectacle, but are also mechanisms for education and professional development for tourism and events students. Further, our efforts at helping the government address issues of literacy, health, nutrition and social inclusion have been lauded state-wide. In the Club’s first year of its partnership with Premier’s Reading Challenge, registrations, completion rates, book reviews and rates of engagement with boys have all grown, such is the power of Hawthorn’s brand to connect with Tasmanian children. The Club’s signature school program, Looking After ME, is already in one third of Tasmanian primary schools state-wide, and the Club continues to re-invest in grass roots sport across both male and female participation.

Make no mistake Tasmania is Jeff Kennett’s baby.

Ian Dicker took us to Tasmania but Kennett extended it and was the architect behind the 7:4 ‘Tassie Hawks’ agreement in 2006 (the first of the five-year partnerships).

He sold it to the Hawthorn membership and takes all credit for it. Admittedly it was a great deal for the 2006 Hawthorn club but that was a premiership drought, the 2006 Commonwealth Games, 28,000 members and 4 premierships ago...

The AFL tried to buy Hawthorn’s contract out in 2010 and shift North to a 7:4 Tasmania / Melbourne arrangement before Kennett intervened. In 2017 he again intervened (and took the Hawthorn presidency) when the board wavered on Tasmania.

I spent the first 5 years of my time on BigFooty defending the Tasmanian agreement but it has clearly run its course.

Hawthorn crowds continue to drop, and have dropped in almost every year since 2010 despite ballooning MCG crowds in the 2008-2016 period, membership has also flat lined.

It’s in the AFL’s interests, Tasmania’s and probably in the long run Hawthorn’s interest (at least for the vast majority of its constituency) for Hawthorn to now leave after 2022.

Of course ego, politics and a dysfunctional Tasmanian football environment will probably lead to the status quo with the Hawthorn agreement being extended again…

 

[BobbyMorri]

Fair to say that growth has stalled…

The Tasmanian membership numbers are always itemised in the Hawthorn FC Annual Report…

And they are always singled out as a special part of the club membership but the numbers leave a bit to be desired…

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/club/reports-and-policies/annual-reports

• In 2008 we had 41,686 club members (4,180 in Tasmania or 10.02% of the total membership)
• In 2009 we had 52,929 club members (7,335 in Tasmania or 13.8% of the total membership)
• In 2010 we had 54,473 club members (8,222 in Tasmania or 15.09% of the total membership)
• In 2011 we had 56,643 club members (8,500 in Tasmania or 15.00% of the total membership neat)
• In 2012 we had 60,841 club members (8,731 in Tasmania or 14.3% of the total membership)
• In 2013 we had 63,353 club members (8,567 in Tasmania or 13.52% of the total membership)
• In 2014 we had 68,650 club members (8,740 in Tasmania or 12.73% of the total membership)
• In 2015 we had 72,925 club members (8,947 in Tasmania or 12.22% of the total membership)
• In 2016 we had 75,351 club members (9,249 in Tasmania or 12.27% of the total membership)
• In 2017 we had 75,663 club members (9,550 in Tasmania or 12.62% of the total membership)
• In 2018 we had 80,302 club members (about 9,000 in Tasmania according to the clubs press release)

There is a myth perpetrated by Hawthorn that Tasmanian’s have embraced Hawthorn and that’s why the Hawks are now an off field power.

In fact in terms of membership growth in Tasmania, North Melbourne have proven much more effective...

I’m sure the sponsorship revenue and the clean stadium is a big reason for that but the only credible source to call Hawthorn out on this is Caroline Wilson.

I mean take this flowery statement about Tasmania in the 2017 Hawthorn FC Annual Report…

Its just BS to be honest...



Make no mistake Tasmania is Jeff Kennett’s baby.

Ian Dicker took us to Tasmania but Kennett extended it and was the architect behind the 7:4 ‘Tassie Hawks’ agreement in 2006 (the first of the five-year partnerships).

He sold it to the Hawthorn membership and takes all credit for it. Admittedly it was a great deal for the 2006 Hawthorn club but that was a premiership drought, the 2006 Commonwealth Games, 28,000 members and 4 premierships ago...

The AFL tried to buy Hawthorn’s contract out in 2010 and shift North to a 7:4 Tasmania / Melbourne arrangement before Kennett intervened. In 2017 he again intervened (and took the Hawthorn presidency) when the board wavered on Tasmania.

I spent the first 5 years of my time on BigFooty defending the Tasmanian agreement but it has clearly run its course.

Hawthorn crowds continue to drop, and have dropped in almost every year since 2010 despite ballooning MCG crowds in the 2008-2016 period, membership has also flat lined.

