Kennett's Letter to Hawks Members

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,890]

Merge that finacial black hole of GWS with Hawthorn and send them to Tassie.

There, that solves it Jeff, now F#%K off.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,890]

Seriously, what is the AFL thinking letting the current serving president of one particular club serve on this panel?  A bit like Scomo letting an ex-oil and gas executive loose with public policy.  Conflict of interest much?

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,276]

9 hours ago, pitmaster said:

It's long past time that people in this state took Kennett seriously.

He squandered one of the great electoral victories and saw himself tossed out after two terms when he should have been guaranteed a decade.

So he is attached to a successful club. It's never been his doing. His opinions should count for next to nothing.

Spot on. 

Channel 7 seems to have him on retainer to comment on virtually anything (especially football & politics) on their news service. Can't stand hearing him or looking at his grotesque head. 

[pitmaster 3,581]

13 minutes ago, bingers said:

Spot on. 

Channel 7 seems to have him on retainer to comment on virtually anything (especially football & politics) on their news service. Can't stand hearing him or looking at his grotesque head. 

You're right. It is a shocking head. I think it was George Orwell who said that by 40 every man has the face he deserves. Kennett is the walking living proof.

 Incidentally he is a bully as well as ugly and arrogant with it.

He used to say that if you have never employed anyone you have never created anything. His attitude was if you worked for a living you were nobody. I wonder how he thinks about nurses, ambos and doctors post-Covid? Incidentally his creation was a crummy suburban advertising company that did supermarket leaflets and cheap late-night TV spots. Remember Dave and Mabel? Hardly a commercial behemoth.

 

[Pinball Wizard 326]

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They had Kennett on SEN before to discuss the letter he had written to Hawks members this afternoon.

https://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/704788/jeff-s-letter-to-members

The critical part of it was he has put the death of clubs back on the table;

This is the guy who tried to destroy the state and now he is trying to destroy the competition with his economic rationalist views.

I hope our club defends itself in no uncertain terms as it is clear we are one of 4 clubs (along with North, Saints and Dogs despite their current financial position) whose necks are on the chopping block.

You could say it's just a blowhard but the fact he is on the competitions coronavirus committee means his position holds more weight than most and it would be unlikely if he has gone out and said this publicly without similar discussions being had privately.

He has given clubs 3 years to get their finances in order. 3 years despite not knowing how the next season or two will play out. 3 years to try and overcome decades of financial inequities in the competition.

If the competition were serious and the clubs had a backbone they would demand a revenue sharing model as compensation for the AFL's crowd/revenue maximisation policies. Of course the AFL has crippled most clubs so that they are reliant on the AFL and dare not speak out against city hall lest they be punished with poor fixtures and stadium deals and any other decisions the AFL decides on a whim. Look at the way they punished Sydney for daring to steal Buddy Franklin from under the noses of the Giants! Could you imagine if Collingwood or Hawthorn were banned from trading for two trade periods?

Average supporters do not understand the long-term financial ramifications of competition policies over several decades dating back to the impact of the player zoning system and then over more recent decades revenue/crowd maximisation policies and ground rationalisation policies. Clubs need to start standing up for themselves otherwise at some point in the (near?) future the AFL and big clubs will decide it is no longer in their interest to keep clubs on life support and will let them fold despite being victims of AFL policies and the fact their weak financial position was manufactured to balloon the financial positions of the bigger clubs and the AFL executives.

If they continue to perform the way they did last night, the hawks might find their heads on the chopping block soon too.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,890]

1 hour ago, Pinball Wizard said:

If they continue to perform the way they did last night, the hawks might find their heads on the chopping block soon too.

It's just a pity is was a shortened game, such that the final margin flatters them somewhat.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

Channel 7are not travelling that well. Someone in the AFL is I hope working out what they might do if the company fell over. Sure a replacement of sorts would come along but at what price.

The present crisis has demonstrated that every sport including the mega comps live from year to year via TV rights money. Perhaps its time to look at the salary levels and start saving for the rainy day. Even a 10% cut that was then invested in a future fund would over twenty years secure these sports. It's not rocket science.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/13/seven-wests-afl-deal-cant-pull-it-out-of-financial-mess-insiders-say

Edited June 13, 2020 by Diamond_Jim

[old dee 23,872]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Channel 7are not travelling that well. Someone in the AFL is I hope working out what they might do if the company fell over. Sure a replacement of sorts would come along but at what price.

