So, anti-Tassie-deal posters, what are your alternatives?

Fastback

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Posts
4,045
Likes
427
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Originally Posted by MHDKA

Nice try gary - of course there are alternatives as the club was not about to go down the tube if we didn't do the deal. Other clubs have chosen to not to go down this route, especially with the risk it entails.

Forget other clubs, the ones you mentioned are in real strife and live off CBF, AFL and Federal funding - we don't and as a result our identity is kept intact. Look at the Kangas and Bulldogs - it's not North or Footscray anymore.

MHDKA: Fact is other clubs have chosen not to do this - Why do you think that is?

Because they are receiving enough funds from the areas i previously mentioned - what happens when the AFL says, ok - lets see your sustainable business model?


You base all your ramblings on speculative risk - nothing proven. Why not wait until all facts and figures have been disclosed, until then, all arguments re membership and identity carry little to no weight.

MHDKA: The deal only happened at the end of last year - all we know is there is dissatisfaction among many victorian members - issues associated with the deal are only now coming out - an example is how the club answered the phone before Xmas - members voiced their concerns and now the club answers the phone in a different way.

Another example is we found out today it looks like all 4 tasmanian games will now not be on live FTA television.

Frankly the long term effects of a deal like this won't be known for a number of years.

Exactly, so why all the doom and gloom now with no basis?


Also I ask this question to you:

What do you think the club would have done if this deal didn't happen?

Oh my god , are you serious? This is the question you can't answer. now you're looking for answers.

MHDKA : Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Yes, most of your replies to serious questions are rhetorical. this is why we keep coming back at you. Just want a viable alternative.


The way posters have carried on in this forum infers if we hadn't done this deal we were doomed - well that is rubbish. We have assets, improving prospects on the field and nearly 30,000 core members that have stuck with the club through crap years, we also have sponsors.

We had no need to take the risk by doing.

Yeah we did, only have to look at a handful of clubs who have been on handouts for the last 5 years. The market can change very quickly, besides our aim is not only to remain self sufficient but to compete financially with the stronger clubs and spend money in areas to improve onfield success, something we haven't been able to do in the past. We've been proactive in this area which I am most proud of.

But further, as we have it, it should not have been done on the terms we agreed to, the naming rights is a contentious issue, we were promised we would end up with additional away games at the MCG - never delivered, and we now find out that that all 4 games in tasmania are actually going to be live on fox.

This area I actually agree with, ideally we could have done things a little better but we weren't privvy to the negotiations. I'd say there was a fair bit of give and take but in my mind it was worth it.
What next?

We start beating top 8 sides consistently. Seems irrelevant but if/when we start winning (not guaranteed) the perceived areas at risk should be countered. This is no more a speculation than the ones you have suggested throughout your whole argument.

You say enough is enough but now all members have to live with the decision and the negative issues associated with it for the next five years.

Only the negative nellies have to live with it, the rest of us are just looking fwd to watching our team improve whilst the coffers receive a massive boost off the field - sits ok with me.

MHDKA: all victorian based HFC members have to live with it and as there are negative issues that will impact the club all members ultimately will live with the consequences of it.

Perceived consequences - none as yet. Not worth worrying about.


Already it is starting to be realised we will have less members than we otherwise would as a result of the decision. This costs us money and not only means we are less attractive to sponsors but will have less power when we negotiate with the AFL.

Again, pure speculation, no fact - same old lines. Let's see how it all pans out first before jumping up and down as if the ass has fallen out of the club.

MHDKA: Not speculation this will happen - nobody could logically say playing 4 home games in tasmania without FTA will help our sponsorship chances or being associated with 1 particular state will help a national brand.

We don't need any new sponsors for the next 5 years now - this is the whole point. In 5 years time no one knows what our footy arrangements will be in terms of fixturing and coverage, most likely we will be in a very strong negotiating position to attract a vast array of large companies - on field performance will be key.

Our average attendance at home games will also drop (also meaning less money) - so how is this going to be used to supposedly bargain for more games at the MCG?

