Tigerland88
Rookie
1,658 at gold coast today. Makes there average 2,799 despite being in the top 4. The FFA are bound to pull the plug at the end of the season?!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
A League 2010/11 Crowd Figures
- Thread starter themightybloods
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Why? As long as the sugar daddy continues to fund them they will stay.
i sure hope not
Seriously
Club Legend
I didn't asked who it matters too, I asked you who presented the best and deserved the WC?
I understand that almost everyone on here don't like your opinions, but I know that everything you say is right 95% of the time, so I'm happy to listen to your opinion no matter how much people don't want to hear it.
had a good lol at your last line there.
There beyond help now I think. The damage has been done and even a change of owners wouldn't do the franchise much good.
Frankly, I'd either look to move it to the south coast of NSW, the ACT or go to 10 teams next year and see what happens and decide what to do regarding bringing it back.
On 2018:
No one could hold a candle to England's bid. Birthplace of the game, home to perhaps the biggest football comp in the world, half the stadiums ready to go, big attendances guaranteed, big fan base, likely to attract many overseas visitors specifically to the cup, and by 2018, would not have hosted for 52 years (noting that Italy, France, Mexico and Germany have all hosted twice).
Russia winning this bid is every bit as distasteful as Qatar winning theirs - very similar dynamics at play, even if they are compeletly different countries. Russia might even be a bigger risk because of the prospect of organised crime having infiltrated every layer of Russian government.
On 2022:
The US won many of the criteria hands down.
Both the US, Japan and Sth Korea suffered from having hosted recently (although Mexico hosted twice within 16 years).
Australia's bid was satisfactory, would have organised a good World Cup, but we're kidding ourselves if we honestly think it was an extraordinary bid, it wasn't: half the stadiums were large ovals, and that's just for starters. Let's not even talk about the embarassing video - we deserved to go out first round for that alone.
Qatar's bid seemed to break about half a dozen FIFA requirements, so it's amazing that it won (but that it continued to remain in the process contrary to all common sense suggests that the fix was on a very long time ago).
However, putting aside the corruption and bribes, there are some positives about the Qatari bid:
1. new region that is very much in need of presenting a new face to the world;
2. it's a region where soccer is the number one sport by a long way (indeed, the only sport);
3. it's a decision that goes beyond sport and introduces some noble objectives (even if they are unlikely to come about); and
4. it's a big picture bid, looking at some amazing technology, afterall, it's 2022 - who knows what they'll be able to do - what we do know is that no expense will be spared in doing it. It's a bid that looks to the future with very lofty ambitions.
Last point reminds me: the Australian bid often talked more about what the WC would do for the game in Australia - Qataris talked about what they would do for the world by hosting the WC. This was particular evident in the final month of lobbying.
gold coast united
For me the main thing against England's bid was the legacy factor. The game will always be huge there with or without the world cup. Are Fifa spreading the word by having a world cup there? The priority seems to be spreading the game (ignoring the indivudual political aspirations of the dodgy Exco members)
Other than that England had to be the way to go. They would host an awesome world cup.
- Banned
- #610
That's fine if that criteria is spelled out for countries before they choose to expend mega bucks on a bid .
As usual the "best bid" is determined by the chosen criteria .
Who "deserved" to be rewarded is a completely different story .
Without going into the specifics Russia seemed fine by I cannot find anybody who understands the Qatar logic .
.
That's fair enough.
In the more "innocent" age of the early 1960s, it was viewed as proper that the world game would return home (for the 1966 WC).
That sense of history, of tradition, of symbolism, of respect, has completely dissipitated. England now gets two votes; the low countries get double. The whole world follows the EPL, yet the key figures in the game treat England with almost the same disdain with which they treat Australia.
I really feel more for England than I do for Australia - we were pushing shit uphill from the very start, what's more, the "Asian" argument was always seriously flawed, I never quite understood why so many soccer fans swallowed it.
I never understood this widely held view that as Japan and Sth Korea dropped out, their votes would come to us. Why would they? Because we represent Asia better than Qatar? People have a lot to learn.
