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
) , 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.
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
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.