Will it? again pessimistic viewpoint with zero fact. If we pack out carl & Coll games at TD then they will be moved to the G - plain and simple.

MHDKA: Not pessimistic just a fact, you work out the numbers - we are now playing 4 home games at a ground that takes max 22K - work it out!

The big games and MCG aren't in Tas, irrelevant. As i previously said, we need near lockouts at the Coll & Carl games at TD then you'll see them switched to the G.

We also now know that unless you have foxtel , or prepared to take the family down the pub (Hawthorn the family club:rolleyes:) , most members and supporters will not even be able to see 3 of the 4 home games that will now be played in tasmania.

Footy has been on foxtel for the last 5 years, not all hawk games were avail on FTA last season. Why is it such an issue now compared with last season?

MHDKA: Maybe because this year we end up with 14 live games on foxtel & only 8 game FTA.


And victorian members can only see a max 13 games of their team in its home state.

It's only a small consolation but Channel 7 will have replays. Ahhh..just like the old days.

I think you'll find more people subscribing to foxtel - and not just for the footy, and no, not at the expense of club memberships.

There is no doubt that this deal does causes identity issues - this is why the topic of even playing any games in tasmania was put under intense scrutiny by the Board in 2001 - as Don Scott recently said:

Nah, were still Hawthorn, our home is the MCG, still wear brown and gold, same coach, players, board, club song, sponsors, training base etc etc

oh, we play one extra game in Tas. For big $$.

MHDKA: As we all know last year was an aberration because of the commonwealth games - and last year we didn't have TASMANIA all over our jumpers and other merchandise and we weren't known as the Tassy Hawks.

We're still the Mighty Fighting Hawks mate.


http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/foo...E19767,00.html

Sadly most of the members of the Board in 2001 have now left but the concerns they expressed about playing even 2 games in tasmania remain and has now increased now that we are playing 4 home games there.

stopped reading the article after this quote: "Scott predicted that playing four home games in Tasmania could be the forerunner to the Hawks permanent relocation."

Surely you don't believe this?

MHDKA: Don't know why you quoted this I didn't never have suggested this as I know it isn't going to happen - I try to keep relevent points in my analysis.

You put the link up.

And BTW be careful before you start putting down someone like don scott - we wouldn't even be now the tassy hawks without him and if anyone is entitled to be $hitty about this decision it is him.

fair enough, i know damn well where scotty comes from but he is clearly wrong on this quote - and you know it.



The fact is HFC is a football club that exists for its members & unless the club knows the thoughts of its members (especially those from its core market) in relation to this issue it is in no place to help resolve them.


Thanks for the mock concern but No.

As a long-standing hawk supporter/member why should I accept this decision unquestionably - the club before Xmas was answering the phone Tassy Hawks - members complained - now they have changed.

It is the obligation of members who are unhappy with some aspects of this deal to let the club know - but don't think that is going to stop me enjoying seeing my club play or achieve success, I am looking forward to the season more than you could ever understand.
It's ok, I understand.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
This is where footy is at these days and I'm surprised someone like yourself can not see the benefits of such a move.
There is a very poor correlation betweeen spending on the football dept and success. Hence alot of football dept cash is wasted. As this money is most likely to be. Selling home games to spend money rather than invest it is the height of stupidity. I keep hearing Tas secures the long term financial future of the club. How is this possible when the cash is spent on salaries?

The Tas deal and HSBC is a synergised arrangement - very clever. We expand our brand to another state which benefits both club and current sponsors.
a) it hurts the brand
b) it hurts current sponsors - how can it possibly help?
c) it means less cash from HSBC, corp cash from home games in Melbourne etc.

To appoint another primary sponsor instead of Tas would have meant less value for money for HSBC - with this arrangement we don't. HSBC are very happy with the deal and have extended their suport for a further 3 years. Fact.
At less cash.

For the immediate term sounds fair, long term...risky.
In the long term its not risky its essential. Tas is a backwater in financial terms. Its a very poor strategic move in terms of demography and hence cash.

