Tap at least you are consistent. Keep up the rage!

We were once innovative. Who had a recovery pool at their ground in the early 80"s. Who secured a one off $250k M&M jumper deal? Who bought North shares in an attempt to swallow the club?

Who attempted to build a genuine boutique stadium in inner Melbourne. Sure the Parkville residents were always going to object but where was the AFL support for our proposal? Our original 45,000 capacity proposal? Their support was intricately linked to Samuels pockets!

We are still wearing the cost.

Hawks were flowered in the mid to late 90s, and 10 years later won a flag.

We were flowered in 2002 and 13 years later not much has changed.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Hawthorns origins of success lie in a number of factors and core of that is PEOPLE.

- They have a very stable and astute board with the right mix of skills and business and football acumen
- They have made the right people decisions at administration and football department level, ie Graeme Wright, Stuart Fox, Chris Fagan, Al Clarkson, etc. (importantly they have worked out their own formula of the attributes they needed around capabilities and skills, ie a lot of their coaches have teaching backgrounds)
- their selections at the draft have been astute in the type of person they bring in (ie, no dick head policy) and developed a criteria of their footballing ability, ie must be able to hit a target, left footer strategy, list management strategy, etc.

This is a whole of club approach, and the core of it is a well defined people strategy.

Their football club is being run like a business, not a football club!!!

_________________
For some silly reason, you people want to assassinate him, and it's just rubbish. You people. All of you, ALL of you!

Hawthorn get it!
Carlton don't!
That's why Carlton raids hawthorn and hawthorn don't raid Carlton!
Simple!
Canton's regime looks to Hawthorn for answers

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

I'd call our recent trading with GWS innovative. And say what you like about the Hawks impressive 4 decades of success, they still went to the brink in between all that.

I am angry Rod Waddell, extremely angry...well spotted... as THIS CLUB...a club with over 160 years of history - more history than Manchester United, more history than Collingwood, more history and tradition than Hawthorn - is paying the price of the AFL's special relationships it has with certain clubs.

I say in response to the AFL....SHOW ME THE MONEY !!! 25 MILLION is the minimum payment the AFL owes Carlton for setting Hawthorn up in Tasmania. That is if they truly believe in "equalisation" or are some clubs deserving of a more special relationship than others? I don't buy into the argument that Carlton is in this predicament just because of poor internal management, and never will. One can dream that AFL management can get a conscience...but I don't like my chances.

Bullshit. No matter how many times you trot this out its still wrong. St Kilda were in Tasmania and left of their own volition and later admitted that it was a shortsighted mistake. Richmond thought about it, but never lodged a formal proposal. North went to Hobart as soon as their Queensland option was shut down by the league, and no one prevented it. Hawthorns Tasmania sponsorship is a product of 15 years of commitment from the Hawks, and as a sponsorship also reflects the fact that Hawthorn have won several flags in the process.

The AFL can fixture what it likes, but the Tasmanian Government didnt have to move its sponsorship and ground deal to any other club. Whilst many sponsors do take AFL advice before sponsoring a club, in the end its up to the sponsor. (see Audi this year - the AFL recommended they sponsor St Kilda who badly need a major sponsor, instead they went with Hawthorn).

The only people Carlton have to blame are themselves, and former presidents Elliot (for his lovely Grandstand which was built against AFL advice and put us into considerable debt) - and singlehandedly being the reason we lost Aaron Hamill to St Kilda, Ian Collins (for not taking a harder line against the AFL on the salary cap rules, something we would have almost certainly won in court on Restraint of trade grounds, and which he later admitted was a mistake) - I dont blame him much for the sell out to Docklands, we needed the money they paid up front. Then the clubs recruiting staff, inability to manage and look after players such as Fevola and in more recent times, our entire forward line, whilst failing at any kind of player development and bringing in hacks from other clubs.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/Navyblue95 -
my youtube channel tracking carlton news on television and paytv

Yes, I agree with every single word you said there...including bullshit.

Ha. had you going there for a while. You thought I believed your post for a nanosecond.

If I may be good enough to respond.