The present crisis has demonstrated that every sport including the mega comps live from year to year via TV rights money. Perhaps its time to look at the salary levels and start saving for the rainy day. Even a 10% cut that was then invested in a future fund would over twenty years secure these sports. It's not rocket science.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/13/seven-wests-afl-deal-cant-pull-it-out-of-financial-mess-insiders-say

Strange this industry DJ. For how long have we been seeing stories about the demise of 10. Yet every time I turn on my set they are still there. There is little to no chance of 7 folding. What we are seeing is the value of AFL rights falling. What Jeff should think about is if  he gets rid of a team of two that is a lot less eyes on tv. The only interest I have in AFL is the MFC. No MFC would mean no AFL for me. From past surveys this would mean a large number of the club's supporters. Then the TV rights are worth even less.  However if  a club amalgamated ( yes I know never ) more people would stay interested in AFL. I might stay interested in an MFC/ North/ Carlton team particularly if they were successfull. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

5 minutes ago, old dee said:

There is little to no chance of 7 folding.

Correct it won't disappear overnight but like 10 it could go into liquidation. Nine is struggling as well to say the least.

They are staying afloat by reality shows which are relatively cheap to produce.

It would be madness to assume that FTA will continue indefinitely to pay big money for sports. They will do it as a "community service" for a lot less money.

For those who think that it will be replaced by streaming services the numbers just don't add up unless the streaming service takes it on as a loss leader. The days of loss leaders are numbered. It would at the very least require exclusivity and what would that do to the fundamentals of the game. (Have a look at cricket in the UK after it went wholly behind the paywall.)

 

[old dee 23,872]

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Correct it won't disappear overnight but like 10 it could go into liquidation. Nine is struggling as well to say the least.

They are staying afloat by reality shows which are relatively cheap to produce.

It would be madness to assume that FTA will continue indefinitely to pay big money for sports. They will do it as a "community service" for a lot less money.

For those who think that it will be replaced by streaming services the numbers just don't add up unless the streaming service takes it on as a loss leader. The days of loss leaders are numbered. It would at the very least require exclusivity and what would that do to the fundamentals of the game. (Have a look at cricket in the UK after it went wholly behind the paywall.)

 

Agree DJ, what it all means In the end is less money for AFL rights.

[Sir Why You Little 37,152]

19 minutes ago, old dee said:

Agree DJ, what it all means In the end is less money for AFL rights.

Which is exactly what J. G. Kennett is alluding to.

Less Money for 18 Clubs...

Those who cannot support themselves could well go Post Covid

[old dee 23,872]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Which is exactly what J. G. Kennett is alluding to.

Less Money for 18 Clubs...

Those who cannot support themselves could well go Post Covid

At risk of starting starting a s fight. Probably accurate. First in line GCS and GWS.

[Sir Why You Little 37,152]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

At risk of starting starting a s fight. Probably accurate. First in line GCS and GWS.

J. G. Kennett gives Clubs 3 years to sort out the pecking order..

[Dr. Gonzo 24,309]

57 minutes ago, old dee said:

Strange this industry DJ. For how long have we been seeing stories about the demise of 10. Yet every time I turn on my set they are still there. There is little to no chance of 7 folding. What we are seeing is the value of AFL rights falling. What Jeff should think about is if  he gets rid of a team of two that is a lot less eyes on tv. The only interest I have in AFL is the MFC. No MFC would mean no AFL for me. From past surveys this would mean a large number of the club's supporters. Then the TV rights are worth even less.  However if  a club amalgamated ( yes I know never ) more people would stay interested in AFL. I might stay interested in an MFC/ North/ Carlton team particularly if they were successfull. 

Exactly right OD. And you kill off 4 Vic clubs that's half a million people now disenfranchised from the game. What impact would that have on the TV rights deals in 5-10 years time?