Anyone can say, cut spending here and just pick up another sponsor there...it's just doesn't work that way in a performance regulated and saturated market.
You havent bothered to read what I read

a) you can save cash by not spending the $1m. Easy
b) you could keep the extra cash from HSBC. Simple.
c) Melbourned isnt saturated. This is a nonsenical argument. If this was the case then how is it possible for so many clubs to have increased their membership (and revenue)?

Tas on the other hand is already an extension of the Vic market in terms of team loyalties. As explained numerous times it doesnt have the population to generate many members.

Hawk supporters will remain Hawk supporters.
They dont necessary stay as membes though.

Memberships are driven by onfield performance - this is the only proven fact
Do we have more or less members now than in 1988?

amongst all other theories in this thread - although it may look initially that the club has alienated a few members the long term benefits surely outweigh all this. Put simply, we have to take the long term view.
The only long term view is all games in Vic. Tas isnt even an option long term, its simply a grab for cash.
 

Pessimistic

TheBrownDog
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
66,370
Likes
26,078
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
For the immediate term sounds fair, long term...risky. You are in effect banking on the club to make top 8 immediately, then top 4 and remain there to achieve any significant gains here - but what if it doesn't? Where to then? Another club will have happily snapped up the Tas market leaving us with little other options outside your typical revenue raising footy activities - this is what this whole thread is about and should have been renamed "outside the norm, what are other large scale revenue activities that the club could employ which would keep all home games in melb?" This is what we would like to see on the table. Anyone can say, cut spending here and just pick up another sponsor there...it's just doesn't work that way in a performance regulated and saturated market.

Hawk supporters will remain Hawk supporters. Memberships are driven by onfield performance - this is the only proven fact amongst all other theories in this thread - although it may look initially that the club has alienated a few members the long term benefits surely outweigh all this. Put simply, we have to take the long term view.
In case you hadn't noticed, no other clubs are waiting to 'snap' up the tassie market. If they were, they would have moved in this year.

The argument is that continuing with 2 games per year would have delivered most of the benefits that pro sponsorship people are advocating.
The problem is the trend for the number of games could be percived to be going up and up.

Conversely, if after 5 years the club did revert to 2 games in tassie, they will feel snubbed down there, and we would have worse goodwill than if we had continued with 2 games annually
 

Fastback

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Posts
4,045
Likes
427
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
There is a very poor correlation betweeen spending on the football dept and success. Hence alot of football dept cash is wasted. As this money is most likely to be. Selling home games to spend money rather than invest it is the height of stupidity. I keep hearing Tas secures the long term financial future of the club. How is this possible when the cash is spent on salaries?

So the move to waverley was a waste of time and money?

Have a look at the WC rookies over the years and have a look where Buckenara is now based - definitely a need for more talent scouts.

Have a look at the impact of soft tissue injuries and the need to keep researching different training and rehab techniques.

Have a look at the need to develop a presence in areas such as Packenham and to further grow the brand beyond our current zones.

Have a look at the power of the www and the need to develop our terrible website - for both members, future members and sponsors.

Some clubs couldn't afford to rookie list players last season.

You don't think any of these have any impact on a clubs performance and brand development/increased sponsorship value over time?

It all costs money and the Tas deal will also give us plenty of investment opportunities also.


a) it hurts the brand
b) it hurts current sponsors - how can it possibly help?
c) it means less cash from HSBC, corp cash from home games in Melbourne etc.

There are other means in enhancing sponsors exposure than just footy games - you need to think way outside the square. The club has.


At less cash.



In the long term its not risky its essential. Tas is a backwater in financial terms. Its a very poor strategic move in terms of demography and hence cash.

You make out that we have fully relocated, it's 4 games. Note, we've already played 12 there and considering that we've been bottom 4 for most of that time, membership has remained relatively steady. The way I look at it, the Vic members haven't stopped buying memberships yet we've been able to expand the brand and pick up an excelelnt financial deal that ouweighs the Tas economy factor - $15 mill is a fair return on investment, the Tas economy is irrelevant to us, and it's only for 5 years.




