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

(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
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.
sorry i didnt realise you were also the spelling police. I should never have accidently put an 'i' where i should have put an 'a'.

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.
i never ever said 'you are wrong'. As i said earlier dont ever tell me , what I said.I never ever inferred that we needed to do it.
I never asked YOU to explain anything to anyone. I said to the poster 'maybe MHDKA could explain it better. Obviously you cant , otherwise you would have.
In my opinion our finances are not very good , they are OK but not 'very good'. But i dont have any 'graduates or post-graduates in economics and finance' (like you have,as you pointed out a couple of times)so what would i know.
Im just a bricklayer, but you would not have any idea on how successful i am as a bricklayer.(am i your average piss-wreck bricklayer or am i a millionaire bricklayer?) do i know anything about finances or do i just piss them up against the wall?You seem to be a good judge of character.(in your own little world)So tell me? Piss-wreck or millionaire ? I have not said which one I am.I wouldnt give you the satisfaction of being able to quote me.

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.
You have never said anything about FTA until now. You just keep moving the goal posts to suit yourself.

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.
Its very easy to identify risks after the they've happened.

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).
I said ,way back at the start 'i wish we didnt do this deal,but its done so lets get over it and move on'.
And taking a leaf out of your pedantic book, i think you should have said 'them' not then.But i do realise that this was just a typing error, not you being no-good at spelling.
 

wahawk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
5,405
Likes
6,700
Location
sorrento wa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.

This coming from a poster who contiually adds personal insults to their posts.

That is more of a sign that YOU ,MHDKA,cannot engage in a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with YOU.

As for not reading your posts , i asked you 14 pages ago to give us your alternatives.You just keep going on with your usual rhetoric.
No real substance ,just constant repetative posts.
I dont mind reading your posts, especially on other threads.
 

MHDKA

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
476
Likes
0
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
Quote:
MHDKA: 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.
wahark:sorry i didnt realise you were also the spelling police. I should never have accidently put an 'i' where i should have put an 'a'.

MHDKA: Get a life - obviously you have lost your humour - you must admit it is funny telling someone they have no credibility and you misspell credibility.:)



MHDKA: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.
wahawk: i never ever said 'you are wrong'. As i said earlier dont ever tell me , what I said.I never ever inferred that we needed to do it
wahawk:I never asked YOU to explain anything to anyone. I said to the poster 'maybe MHDKA could explain it better. Obviously you cant , otherwise you would have.

MHDKA: I think your getting bogged down with semantics - looks to me you asked or at least suggested I explain it - which I did.

wahawk: In my opinion our finances are not very good , they are OK but not 'very good'. But i dont have any 'graduates or post-graduates in economics and finance' (like you have,as you pointed out a couple of times)so what would i know.

MHDKA: this point about qualifications came up in a thread as someone who said they have a commerce degree told me I didn't know what I was talking about - I explained I also have those qualifications in economics & then explained (as I always prepared to do) what the (economic) analysis was behind the issue - I have never brought it up again, but you repeatably do - seems you obviously feel insecure about it or you are grasping for things to use to insult me.

wahawk: Im just a bricklayer, but you would not have any idea on how successful i am as a bricklayer.(am i your average piss-wreck bricklayer or am i a millionaire bricklayer?) do i know anything about finances or do i just piss them up against the wall?You seem to be a good judge of character.(in your own little world)So tell me? Piss-wreck or millionaire ? I have not said which one I am.I wouldnt give you the satisfaction of being able to quote me.

MHDKA: What has this got to do with anything - are you accusing me of being an elitist. This is an anonymous forum - I couldn't care less whether you clean toilets (which I have done before) or are a member of parliament or if you are unemployed - all I am interested in is discussing something I love - HFC - not what you do for a crust.

PS: and seeing you are a bricklayer and having done an extension I am sure you are a millionaire but so what.

Quote:
MHDKA: 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.
wahawk:You have never said anything about FTA until now. You just keep moving the goal posts to suit yourself.


Quote:
MHDKA: 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.

wahawk:Its very easy to identify risks after the they've happened.

MHDKA:No, I have consistently identified and questioned some of the negative aspects associated with this deal - In fact my first post on this forum in august 2006 related to the tasmanian deal - here is one from 2nd September 2006 as an example:

There are a number of concerns about todays announcement:

1. the tassy name- the club needs to make sure members & public are not confused.

2. The club has committed to provide provide 11 games at the MCG next year there is going to be considerable dissatisfaction amongst members if it can't. We are locking ourselves in at York Park for 5 years on the one hand but we cannot lock in games at the MCG for 5 years and also cannot lock in the cost for membership rights for the 4 away games at the MCG each year for 5 years.

This has always been one of the risks with this deal.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=266172&page=3

And if you go back over my posts you will find I have actually got a pretty good record for forecasting some of the negative issues associated with this deal that are starting to come to fruition.



MHDKA: 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).
wahawk:I said ,way back at the start 'i wish we didnt do this deal,but its done so lets get over it and move on'.
And taking a leaf out of your pedantic book, i think you should have said 'them' not then.But i do realise that this was just a typing error, not you being no-good at spelling.

MHDKA: Why do you keep asking for alternatives if you didn't wish the deal was done - what are you alternatives. You seem to think there is some magic bullet that we need to do if we don't do the deal. Getting down to the absolute basics we need to field the best team we can and get more money in the door than goes out to do that.

And how we do that I have already described - not in a business plan but in enough detail for posters to get the idea.
 

MHDKA

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
476
Likes
0
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
This coming from a poster who contiually adds personal insults to their posts.

That is more of a sign that YOU ,MHDKA,cannot engage in a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with YOU.

As for not reading your posts , i asked you 14 pages ago to give us your alternatives.You just keep going on with your usual rhetoric.
No real substance ,just constant repetative posts.
I dont mind reading your posts, especially on other threads.
I think I have gone out of my way to explain my analysis - against this you have simply stated that perhaps not doing the deal and getting other sponsors or getting members is not an alternative.

Then in the post above you say:

I said ,way back at the start 'i wish we didnt do this deal,but its done so lets get over it and move on'.
Perhaps you should work out where you stand on this issue before you start questioning me.
 
Top Bottom