In rejecting England, I believe the game has lost a bit of its soul (although in truth, maybe that bit was lost long ago).
People might this article interesting, an English sports writer making a case for why Australia deserved it over Qatar - but note - it's a very "Anglo" view - when you view who made up the 22 members, the argument starts to hold less water.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ook-the-money-and-ran-with-qatar-2150856.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ook-the-money-and-ran-with-qatar-2150856.html
Great find that.
Seriously
Club Legend
Here's another good one:
http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/...ote-qfilterq-system-to-avoid-wasting-millions
Plenty of goodwill in the Anglosphere towards Australia at the moment (all of England, Aust and the US were humiliated in this process) - those who appreciate good governance understand the strengths of Australia - but let's be honest - these sensible people are not to be found within FIFA.
Very true. I made the point last night in another thread that they have now perhaps definatively made themselves an utter joke with regards to community action (stand against racism etc) by awarding 2018 to Russia. The mind boggles.
Looking at the above article, I agree with what Horne says re: the pool of bidder in a world cup. I think having a set-in-stone list of criteria is probably the best way of going about it, as having pre-elimination rounds amount to effectively the same waste of money towards a dead end.
Again, I think Teymarii made a good point after being kicked out raising questions regarding the appropriateness of having ExCo members from bidding nations involved in the bidding process.
Term limits would also have to be looked at.
Forgive me the length - but, it's at least on topic.
Okay, back on topic then – A-League crowds.
Peak was obviously back in V3, average attendance of over 14,600. Not too shoddy at all - - was seriously nudging the NRL at that point.
Since then, year on year, has dropped 17%, 22% and so far this year 12% on the previous season. Since those dizzying heights of 14,600 in V3, roughly 42% of that number has been eroded. Granted season V6 isn’t over and done just yet.
After V3, V4 saw a drop and people suggested the 8 team league had lost it’s interest (already?). And so V5 gave us 2 new clubs, a 10 team league and a 27 round season. All for the better. Alas no.
V6 gave us a Melbourne local derby and a dedicated rectangular venue in Melbourne – things that supposedly would if not super charge the local A-League scene, would at very least halt the slide.
The 2 team city (Melbourne) conundrum
And yet, in Melbourne this year, we’ve now seen 18 HAL matches. 9 each to Victory and Hearts.
The combined average of those 18 matches is around 11,300. In 18 matches so far this year, 204,000 have attended compared to Victory in season V5 pulling 290,000 in their 14 home matches. Victory are averaging just over 14,000 this year, down aboiut 6,700 on V5 and down 12,000 on V3. Where’s that gone so wrong? So, even if Hearts and Victory are attracting zero overlap (dual membership holders), the combined tally is averaging 22,712 per fortnight in Melbourne. This may be up 2,000 on the 20,700 fortnightly figure for Victory alone last year. Is that a ‘win’??
Increasing the scope means increasing the costs, attendance sans broadcast rights is critical.
The HAL has been increasing squad sizes, needs better salary cap freedom and is running the W-League and the Youth League. This all costs money. The HAL is also playing 30 rounds per side this season. This costs money. Stadiums don’t come for free. Players need to be paid.
Alas,
In V3, about 24% of matches were below 10,000 (20) attendances. At the other end, 17% were OVER 20,000 (14).
In V4, about 45% of matches were below 10,000 (38) attendance. And 13% were over 20,000 (11).
V5 provided 6 extra rounds, plus an extra game per week, 2 new clubs.
In V5, about 67% of matches were below 10,000 (90) attendance. And only 6% were over 20,000 (8).
So far in V6, with 30 matches scheduled per club, we’re about 2/3s through the season,
About 71% of matches below 10,000 (69) attendance. And only 1% over 20,000 (1 – the Melb local derby).
The decline in the 'core strength'
It’s quite one thing for some sliding in the relative figures with start up sides in Gold Coast and Townsville. However, you’d hope that the key clubs, the core rivalries and core strength established previously would AT LEAST hold firm. This however has NOT happened.