[Pennant St Dee 13,305]

16 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

J. G. Kennett gives Clubs 3 years to sort out the pecking order..

Let's see Jeff's position when review and restructure sees Suns being moved to Tassie impacting Hawks $$$

[Sir Why You Little 37,152]

2 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Let's see Jeff's position when review and restructure sees Suns being moved to Tassie impacting Hawks $$$

If the Covid19 Germ stays around for 2-3 years anything could happen, but I doubt we will have 18 teams

[old dee 23,872]

9 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Let's see Jeff's position when review and restructure sees Suns being moved to Tassie impacting Hawks $$$

The elephant in the room is the players would have to accept less. Imagine the fight that would happen.

Would  the players union be happy with 80+ players losing their jobs and the remained on lower wages?

Edited June 13, 2020 by old dee

[Pennant St Dee 13,305]

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

If the Covid19 Germ stays around for 2-3 years anything could happen, but I doubt we will have 18 teams

I think we are safe Swyl by virtue of them needing 16 teams for decent TV rights deal.

We've come a long way since 2012 but need to continue and not rest on our laurels 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,309]

59 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Correct it won't disappear overnight but like 10 it could go into liquidation. Nine is struggling as well to say the least.

They are staying afloat by reality shows which are relatively cheap to produce.

It would be madness to assume that FTA will continue indefinitely to pay big money for sports. They will do it as a "community service" for a lot less money.

For those who think that it will be replaced by streaming services the numbers just don't add up unless the streaming service takes it on as a loss leader. The days of loss leaders are numbered. It would at the very least require exclusivity and what would that do to the fundamentals of the game. (Have a look at cricket in the UK after it went wholly behind the paywall.)

 

Maybe if they stopped producing such absolutely rubbish content they wouldn't be in such a position.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Exactly right OD. And you kill off 4 Vic clubs that's half a million people now disenfranchised from the game. What impact would that have on the TV rights deals in 5-10 years time?

some would be upset but to suggest that few would transfer their allegiances is simplistic. US sporting teams have been moving cities for years.

What MFC supporter doesn't have a second team after 50 years in the wilderness. In the seventies mine was Collingwood. Now it's GWS

[daisycutter 29,743]

football can survive on half the money, it did before and the football was just as good or better 

most of the money is just wasted and has minimal effect on improving the game

i love aussie rules for the football, all the rest is secondary

afl has been long overdue for major restructuring

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,309]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

some would be upset but to suggest that few would transfer their allegiances is simplistic. US sporting teams have been moving cities for years.

What MFC supporter doesn't have a second team after 50 years in the wilderness. In the seventies mine was Collingwood. Now it's GWS

The product the AFL puts out these days is terrible, most would stop watching if not for their club allegiance. If Melbourne gets killed off that's it for me with the AFL. Local footy could we a resurgence which would be one benefit

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Maybe if they stopped producing such absolutely rubbish content they wouldn't be in such a position.

Like newspapers the media market is being increasingly split. Reality TV rates or more to the point it's profitable.

Netflix at $10 a month was the final gamechanger

[Dr. Gonzo 24,309]

14 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Over the last 50 years Carton and Essendon have built up huge TV Audiences because of Grand Final Successes and big game wins throughout the Home and Away Seasons. They are still living off that, meanwhile the MFC can never be fully trusted in Big Games

Our onfield performance is the direct reason we are overlooked and are given what you consider inequalities. 
I say we get what we deserve. We were once THE Club and it is entirely our own problem, that we find ourselves pushed out of the way. 

Again you're rebutting a point I did not make. Regardless of on field performance, when Melbourne plays Carlton on a Sunday afternoon at the MCG why does Carlton get to host 9 times out of 10? This gives them a game to make money off while we have to make do with hosting Freo, Subs, GWS etc every year. That has nothing to do with success or lack thereof, it's about AFL policies propping up some clubs at the expense of others.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The product the AFL puts out these days is terrible, most would stop watching if not for their club allegiance. If Melbourne gets killed off that's it for me with the AFL. Local footy could we a resurgence which would be one benefit

Agree but they are in decline as well thanks to the AFL's grab for money. The VFL/VFA comp is an absolute travesty. Local councils are also increasingly loathe to support the old suburban grounds