Your opinion is that Hawthorn getting 25 million in sponsorship from the Tasmanian govt (conservative figures) plus extra membership from Tasmanians, but this has had no effect on their success. Well, may I say in response ...absolute rubbish...or to put it mildly "I disagree ever so mildly".

Next you will be telling me that COLA had no effect on Sydney winning premierships. Yes, they recruited well, but it is the extra 10-20% that got them over the line. Yet winners are grinners as the premierships are in the bag.






Have a read of this article - with some key points highlighted. The key question remains - should the AFL have allowed just one team to play out of Launceston? If not St Kilda, then another team should have taken up a rolling fixture.


"St Kilda and the Hawks both began their Launceston experiments in 2001; each played home games – predominantly against the non-Victorian clubs – at Aurora Stadium. The Saints left Launceston in 2006, shortly after the notorious “Sirengate” game in which the AFL handed the premiership points to Fremantle days after the game.

St Kilda didn't enjoy Launceston, believing that it didn't perform well at the ground, and vacated. St Kilda was then making healthy profits with a lean business operation and had been close to the flag in 2004-05.


No sooner had the Saints left Launceston, than the Hawks pounced. They would turn the stadium into a gold mine, worth several hundred thousand dollars a game, receiving a hefty sponsorship from the Tasmanian government. Jeff Kennett renegotiated the deal, in defiance of the AFL's wish to make Tassie the second (seven-game) home of North Melbourne, in late 2010.

Today, the Hawks have four home games in Launceston, [b]in an arrangement that earns them close to $3.5 million. Moreover, the impact is far greater when considering the spin-offs, and the fact that they've had the market to themselves (until North landed two games in Hobart)."[/b]




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/h ... z3tcTHw6Vl

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/c ... lhhar.html

Carlton is not the only club effected by the Hawthorn AFL endorsed gravy train of $$$$$$$.

Geelong actually PUBLICLY states it is annoyed with the AFL assistance to Hawthorn. Carlton, meanwhile, is as quiet as a church mouse lapping up whatever the AFL dishes out to this club.

Key points in this article:

1) Cats' two home games at Etihad Stadium next season will cost them up to $1.5 million.

2)Pointing to the fact that Hawthorn's seven Melbourne home games have all been scheduled at the MCG. Money rolls in for Hawthorn...MCG $$$$


Maybe it is time that Hawthorn plays some of its "home games" at Docklands instead of the MCG ...that is if "equalisation" is truly an aim of the AFL.

3) the club (Geelong) will next year contribute $390,000 in equalisation taxes compared with the $500,000 the Hawks will be charged. Hawthorn registered a $3.3 million profit for 2015. So a club that makes multi-multi-multi million $$$ profits year by year only pay $100,000 more approx. than clubs making losses.

Equalisation in action. The AFL is PASSIONATE about equalisation. Passionate.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/c ... z3tcpM4PR6
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Not only did i not believe you, everything else you said is irrelevant if Tasmania chose to direct its sponsorship money to hawthorn. Cry more about it though.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/Navyblue95 -
my youtube channel tracking carlton news on television and paytv

Oh, ok. Good-o. The Tasmanian government runs the AFL and the AFL has no rights to decide where teams play and in what stadiums.

If the Victorian government decides they want Hawthorn to play 7 matches at the MCG - the AFL just agrees with what they want.
If the NSW government wants the Swans to play at Homebush - they will do it.
If the Tasmanian government just wants Hawthorn matches- the AFL is powerless to decide their fixture.
So it is all the government's fault.

Let's hope the Victorian government doesn't decide that Carlton is to play 18 Sunday night twilight matches in 2017.

If either of the Victorian or NSW governments decided to stump up some major sponsorship dollars much like the Tassie government, towards any club, stadium, anything football related, I think you'd find the AFL suddenly becoming flexible to any ideas.

If you were running the AFL show, you'd be a dill not to consider some basic game rescheduling if it meant you didn't need to continue with unsustainable equilization programs (with Hawthorn not being in the best financial state either pre Kennett coming in).