We've however seen not just the decline ratio of matches over 10,000 attendance. That alone would be reasonable to explain away. However, the actual numbers of matches over 20,000 especially has fallen away from 14 (V3), 11 (V4), 8 (V5) and only 1 so far in V6.
Victory has been going backwards since they burst onto the Docklands stadium in V2 and averaged 32,000 at the venue that season. Victory, the most successful club on and off the field has invariably been responsible for propping up the competition attendance averages. The decline in Victory attendances has sadly NOT reflected the on-field. Victory has won 2 Grand Finals and came runners up last year.
Up in Sydney, the other major city core market, and the other ‘super club’ with 2 Grand Final championships in the trophy cabinet. SFC has gone backwards from a V1 average of over 16,000 to so far this season, in a title defence, to struggling to average 10,000.
The decline of the 'rivalry' blockbusters
This is super dangerous. There’s still a desire for a 2nd Sydney team. Can they afford it? Is it worth it? In Melbourne, the Victory has retained a number of bookings at Docklands (Etihad). The matches that once might have challenged the capacity of AAMI park (~30,000). Alas, neither the hosting of rivals Adelaide or Sydney got within 2500 of the 20,000 mark. AAMI park is suddenly looked generously expansive.
The MVFC hosting SFC ‘rivalry’ had previously not done sub 25,000. Was averaging as good as 30,000 over V3 to V5 inclusive, and just under 34,000 if the massive V2 matches are counted. To suddenly drop to a 17,299. This rips the profit out of the club. The Adelaide rivalry too, kicked off in V2 at Docklands with over 32,000, and averaged 26,000 over the next 3 years. The home match this year – 16,269.
Dropping about 22,000 off the two big ticket matches is clearly a massive hit on club profits. These are the games that put the icing on top of the cake with clear profit margins well in excess of the ‘break even’ mark.
It’s not even as if the Hearts have balanced it. The Hearts have hosted Adelaide and SFC for a combined tally of less than 12,000.
What's going on?
To the uneducated observer – this is looking almost terminal for a sustainable business model. We know though, that profit making in sports is over rated. That’s fine. It will come down to a handful of super wealthy to sustain clubs – but for how long? And is that in itself just not the Australian way – i.e. super rich owners. It’s certainly not the AFL way, were member based clubs has driven a culture quite distinct from the US ‘franchise’ model and the EPL and NFL super wealthy private ownership model. Even the NRL has discovered the value of pushing club memberships. And this I do wonder. There’s so much talking in the Daily Telegraph with respect the Giants and the AFL vs NRL ‘turf war’. I suspect, the unspoken turf war is actually NRL vs FFA/HAL. The HAL went ‘regional’. That’s NRL heartland. The HAL and NRL are toe to toe in Townsville, Gold Coast, Newcastle and potentially Gosford. Is it coincidence that the NRL has been increasing club memberships in the AFL model whilst the bottom is falling out of the HAL?
Okay, back on topic then – A-League crowds.
Peak was obviously back in V3, average attendance of over 14,600. Not too shoddy at all - - was seriously nudging the NRL at that point.
Since then, year on year, has dropped 17%, 22% and so far this year 12% on the previous season. Since those dizzying heights of 14,600 in V3, roughly 42% of that number has been eroded. Granted season V6 isn’t over and done just yet.
After V3, V4 saw a drop and people suggested the 8 team league had lost it’s interest (already?). And so V5 gave us 2 new clubs, a 10 team league and a 27 round season. All for the better. Alas no.
V6 gave us a Melbourne local derby and a dedicated rectangular venue in Melbourne – things that supposedly would if not super charge the local A-League scene, would at very least halt the slide.
The 2 team city (Melbourne) conundrum
And yet, in Melbourne this year, we’ve now seen 18 HAL matches. 9 each to Victory and Hearts.
