I disagree, I dont think its a good point, I think its completely illogical.
If the market is so saturated then how does one explain the growth in membership no's by a no of clubs? If the market was saturated then one would think this would be a very difficult thing to do.
Market saturation covers more then purely just membership. Sponsorship, supporter growth etc. is reasonably bare in Victoria relative to most of the non Victorian sides. Granted support for Victorian clubs is growing (hence membership growth) albeit at a much smaller rate then the non Victorian clubs. On top of this, Victorian clubs for one reason or another are starting to place a higher emphasis on membership - compare the emphasis the Saints and Dogs place on membership today vs. 2002/3 – of course a lot of this growth can be accredited to on field performance.
Irrespective of the growth of the Victorian based sides, how many of these sides can compete directly/has the potential to compete directly – membership wise, with the 50,000 member clubs in the long term. If you listen to the clubs stance on the deal, its largely centred around developing a membership that can match these giants in the long term.
It also failures to recognise that the Tas population has long supported Vic clubs. So not only are their stuff all people in Lton but they are hardly going to give up their long term support for Vic clubs for Hawthorn.
True, but you'd imagine the club isn't just targeting Hawthorn supporters in the region but AFL fans in general looking to watch some league football at the ground. On top of this, it’s probably a venture targeted more towards the younger generation of fans coming through the system – who in 40% of cases don’t support the side their parents do.
In alot of cases, younger Tasmanians end up coming to Victoria anyway to find jobs!
It was only a few years ago that we had as many members as Collingwood. The club has stagnated whilst others have progressed significantly.
In comparative terms the club has gone backwards.
You know as well as I do that that’s just a piece of classic spin – rotations and all
Since 2001/2 - when the Hawks had a very similar number of members to the Pies, Collingwood has been successful in making 2 grand finals and a botched finals series – despite finishing 5th going into the finals series. In that time, Hawthorn has been nothing short of a laughing stock – almost 6 years out of the finals, infighting, a sacked coach, 3/4’s of the list turned over, negative media etc. etc.
All this is hardly arousing for potential members looking to sign up as members. As we all know, membership and on field performance is very heavily correlated…as a rule of thumb when the on field prospects of a football club increase so do the demand for reserve seating and various other member categories. The fact that our membership is 20% up on last years figures is testimony to that.
Even through all the fighting and humiliation we were still able to retain a strong 28-29,000 member base (despite in one year only having 5 home games) To say we have gone backwards comparative to our position on the ladder is pretty unreasonable IMO.
Where is the logic in that? Why play 2 games? If its such a brilliant deal then why not 4? Or 0? Half pregnant.
Its not half pregnant at all.
If By 2011 our on field prospects improve - as most of the football community expect - and our crowds improve, we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate our home game allocation at the MCG with the MCC and AFL. Instead of 7 home games, if the club was guaranteed 8 or even 9 home games at the ground I’m sure the club would jump. By 2011 the AFL’s expansion into the Northern markets should be well and truly under way and with the Tasmanian population and economy decreasing relative to the rest of the country, Tasmania could find itself in a difficult position. Having already invested substantially into Hawthorn – who by that stage would have a 10 year commitment in the state behind them – the Hawks could be in a really strong position to cut the commitment back to 3 games on the condition that it remains the only league club in the State.
Governments love stability…rather then trying their luck and finding another 1 or prossibly 2 clubs to replace Hawthorn – which in most likelihood will be very hard to find, I’m certain any government will be more inclined to keep the partnership going – albeit perhaps not as a high profile sponsor of the football club, even at the expense of 1 home game. Especially if the Hawks make major inroads into popularity amongst voters.
Its all hypothetical but make no mistake, Hawthorn hold all the cards at the negotiation table with this deal.
Why would you think publicity in Tas was worth much?
With 40% of the young Tasmanian football community vunerable to changing teams, any publicity - especially if its exclusive - is golden.