You havent bothered to read what I read

Yeah I have, it's outdated and unsustainable if we want to become a powerhouse club.


a) you can save cash by not spending the $1m. Easy
b) you could keep the extra cash from HSBC. Simple.
c) Melbourned isnt saturated. This is a nonsenical argument. If this was the case then how is it possible for so many clubs to have increased their membership (and revenue)?

Saturated in the sense of significantly boosting finances, not treading water. The business plan is to become a footy giant in readiness for the unknown in 10 years time.

Tas on the other hand is already an extension of the Vic market in terms of team loyalties. As explained numerous times it doesnt have the population to generate many members.

members shmembers - the resason for the deal is the "cash grab", as you put it. We wouldn't have signed the contract if it simply meant a chance to boost our tasie membership base. That would be plain dumb and I think that's what a lot of people believe - don't know why.

They dont necessary stay as membes though.



Do we have more or less members now than in 1988?
The 1996 merger threat is the only reason we jumped from 12 to 26k members. It was a major wakeup call and Hawk supporters dug deep. We don't ever want to see this happening again.


The only long term view is all games in Vic. Tas isnt even an option long term, its simply a grab for cash.
Agree and don't you think we'll be in a stronger financial position long term with better bargaining power with sponsors, scheduling & more attractive packages to members...etc etc

All part of the big picture.
 

Fastback

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Posts
4,045
Likes
427
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
In case you hadn't noticed, no other clubs are waiting to 'snap' up the tassie market. If they were, they would have moved in this year.

The argument is that continuing with 2 games per year would have delivered most of the benefits that pro sponsorship people are advocating.
The problem is the trend for the number of games could be percived to be going up and up.

Conversely, if after 5 years the club did revert to 2 games in tassie, they will feel snubbed down there, and we would have worse goodwill than if we had continued with 2 games annually
We were proactive and it required a President with foresight to broker the deal with the Tas premier, plus we had already developed a presence. I think you'll find a few clubs would have put their hands up if the Tas gov't offered them $15mill to play 20 games over 5 years.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
So the move to waverley was a waste of time and money?
Property goes on the balance sheet as an asset, salaries dont.

Have a look at the WC rookies over the years and have a look where Buckenara is now based - definitely a need for more talent scouts.
We are paying him $1m?

Have a look at the impact of soft tissue injuries and the need to keep researching different training and rehab techniques.
You can learn from the research of others. Spending a heap of cash isnt necessary.

There are other means in enhancing sponsors exposure than just footy games - you need to think way outside the square. The club has.
The club hasnt thought outside the box. Its simply take the easiest possible option, one that a no of clubs have previously taken.

At less cash.

You make out that we have fully relocated, it's 4 games.
No I havent. The club has only partially relocated.

Note, we've already played 12 there and considering that we've been bottom 4 for most of that time, membership has remained relatively steady.
We are back to the pack, we led it not long ago.

The way I look at it, the Vic members haven't stopped buying memberships yet we've been able to expand the brand
Whats with all the pseudo marketing guff? We havent expanded the brand, we have damaged it. Its like Jaguar expanding the brand by going downmarket with the X series.

and pick up an excelelnt financial deal that ouweighs the Tas economy factor - $15 mill is a fair return on investment,
GROSS.

Yeah I have, it's outdated and unsustainable if we want to become a powerhouse club.
Nonsense and I have repeatedly explained why.

Saturated in the sense of significantly boosting finances, not treading water. The business plan is to become a footy giant in readiness for the unknown in 10 years time.
Clearly incorrect. Membership = revenue, corp sponsorship = revenue. Vic clubs have been steadily increasing both.


We wouldn't have signed the contract if it simply meant a chance to boost our tasie membership base. That would be plain dumb and I think that's what a lot of people believe - don't know why.
Agree there.