It’s in the AFL’s interests, Tasmania’s and probably in the long run Hawthorn’s interest (at least for the vast majority of its constituency) for Hawthorn to now leave after 2022.

Of course ego, politics and a dysfunctional Tasmanian football environment will probably lead to the status quo with the Hawthorn agreement being extended again…

There are 2 huge factors for the decrease of attendence and even memberships in Launny.

1. North Melbournes move to Hobart.

2. The fixture. Going off the top of my head, since 2013, the Launceston games have had no team from
Sydney
Essendon
Collingwood
Richmond
Geelong
Melbourne

And Brisbane about 50 times. You can't expect neutral Tasmanians to go to watch those, especially those from Hobart who have got to watch every team on that list bar Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong in the same period.

It's not Hawthorn's fault either. The AFL has clearly thrown the junk games to Launceston. But despite all that, having this deal is still in the best interests for Hawthorn, which is why the Chairman of the Hawks is one of the most vocal about Tassie. You get the best of both worlds atm. You lose the junk games and still make money out of them while keeping all your important MCG games which most of your fans actually want to watch.

 

[Madtiger2006]

Greedy Hawks . Don’t worry about your supporters in Melbourne. Just try get rich playing boring games in front of 10k. Gtfo and let tassie get their own team in a few years. Same with North. Either relocated and become the tassie team or gtfo. Prefer to watch a tassie team in front of 30k interested supporters than watch a vic team in front of 10k lol. Boring

 

[telsor]

There are 2 huge factors for the decrease of attendence and even memberships in Launny.

1. North Melbournes move to Hobart.

2. The fixture. Going off the top of my head, since 2013, the Launceston games have had no team from
Sydney
Essendon
Collingwood
Richmond
Geelong
Melbourne

And Brisbane about 50 times. You can't expect neutral Tasmanians to go to watch those, especially those from Hobart who have got to watch every team on that list bar Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong in the same period.

It's not Hawthorn's fault either. The AFL has clearly thrown the junk games to Launceston. But despite all that, having this deal is still in the best interests for Hawthorn, which is why the Chairman of the Hawks is one of the most vocal about Tassie. You get the best of both worlds atm. You lose the junk games and still make money out of them while keeping all your important MCG games which most of your fans actually want to watch.

Going by the report put out by Hobart council on the economic impact/benefits of North games there, it isn't just the AFL/clubs that don't want those teams (although they probably don't), it's the sponsors/government.

When Richmond played North down there, they COMPLAINED about how the demand for tickets means all the tickets got sold to locals, meaning less tourism, and thus less revenue/economic activity.

Result...You can be pretty sure there will be no more Richmond games in Tas for some time. The locals might like it, but those writing the cheques don't.

 

[Matchu]

Greedy Hawks . Don’t worry about your supporters in Melbourne. Just try get rich playing boring games in front of 10k. Gtfo and let tassie get their own team in a few years. Same with North. Either relocated and become the tassie team or gtfo. Prefer to watch a tassie team in front of 30k interested supporters than watch a vic team in front of 10k lol. Boring

To be fair, North have set up an AFLW team in Tasmania so one could easily argue the wheels are already in motion.

 

[Hawkk]

There are 2 huge factors for the decrease of attendence and even memberships in Launny.

1. North Melbournes move to Hobart.

2. The fixture. Going off the top of my head, since 2013, the Launceston games have had no team from
Sydney
Essendon
Collingwood
Richmond
Geelong
Melbourne

And Brisbane about 50 times. You can't expect neutral Tasmanians to go to watch those, especially those from Hobart who have got to watch every team on that list bar Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong in the same period.

It's not Hawthorn's fault either. The AFL has clearly thrown the junk games to Launceston. But despite all that, having this deal is still in the best interests for Hawthorn, which is why the Chairman of the Hawks is one of the most vocal about Tassie. You get the best of both worlds atm. You lose the junk games and still make money out of them while keeping all your important MCG games which most of your fans actually want to watch.

Nonetheless membership has stalled (whilst mainland membership has increased rapidly) and our attendances have stalled (at the same time that Melbourne attendances ballooned between 2008 and 2016)...

Heck according to the club CEO it might not even be in the club's financial interest to play down there anymore...

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...a/news-story/885354fba975308a14eb2f1f7c4a590b

“I was down in Launceston this week and everyone is super positive.

“They said the last thing they want is for us to go.

“With improved MCG and Marvel Stadium deals it might be that we are better off playing in Melbourne but we have been there for 18 years and we just won’t walk away.