The combined average of those 18 matches is around 11,300. In 18 matches so far this year, 204,000 have attended compared to Victory in season V5 pulling 290,000 in their 14 home matches. Victory are averaging just over 14,000 this year, down aboiut 6,700 on V5 and down 12,000 on V3. Where’s that gone so wrong? So, even if Hearts and Victory are attracting zero overlap (dual membership holders), the combined tally is averaging 22,712 per fortnight in Melbourne. This may be up 2,000 on the 20,700 fortnightly figure for Victory alone last year. Is that a ‘win’??
Increasing the scope means increasing the costs, attendance sans broadcast rights is critical.
The HAL has been increasing squad sizes, needs better salary cap freedom and is running the W-League and the Youth League. This all costs money. The HAL is also playing 30 rounds per side this season. This costs money. Stadiums don’t come for free. Players need to be paid.
Alas,
In V3, about 24% of matches were below 10,000 (20) attendances. At the other end, 17% were OVER 20,000 (14).
In V4, about 45% of matches were below 10,000 (38) attendance. And 13% were over 20,000 (11).
V5 provided 6 extra rounds, plus an extra game per week, 2 new clubs.
In V5, about 67% of matches were below 10,000 (90) attendance. And only 6% were over 20,000 (8).
So far in V6, with 30 matches scheduled per club, we’re about 2/3s through the season,
About 71% of matches below 10,000 (69) attendance. And only 1% over 20,000 (1 – the Melb local derby).
The decline in the 'core strength'
It’s quite one thing for some sliding in the relative figures with start up sides in Gold Coast and Townsville. However, you’d hope that the key clubs, the core rivalries and core strength established previously would AT LEAST hold firm. This however has NOT happened.
We've however seen not just the decline ratio of matches over 10,000 attendance. That alone would be reasonable to explain away. However, the actual numbers of matches over 20,000 especially has fallen away from 14 (V3), 11 (V4), 8 (V5) and only 1 so far in V6.
Victory has been going backwards since they burst onto the Docklands stadium in V2 and averaged 32,000 at the venue that season. Victory, the most successful club on and off the field has invariably been responsible for propping up the competition attendance averages. The decline in Victory attendances has sadly NOT reflected the on-field. Victory has won 2 Grand Finals and came runners up last year.
Up in Sydney, the other major city core market, and the other ‘super club’ with 2 Grand Final championships in the trophy cabinet. SFC has gone backwards from a V1 average of over 16,000 to so far this season, in a title defence, to struggling to average 10,000.
The decline of the 'rivalry' blockbusters
This is super dangerous. There’s still a desire for a 2nd Sydney team. Can they afford it? Is it worth it? In Melbourne, the Victory has retained a number of bookings at Docklands (Etihad). The matches that once might have challenged the capacity of AAMI park (~30,000). Alas, neither the hosting of rivals Adelaide or Sydney got within 2500 of the 20,000 mark. AAMI park is suddenly looked generously expansive.
The MVFC hosting SFC ‘rivalry’ had previously not done sub 25,000. Was averaging as good as 30,000 over V3 to V5 inclusive, and just under 34,000 if the massive V2 matches are counted. To suddenly drop to a 17,299. This rips the profit out of the club. The Adelaide rivalry too, kicked off in V2 at Docklands with over 32,000, and averaged 26,000 over the next 3 years. The home match this year – 16,269.
Dropping about 22,000 off the two big ticket matches is clearly a massive hit on club profits. These are the games that put the icing on top of the cake with clear profit margins well in excess of the ‘break even’ mark.
It’s not even as if the Hearts have balanced it. The Hearts have hosted Adelaide and SFC for a combined tally of less than 12,000.
What's going on?
