While the post requests suggestions for alternatives - ultimately are the supporters of this deal are claiming that playing 11 home games in Melbourne is not an alternative - and would lead to the death of the club?
Has the board publicly claimed that Hawthorn cannot trade as a 100% Victorian based club?
I simply don't see how this deal benefits the club as a Victorian based club long term and would like to see the club's strategy harnessed more specifically towards membership and supporter growth in Victoria. The more games we play away from Victoria - the quicker we lose relevance as a Victorian based club in the AFL.
Hawker11, I don't think there is any doubt the club can operate profitably out of Victoria (at least in the medium to long-term) - it has done so for the past ten years. This begs the question - why the tasmanian deal if this is the case?
I think the answer is another question - is it good enough to be profitable to the extent we are or do we need to consider, as one option, an interstate market?
Clearly the board believes our current level of profitability is inadequate and I think they are correct in this assessment. The stronger clubs in the competition are getting stronger each year and we will not keep up, and least keep the gap to an acceptable level if we don't increase our revenue base. The issue I feel is not so much having a huge profit, but having the revenue to be able to operate at a level which allows the club to be competitive both on and off the field.
I think the issue the board is looking at is where the club will be in 10 or 15 years time. I think they fear the club becoming a marginalised if we continue with our current level of profitability.
The likes of Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon and Adelaide and the AFL powerhouses financially.
Our club is in the middle band with clubs like Geelong, Richmond, Fremantle, St Kilda etc. I think the boards strategy is for our club to be above this middle band of clubs. We don't need to be as profitable as the big four, but we do need to ensure, they don't get too far away.
The board has developed a strategy it feels will keep the club competitive with tjhe big four. Unfortunately nobody knows if it will be successful.
However I personally have faith that the board would have examined all options and considered all cash and non-cash costs in making its decisions. Further, I don't think the board is looking at the Tasmanian deal as a quick grab for cash - I think they genuinely look to Tasmania as part of the long-term plan to keep our club competitive.
As I have stated in a previous post, having a dual market seperated geographically is not bad in theory, the key is in the execution. I think the board feels four games in tassie provides sufficient games for tassie members to jump on board, while melbourne based members have enough games to keep them happy.
Only time will tell if the board's strategy is justified. However from my perspective, I believe we will look back in five years and see this deal as being successful - however I may be wrong - we will have to wait and see.