Agree and don't you think we'll be in a stronger financial position long term with better bargaining power with sponsors, scheduling & more attractive packages to members...etc etc
See we arent that far apart after all. I simply want Tas to be used to generate and more importantly KEEP cash to invest in assets. I can live without football dept spending for 5 years if it means moving back all games to Vic.

IF the club can managed to have net assets of $20m in 5 years time then they should have an investment base that will allow the club to diversify income to an extent that regardless of ladder position things will be ok. Not only that but Tas cash will no longer be necessary (or seen to be necessary)
 

Fastback

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Posts
4,045
Likes
427
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Property goes on the balance sheet as an asset, salaries dont.

was talking about the whole venture and the need for better training facilities, equipment, innovation etc etc - all of these are used to improve performance.



We are paying him $1m?

again, using the example to highlight the need to expand in certain areas. bucky has a plumb job, but would be on something around the $100k mark (correct me if i'm wrong here), times that by 3 more scouts/recruitment staff and theres 30% of your proposed savings.



You can learn from the research of others. Spending a heap of cash isnt necessary.

depends where it's spent, i gave some examples, there's plenty more.



The club hasnt thought outside the box. Its simply take the easiest possible option, one that a no of clubs have previously taken.

At less cash.

thats they key my friend...the cash - too good to refuse.


No I havent. The club has only partially relocated.



We are back to the pack, we led it not long ago.



Whats with all the pseudo marketing guff? We havent expanded the brand, we have damaged it. Its like Jaguar expanding the brand by going downmarket with the X series.

nah it's like nando's opening another store in the next suburb. smart.



GROSS.

and indexed to cpi - will be more.


Nonsense and I have repeatedly explained why.



Clearly incorrect. Membership = revenue, corp sponsorship = revenue. Vic clubs have been steadily increasing both.

dont tell the kangas or blues that.


Agree there.



See we arent that far apart after all. I simply want Tas to be used to generate and more importantly KEEP cash to invest in assets. I can live without football dept spending for 5 years if it means moving back all games to Vic.

so you want all games back in vic but happy to use tas for cash? or is this after 5 years, if so, this is exactly what i want and how i see it.

A massive cash injection during a period where the team is improving - for mine, the timing couldn't have been beter. In 5 years time we will have built a platform to succeed in virtually every aspect.


IF the club can managed to have net assets of $20m in 5 years time then they should have an investment base that will allow the club to diversify income to an extent that regardless of ladder position things will be ok. Not only that but Tas cash will no longer be necessary (or seen to be necessary)

Fully agree.
They will continue to invest in assets but also the team (another asset) to develop onfield success. You need to keep exploring methods and ways to improve, the richer clubs are already doing this.




 

hawker11

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Posts
1,753
Likes
548
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
We were proactive and it required a President with foresight to broker the deal with the Tas premier, plus we had already developed a presence. I think you'll find a few clubs would have put their hands up if the Tas gov't offered them $15mill to play 20 games over 5 years.
Do you really think so? StKilda couldn't wait to get out of there. Other club presidents have scoffed at it, with David Smorgan (running a club that needs the money) describing it as 'selling your soul'.
 

Fastback

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Posts
4,045
Likes
427
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Do you really think so? StKilda couldn't wait to get out of there. Other club presidents have scoffed at it, with David Smorgan (running a club that needs the money) describing it as 'selling your soul'.
St.k left because it cost them a top 4 finish last year.

Smorgon sold out years ago - that bloke just tells people what they want to hear as he knows his club will be propped up by Johnny Howard and the AFL, also interesting to note they play at boring Manuka & Darwin this year - great call.