Whatever point people are arguing here, you're all actually got some merit.

CFC used to make around $200,000 at Princes Park on a crowd of 25,000.

Lean mean fighting machine was the ol' girl!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/n ... lk245.html


More good news from the AFL's perspective.
Their flagship clubs - Hawthorn and North Melbourne and Melbourne - are making "profits" all with the significant input of the AFL.

Latest cab off the rank in good news stories is North Melbourne.
Yet another puff piece article from The Age with no ANALYSIS...

As a journalist - this guy should be asking questions such as "how did North make their profit?"

Cherney's skewered belief and bias is plain. He thinks that why North is "profitable" is their 41,000 members...which by the way isn't that far behind Carlton now...and also their form in the finals.
No REAL analysis is provided in this article, it is straight from the AFL media dept one would presume. Is he a journalist or a public relations consultant?



If Daniel Cherney had time to do analysis of North's financial situation he would realise that the AFL is chipping in extra millions year after year to get North profitable....but that isn't even broached in this article. At least the Herald-Sun are more forthcoming with the reality of the situation.







As a journalist, why doesn't Cherney investigate the financial arrangements various clubs have at Docklands or would that require too much investigation.




Meanwhile, Carlton gets nothing from the AFL, and could one day be surpassed by North in membership numbers if the Hawthorn/Tasmania formula is followed in the same way. The AFL's selective "assistance" will then have truly worked the miracle they craved for.

It would be refreshing to see everyone who is a Carlton supporter getting membership (even if the cheapest variety) just to "stick it to the man".

The equivalent ''tap in 79'' north supporter would be saying we created Friday night footy, the biggest night of TV footy but everyone else plays on Friday night.
We have been the worst run club in the AFL for the last 15 years.

You see I don't buy into this "we have been the worst run club in the AFL for the last 15 years." because to do so is to absolve the AFL of any role in the backward position of the club. Whether it is 90% or 30% Carlton's management/presidency fault or 10% is irrelevant if at the same time Carlton has to fight a governing body that has little to no regard for its welfare in comparison to other clubs.



BTW, the AFL puff pieces (or PR propaganda) is coming fast and furious via The Age's Daniel Cherney. No sooner had he "written" a North piece, the following day the AFL release their media release via Cherney on the Western Bulldogs.




At least in this article (I presume he had to run it by the AFL first though) he mentions that the Bulldogs' "profits" are due to handouts via the AFL, but he does it in an indirect way and while quoting a Bulldogs representative who states,
"Put another way, 72% of our revenue growth is due to the club's efforts and not the AFL's."

Ok so if they are self-reliant then as this article infers I am guessing that some of their money can now be funnelled into other clubs..perhaps Carlton would be a nice starting point.


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/w ... llk1l.html

Except that the Bulldogs themselves tweeted the result. Your claim that they released it via Cherny is crap.

_________________
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it." - Finch

I claim that Cherny is a mouthpiece for a PR message that the Bulldogs are making their own profits, don't really need the AFL assistance, but it was nice anyway, and are doing really, really well.

Look, I regret what I said about Cherney above. He probably is a fantastic writer and I am sure he is just trying to do his job to the best of his ability, but I feel a reasonable amount of anger about the situation Carlton is in, and when I see pieces that gloss over why some clubs are doing well and some aren't it irritates me. I know it shouldn't, and I should join the chorus of people who say "Carlton's management is to blame for everything that has resulted in them finishing 18th"...

Sounds as though you're upset with the club for not asking the Commission for financial relief. If clubs want it - they ask for it, usually by way of formal submission by the CEO and CFO after approval from the board. In doing so (asking), Melbourne, Footscray and North Melbourne have given up some element of control. That Carlton don't want to do that is their prerogative. I would imagine Trigg put in a submission mid-year regarding the equalisation tax after significant membership and gaming shortfalls, however the Commission may not have acquiesced because Carlton still make a very healthy return from membership and sponsorship.

Despite the debt - I don't think Carlton are in too bad a shape all things considered.

I don't know about us being in not too bad a shape. Our balance sheet says we can't cover our short term commitments....