Having just returned from a nice couple of days in Launceston, and reading over AFL Tasmania's
"Building A Stronger Future With AFL Football", it's hard not to wonder how Carlton become a player in the negotiations with the Tasmanian Government and AFL Tasmania.
Quote:
''Hawthorn is a club that has been good for Tasmania, and we've been good to Hawthorn. But is Hawthorn our club? Definitely not,'' Wade told Fairfax Media.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/tasm ... 2p06d.htmladds to my understanding that the status quo remains Hawthorn are unwilling to play 8 home games in Tasmania, yet don't want North Melbourne to take their market. North don't want to play 8 games in Tasmania, but may take 6, but the Tasmanian government don't want to pay "Hawthorn" money to North Melbourne, and would rather St Kilda (who would rather New Zealand as its emerging market of choice) or Richmond, who appear to have no interest in the move at all.
The Tasmanian Government sponsorship of Hawthorn is virtually unparalleled in the league. For the rights to naming rights on Hawthorn's jumper, the Tasmanian Government pay the Hawks an amount of approximately $3.6 million a season. By comparison, we receive approximately $2 million per season from Mars and Hyundai combined. That $3.6 mill is on top of a stadium deal that makes Geelong's look like St Kilda's Etihad deal. Ticket sales, signage, corporate hospitality, all commercial revenue from game day goes straight into the Hawthorn bank balance.
Whilst any sporting club administrator in Melbourne will tell you how quiet corporate Australia have been on the sponsorship front recently, "never been tougher", etc. The tricky part for Carlton to get involved would be bridging the gap between the expiry of deals with Hyundai (2014) and Mars (2015) with Hawthorn's deal expiring in 2016.
It's hard to see the Tasmanian Government wanting to offer a similar deal to us, but it is important to consider that for their $3.6 million investment, it brings in approximately $15 million in revenue in tourism to the Apple Isle each year. If Hawthorn aren't going to play 8 games a year there, we're certainly an upgrade on North Melbourne or St Kilda. Sufficient an upgrade to improve our sponsorship deals in a bad financial market, our stadium deal when the cynicism over Etihad gate takings and a never-never plan to eventually get to the MCG only grows, and grow our stagnate membership base. If Hawthorn estimate that they have 10,000 Tasmanian based members, could we attain a similar figure over the next decade? Perhaps with a goal to return to the MCG full time in a decade?
Another benefit would be the progression of the club at the expense of a rival. One thing to expect a large fine and potential exodus of sponsors from Windy Hill in the wake of the drugs scandal, could we possibly be bold enough to leapfrog two competitors in the Victorian market?
If such a plan were to take effect, I'd imagine the 3 games a year retained in Melbourne would be against the traditional rivals, Essendon*, Collingwood and Richmond. A Tassie based grudge match against the Hawks would be huge. Games against GWS, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide in Tasmania would now see decent returns to the coffers rather than the uncertainty of an Etihad deal.
I'd argue that whilst this could affect our existing membership levels within Victoria, the gain would outweigh the loss. Whilst we have one of the highest level of revenue received per membership, this doesn't necessarily equate to the figures achieved with merchandise receipts and game day revenue. How many of our members buy a membership they don't need/use? (MCC, regular corporate hospitality attendee, overseas/interstate, simply don't attend match day). I'd imagine that membership data would show the overwhelming majority of memberships are used to gain access to the above 3 games, and then it drops away.
From an aesthetic perspective, I think Hawthorn managed to fast track a defensive side to their young list by playing more on a boggy track in Tasmania than they would have playing more frequently at Etihad. Something that appears relevant to our list and what the new coaching panel attempt to install in our list at the moment. I'm sure half a dozen less games at Etihad a year does wonders on our injury list, and helps establish a home ground advantage that Hawthorn have taken full advantage of over the past decade.
With such uncertainty over our home ground, our list of sponsors and our membership figures, I think this is a no brainer that can fix these issues, but an unfortunate one at that. A decade of no forward planning puts us in this position.
Cue agenda related responses.
Login
Register
FAQ
Let's go Mining!
have another...