“We are really proud of what we do there.”

The demonstrated growth just isnt there to support that statement.

Apart from being a Kennett legacy it's also worth mentioning that the major sponsorship agreement means that the club doesn't need to seek a new major sponsor. Given the time taken to replace AUDI as a shorts sponsor keeping the Tasmanian arrangement is probably a lazy way to ensure you dont need to go to market for a new sponsor...

Nonetheless its not in the interest of the Hawthorn membership, the AFL or the Tasmanian tax payer for the status quo to remain

 

[Matchu]

Recent developments only further push the idea that Hawthorn will definitely leave Tasmania at the end of their current agreement.

 

[Abasi]

What recent developments are they?

The string of 3:20pm Sunday games the AFL managed to give us this year?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

To be fair, North have set up an AFLW team in Tasmania so one could easily argue the wheels are already in motion.

So why isn't their VFL team there too? Why did they spend money redeveloping Arden St for VFL games? Why is Tasmania getting its own separate VFL team in 2021? Odd that North's deal with Hobart ends shortly after that.

The AFLW arrangement is a pretty simple thing to undo. Once 2021 rolls around it won't be hard to create another AFLW team and both of them can match the name and home ground of their VFL counterparts, just as every other team playing in both competitions does.

 

[Kwality]

So why isn't their VFL team there too? Why did they spend money redeveloping Arden St for VFL games? Why is Tasmania getting its own separate VFL team in 2021? Odd that North's deal with Hobart ends shortly after that.

The AFLW arrangement is a pretty simple thing to undo. Once 2021 rolls around it won't be hard to create another AFLW team and both of them can match the name and home ground of their VFL counterparts, just as every other team playing in both competitions does.

Why, the AFL is torn between whats best for them (HQ), versus footy in Tas, & the dollars being extracted from Tas by the two Melbourne based clubs.
The VFL team in 2021 is just a sop to the critics, see we are doing something.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The VFL team in 2021 is just a sop to the critics, see we are doing something.

My point is, if the AFL were pushing North to the Tasmania, they wouldn't be setting up a VFL team with a distinctly Tasmanian identity while North's team remains at Arden St. They would have simply based North's team in Tasmania too.

 

[Kwality]

My point is, if the AFL were pushing North to the Tasmania, they wouldn't be setting up a VFL team with a distinctly Tasmanian identity while North's team remains at Arden St. They would have simply based North's team in Tasmania too.

Compre.
I'm sure the AFL understand moving North to Tas will not fix anything, Taswegians want their own side, the Roos branding exercise failed, they are North Melbourne & no amount of spin jammed down Tasmanians throat will change that.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Kwality]

Having been critical of the influence of Tourism WA in the decisions around the new Perth Stadium, I see this comment as critical for the future, particularly for the funding going into the pockets of North & the Hawks.
Very positive for a Tas side, only whrn now ,,!

 

[telsor]

Having been critical of the influence of Tourism WA in the decisions around the new Perth Stadium, I see this comment as critical for the future, particularly for the funding going into the pockets of North & the Hawks.
Very positive for a Tas side, only whrn now ,,!

Not really.

From reading this (and another recent media piece on the same topic), both seem to be very big on how a team would be good for Tas, but very light on how it'd be good for the AFL.

Call me crazy, but if you're trying to convince someone to make a big decision, the more important factor would be how THEY benefit from it.

 

[Kwality]

Not really.

From reading this (and another recent media piece on the same topic), both seem to be very big on how a team would be good for Tas, but very light on how it'd be good for the AFL.

Call me crazy, but if you're trying to convince someone to make a big decision, the more important factor would be how THEY benefit from it.

Its good for the NATIONAL as in AFL & its also an indication that the funding going out of Tas might be used as a lever.
Those of us who would like to see a Tas team can see it as good for the game & the AFL acquiesing as only a matter of when.
My only concern is a repeat of the weak kneed management tnat failed the game adding a side on the Gold Coast. A bit of integrity by the Commission demanding the execurive do their job.

 

[telsor]

Its good for the NATIONAL as in AFL & its also an indication that the funding going out of Tas might be used as a lever.
Those of us who would like to see a Tas team can see it as good for the game & the AFL acquiesing as only a matter of when.
My only concern is a repeat of the weak kneed management tnat failed the game adding a side on the Gold Coast. A bit of integrity by the Commission demanding the execurive do their job.

So, it's good for the national comp to have another club unable to pay it's own way, contributing little or nothing to the health and welfare of the league finances, and likely to only ever go backwards from there?

Odd how you pick and choose when to apply sentiment, and when to insist on financial rigor.