To the uneducated observer – this is looking almost terminal for a sustainable business model. We know though, that profit making in sports is over rated. That’s fine. It will come down to a handful of super wealthy to sustain clubs – but for how long? And is that in itself just not the Australian way – i.e. super rich owners. It’s certainly not the AFL way, were member based clubs has driven a culture quite distinct from the US ‘franchise’ model and the EPL and NFL super wealthy private ownership model. Even the NRL has discovered the value of pushing club memberships. And this I do wonder. There’s so much talking in the Daily Telegraph with respect the Giants and the AFL vs NRL ‘turf war’. I suspect, the unspoken turf war is actually NRL vs FFA/HAL. The HAL went ‘regional’. That’s NRL heartland. The HAL and NRL are toe to toe in Townsville, Gold Coast, Newcastle and potentially Gosford. Is it coincidence that the NRL has been increasing club memberships in the AFL model whilst the bottom is falling out of the HAL?
Munro Mick
an excellent analysis, and some worthwhile questions and discussion points.
Interestingly, the NRL has a model that works for them, underpinned by excellent TV ratings which will result in a boost to their TV ratings next deal. They have some potential areas to host new teams, but they actually don't need to hurry because their regular season, along with state of origin, is sufficiently strong even now. They don't even have to worry about competing agaisnt the AFL, in the main, they know that they are very strong in two big states, and their second place to the AFL is a pretty good place to be (every other sport in Australia would dearly love the position the NRL currently holds).
an excellent analysis, and some worthwhile questions and discussion points.
Interestingly, the NRL has a model that works for them, underpinned by excellent TV ratings which will result in a boost to their TV ratings next deal. They have some potential areas to host new teams, but they actually don't need to hurry because their regular season, along with state of origin, is sufficiently strong even now. They don't even have to worry about competing agaisnt the AFL, in the main, they know that they are very strong in two big states, and their second place to the AFL is a pretty good place to be (every other sport in Australia would dearly love the position the NRL currently holds).
- Banned
- #620
Good discussion .
IMO some things are clear .
The AFL is number one .The NRL is doing very nicely possibly because it learns from the AFL .SOO , memberships and sheduling etc.The NRL is looking introspectively with further consolidation whilst the AFL is actively looking for expansion on many fronts .I wonder what would have happenned if the AR and rl had taken the AL path instead of the extended VFL and extended NSWRL path .IMO the NSL was better balanced model .Would they have done better to reform the NSL ?
.
Tough question. Many in the soccer industry had come to the conclusion that it was an imperative to start again, confirmed by the Crawford report. There's plenty to back that up.
However, I wonder by the time the 5th season came along whether the FFA could have contemplated Sth Melb as a second Melbourne team, and the equivalent in Sydney.
Both the Hearts and Rovers decisions appear to be poorly based - allowing a couple of old, famous NSL clubs back in might have been a massive boost. Let's not forget, Sth Melbourne is Oceania's club team of the century, one of only six clubs worldwide celebrated in such a manner. Why would any self-respecting comp turn its back on that?
- Banned
- #622
Yes , good to start again , poor to start up with single teams in Melbourne and Sydney , which has led to a national imbalance and a city imbalance .
.
.
TigersBoy
All Australian
- Sep 4, 2008
- 777
- 89
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Melb Victory, Glasgow Rangers
2754 for the Farts v Newcastle game tonight.
Very Very Lucky they have 2 derby crowds on there adverage or would be something shocking
Very Very Lucky they have 2 derby crowds on there adverage or would be something shocking
Tigerland88
Rookie
Good analysis but i'm not sure about the whole NRL v's HAL argument. I feel the push for memberships in the NRL is more to do with clubs realising they need to secure their bottom lines than a turf war with the HAL.
The Fury and GCU are living on the edge and i fear they will get the chop after the "review of the game", but i think the Jets can happily co-exist with the Knights who are and always will be the superpower in the Hunter. Here on the central coast the Mariners might be the only pro team but they are very much a lot of peoples second team after an NRL club.
As much as I can't stand the Heart wannabees, tonight was always going to be a tiny crowd with Melbourne's torrential rainfall.
It's unspoken because the main public voices of Aussie Soccer are dominated by those in the Sydney media. It's easier to bash the big bad 'foreign invader' from down south as you get cross-code sympathy from NRL fans.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
