ISo you've said 2 places are more, 2 are less, 1 you don't know, and that the 2 places that are more are 'the rule'. 2 out of 5 does not make it the norm.
But in any case, I wasn't having a go at the A-League, just pointing out that with less teams, you can't compare averages with the same validity.
No, 3 are more, melb, brisbane and newcastle. CC, is a completely new team in a new area, so non-comparable, and the reality is, Sydney FC are still generally getting crowds more than the old NSL teams from sydney, combined, (even though it could still be better). The point being with all of this is that you do get better crowds when professional people come on board, within a well managed governing organisation. These clubs prove that. I would certainly agree that Glory are not doing well, but the club itself has not been well managed.
From what i've read, the FFA don't think that. And the fact that they have propped up clubs in the past means that other clubs are now holding their hands out too. It's a touchy subject that needs to be managed well. Prop up clubs and the owners will always hold their hands out for money that could be used for development, and would otherwise come from the owners pockets. Don't prop them up and risk seeing clubs go under and you end up alienating thousands of people.
The priority for the FFA is to set the foundation for a sustainable league, it's a simple as that. I think the FFA will not prop up clubs endlessly, and NZ are the first to go.
I think you overstate 'management'. Most people don't show up to a sporting event because of what happens in the boardroom. Yes, it certainly is a positive to have off field stability. But ask yourself why Northern Spirit went from getting 15,000 crowds to 1,500 in a matter of 2 seasons. You really think 90% of those people stopped attending because of what happened off the field? You reckon they were sitting there reading a story in the paper about some boardroom battle thinking 'Gee, I really like going to watch, but I don't think i'll go anymore?' Sure, that sort of thing has an effect, but not to that extent.
Well, it's funny you raised Northern spirit, as it was my old club to support. For a start, they did not go from 15K to 1.5K in 2 seasons. They started off with abt 15K, the second season went to 10K and it slowly went down from there. Essentially, the club went broke after 6 months, and it went from disaster to disaster, including a rediculous takeover by glasgow rangers.
The club was situated in the nth shore of sydney, traditional fickle fans, who these days seem to support the swans, and only like to support 'winners'. Eventually the club was so broke that they moved to the northern beaches, which alienated traditional fans. The overall problem was that the club was crap, they never won anything, and only in the first season were they any good. They did get negative press, including headline news on 7 (of course) in sydney 'claiming' that fans were rioting over some incident, and constant negative press about how the club was mismanaged. Combine this with poor results and a decaying nsl, and it's all quite understandable. The fans may not have come soley because of poor managment, but it was a major factor in determining how many came through the gate. Nobody even new when the games were on, that's how bad the planning was.
The difference is these days, the FFA have done well to harness fans, and also have been able to shield the public from any potentially negative press. I am absolutely convinced their management skills will see this turn into a vibrant successful league. Essentially, they have 'won over' the public with the perception that 'soccer' is ok, and well run, even if they don't like the game itself. It now has, imho, respect amongst the average punter.