What are the alternatives?
- BUILD on the 30-35000 base membership level by endeavouring to play as many games at the MCG as possible. The Tasmanian deal has had a negative effect on our draw - and the number of games at the MCG let alone in Melbourne.
Very true, but I think part of the deal is centred on guaranteeing a piece of the MCG home game pie. With more clubs realising they can make more money at the MCG then they can at the Corporate Dome and the new AFL/MCC contract that demands the highest drawing games be played at the MCG, there isn’t much room for a club that has been dormant for the best part of 15 years to grow its share.
To put it into perspective, the AFL is obligated to play 44 league games at the venue;
14 Collingwood (home and away)
7 Hawthorn (home)
5 Carlton (home)
4 Essendon (home)
1 Geelong (home)
The rest is a combination of Richmond, Melbourne, Kangaroos and high drawing ‘blockbuster’ fixtures.
Call it a fall out plan, but it’s a nice security platform for the club to fall back on if all else fails. Its either that or we risk having more games shifted to the ground the AFL has vested interests in - the Victorian one that is.
- Get involved in VICTORIAN schools and colleges, get kids to love the Hawks - promote the playing group and its personalities (ala Dipper Dermie of the eighties) - let its supporters feel connected to the team by knowing its players - Hawthorn have not had a single player to see a reason to go and attend a match since Crawford in his prime - this is about to change *cough* Buddy *cough*
The Hawks are one of 3 Victorian based sides involved in the leagues Multicultural Development program - the other 2 being Collingwood and the WB, specifically aimed at marketing the game of Australian Rules Football to specific ethnic groups through the football clubs.
http://www.vwfl.org.au/_content/document/00049328-src.pdf
- Form rivalries with other Victorian clubs and create a tribal atmosphere amongst the supporter base. Why do you think the AFL are desperate to keep the Blues afloat? It isnt the Carlton brand thats important - its the rivalries with the Collingwoods and Essendons that draw the crowds. It is rivalries that put bums on seats
Rivalries are formed through heroic and memorable on field acts, and complimented (and encouraged by the AFL) through large crowds and attractive football. At the moment we aren't worthy of blockbuster status - that's what several years in the wilderness does to you, but this hopefully could/should change in time.
We have an excellent chance to establish a 'blockbuster' with an Easter Monday clash vs. Melbourne. If we can get an abbreviated crowd - 55,000+ and importantly fire on the big stage, perhaps we can stamp ourselves on the public holiday market.
- Promote each home game as a major event. Gimmicks Fireworks Competitions - whatever! Get in the media's face with each home game - put it on the back page. We have a high profile president that can achieve this! Essendon do this very well via Sheedy.
Couldn't agree more!
- Be stubborn, arrogant to the media and the AFL and defend the Hawthorn brand.
Being stubborn and arrogant to the AFL and media will do nothing more then inflate the problem. If anything, the media has been more then reasonable to us over the past few months - they aren't driving any agenda's and the general perception amongst the press towards Hawthorn is a team on the rise.
Taking a Carlton '******** the rest' approach does more harm then good.
Sure the two games a year that might still draw only 20,000 despite a better marketing strategy - send them to Tasmania - as marque games.
It’s not that easy. I get the impression the club wants to eliminate all Telstra Dome home games from the clubs fixture. To achieve this, the club probably has to play 2-3 games in a different market. The other point to consider is the loss of 2 AFL games from the Tasmanian football perspective; they obviously don’t want to lose any of the games they currently are contracted for. Whether or not Hawthorn played 2 or 3 games (which would probably be required to eliminate the TD home games) AFL Tasmania would have scouted another club to take up the 3rd and/or 4th game – Richmond, the Bulldogs and Melbourne were all touted as potential suitors when the Saints left. Don’t under estimate the value – from a marketing perspective, of being the only club in a state vs. having direct market competitors.
The pro-tas team seem to think the sky is falling on Hawthorn - but it is not. We have a base of 30,000 members despite no success on-field (at one stage we were a rabble) - our attendances are the greatest - but they are very far from the worst, we have great facilities, a high profile president, and a playing group with a LOT of potential.
I’ve stated before that the HFC is probably in the top 4-5 Victorian clubs financially, but if we ever want to compete with the elite clubs in the competition we need to expand our territory into different markets – its pretty difficult to compete directly in a 10 team market when a rival has millions to draw support from. If that means we play the odd game in Launceston and relocate the club 20km down the road to a top class facility in a population hub…I’m all for it.
Ideally when the contract comes up for renegotiation, Hawthorn will be in a much stronger position both on and off the field and Tasmania will be a less attractive option for clubs looking to play the odd game in a second market. By then the Hawks could be in a stronger position to negotiate more MCG guaranteed home games and decrease its commitment to Tasmania to 2-3 games while retaining its position as a ‘one state club’ in the Tasmanian market.