Kangas would have hopped on board.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

wahawk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
5,405
Likes
6,700
Location
sorrento wa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Do you really think so? StKilda couldn't wait to get out of there. Other club presidents have scoffed at it, with David Smorgan (running a club that needs the money) describing it as 'selling your soul'.

and where is smorgan now ?

he and other presidents are jealous of HFC recieving so much money from a sponsor. Thats why they scoff.
 

hawker11

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Posts
1,753
Likes
548
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Once again - comparisons to the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs. We are not in the same league as these two clubs. Though in terms in coverage and games in Victoria this year we have put ourselves there. Carlton are broke as broke and wouldnt choose the Tassie sponsorship if it was offered to them.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Posts
544
Likes
81
Location
East Cheam
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Melb Storm
I'm not going to leave yet LH .
I didn't think you would leave.

While you and the other two (hawker11 & medusala) remain members of Don Scott's team, you obviously have a brief to keep attacking the Hawks and the decisions they make.

But why you keep repeating the same posts over and over and over, ad nauseum, is beyond me :)


LH86
 

Pessimistic

TheBrownDog
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
66,370
Likes
26,078
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
By all means state the tassie games and sponsorship are good things. There is merit.

But dont try to pretend the mcg away games 'promise; and the 'no live FTA' fiasocos are anything but fiascos.

You cannot argue the current situation is better than having more MCG games and live FTA for tassie games. its not logical.

Get foxtel ? for 12 hours viewing ? get real.
 

MHDKA

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
476
Likes
0
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
I didn't think you would leave.

While you and the other two (hawker11 & medusala) remain members of Don Scott's team, you obviously have a brief to keep attacking the Hawks and the decisions they make.

But why you keep repeating the same posts over and over and over, ad nauseum, is beyond me :)


LH86
Oh grow up - perhaps the reason it is beyond you is that there is some rational analysis behind the posts!
 

bzparkes

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 2, 2006
Posts
9,837
Likes
5,324
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
Actually Hawthorn stays at my work and they're a very decent bunch of guys. In all seriousness (and I mean no disrespect to St Kilda fans) they're way better than the other club who used to share Aurora with them. I must admit though, they come in for dinner, then room service is flat out for the rest of the night. I wouldn't be that flash on the food myself though if I was them, pretty generic stuff. No wonder they order pizzas flat out, as well as steaks, typical stuff as usual. However having said that, they've definitely gotten better over the past few years and for the past 2 years, it's been a pleasure having them stay with us. Disregarding the fact that the night before last was fairly curd, the rest wa mostly enjoyable. Luck to them all :)
 

wahawk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
5,405
Likes
6,700
Location
sorrento wa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
By all means state the tassie games and sponsorship are good things. There is merit.

But dont try to pretend the mcg away games 'promise; and the 'no live FTA' fiasocos are anything but fiascos.

You cannot argue the current situation is better than having more MCG games and live FTA for tassie games. its not logical.

Get foxtel ? for 12 hours viewing ? get real.

Pess, dont pretend that the 'no live FTA' is HFC boards fault. It isn't.

Channels 7,10 and Fox decide who televises what , not the HFC and not the AFL.

You know that, and dont take the rest of us as being so stupid not to know it either.
 

wahawk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
5,405
Likes
6,700
Location
sorrento wa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Oh grow up - perhaps the reason it is beyond you is that there is some rational analysis behind the posts!


rational analysis ?

what 'find other sponsors'

you call that rational analysis.

come on, give us some credit. You aren't talking to your pissy mates down the pub now.
 

MHDKA

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
476
Likes
0
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
rational analysis ?

what 'find other sponsors'

you call that rational analysis.

come on, give us some credit. You aren't talking to your pissy mates down the pub now.
For someone who just posted this on another thread:

MHDKA might be a better poster to explain this to you , but our finances were not in excellent shape.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6704154#post6704154

One of the things I have maintained is this deal actually didn't need to be done from a financialviewpoint - you have told me I am wrong & then on that thread you admit you have no idea and ask me to explain the accounts to another poster:rolleyes:

you really are really starting to have no credibility.
 

wahawk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
5,405
Likes
6,700
Location
sorrento wa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
For someone who just posted this on another thread:



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6704154#post6704154

One of the things I have maintained is this deal actually didn't need to be done from a financialviewpoint - you have told me I am wrong & then on that thread you admit you have no idea and ask me to explain the accounts to another poster:rolleyes:

you really are really starting to have no credibility.

I have never ever said 'you are wrong' i asked you to give us an alternative , which you could only say 'find another sponsor'.

DO NOT EVER TELL ME WHAT I SAID.

You are the poster losing credability.

As for the other thread WHERE DID I ADMIT THAT I HAVE NO IDEA.

All i said was that you might be better at explaining our finances than what i would.( i might have been/was wrong on this)

I only did this in fear of you correcting me, or maybe telling me what i said. Even if i didn't say it.

You go on and on about FA.You do nothing but whinge and whine about HFC. You may be a member but you definately aren't a SUPPORTER of the club
 

MHDKA

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
476
Likes
0
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
I have never ever said 'you are wrong' i asked you to give us an alternative , which you could only say 'find another sponsor'.

DO NOT EVER TELL ME WHAT I SAID.

You are the poster losing credability.

As for the other thread WHERE DID I ADMIT THAT I HAVE NO IDEA.

All i said was that you might be better at explaining our finances than what i would.( i might have been/was wrong on this)

I only did this in fear of you correcting me, or maybe telling me what i said. Even if i didn't say it.

You go on and on about FA.You do nothing but whinge and whine about HFC. You may be a member but you definately aren't a SUPPORTER of the club
You may think I am losing credibility wahawk & that is fine (at least I know how to spell it) - it is interesting though that the concerns I expressed about the tasmanian deal are now being realised.

One of the things I have consistently said is financially we didn't even have to do the deal (ie we didn't even have to look to for an alternative to what we were already doing) - for some reason posters have missed this simple point with this thread and refused to accept it. You have also done this saying I was wrong & inferring we needed to do it because our finances were in a poor shape. This was backed up in a post yesterday when you asked me to explain the accounts to another poster because I was better qualified than you. This would indicate to me you have no idea as you are quite incorrect about your opinion on our finances which are actually very good.

And here is your post - I didn't make it up:
Originally Posted by wahawk

MHDKA might be a better poster to explain this to you , but our finances were not in excellent shape.
Our net assets are fine but our cash flow was poor.

Someone better qualified will be able to explain it in better detail but we are not as excellent as you may think
As far as this criticism that I just say get another sponsor lets investigate that in more detail.

I have maintained that I saw risks in increasing our exposure to tasmania - reason being associated risks such as identity issues, disenfranchising victorian members & slowing membership growth through lack of exposure in our core market, and problems in getting games on FTA television. And what are we now seeing - many of these issues are starting to come to fruition.

One of my other criticisms regarding the deal is as it was done, the club should have managed risks around such issues as naming rights, obtaining MCG replacement games and FTA coverage much better, again these issues are starting to become problems for the club. We actually had negotiating power in this deal but a number of the outcomes seem too slanted to the tasmanian government and if necessary we should have taken less $$ to reduce some of the risks I have identified.

Now as far as alternatives go, if we didn't do the deal, well the obvious alternative is to continue doing business as we had been - last year was a strong one for the club and one that we could build on. It means continue improving our on-field performances and aggressively grow membership back over 30,000 & beyond. Also because we are one of the top 3 or so clubs in victoria that looks to have a bright future attract further sponsorship - research the top 100 or so companies, qualify suitable targets and put together creative sponsorship packages that provide real benefits to then (ie use a solution selling sales approach).

So basically not look for a silver bullet to guarantee our future but simply work hard off & on the field like most successful sporting clubs and to do it in a way that minimises the risk of failure ie be low risk.

Your other comments about me seem like those that someone makes when they cannot engage in a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with them.

BTW if you don't like my posts don't read them.
 

hawker11

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Posts
1,753
Likes
548
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Quoted for truth and accuracy

Also, if you've read one, you've read them all :D



LH86
Another useless and childish post from Londoner86 which adds nothing to the discussion - other than to personally criticise posts that disagree with his/her view.
 
Top Bottom