Atmosphere at the soccer better?

[clobba]

do you prefer the tests against new zealand or south africa?

wtf? Pretty sure I said I care about soccer as much as Rugby i.e nil, zero zilch, nada

 

[Rob]

In terms of outlook, i'd prefer to take notice of researchers and statisticians, not by a humble opinion. State by state participation. Does it matter? It's the overall rate that counts, and the 2005 ausports figures show that even including adults, soccer participation is ahead of AFL. . http://www.ausport.gov.au/scorsresearch/ERASS2005/ERASS2005_table21.pdf Not that this point is of that much signficance.

Of course not, particularly when you compare it to:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/auss...6CDEFC1DCA256DEF0075E0E3/$File/41740_2002.pdf

But in any case, the ABS is asking a straightforward question, and they explain to what extent. eg. the ABS tells us how often people play each sport, and how many times they attend a particular sport. Sweeney does not.

Ah yes, the ABS must be wrong too. Other than walking, they also say that swimming is the most popular sport/activity.

The highest participation rate was recorded for walking for exercise, with over one-quarter (25.3% or 3.7 million people) having participated in this activity during the reference period. This was followed by aerobics/fitness and swimming, both with 10.9% or 1.6 million people.

No, they say walking for exercise is the most popular for participants. Pretty bloody predictable if you ask me given just about 100% of the population is capable of it and it's easy for everyone to do. Ditto aerobics and swimming. I'm not sure what your point is.

In actual fact ,the sweeney report is quite reasonable, and well within accepted statistical sample size parameters. It at least provides up-to date statistcal data that the ABS has not got recent data for, or has released. It's funny how some one-eyed AFL 'forever' people use the exact same reports, just when it suits them.
In any case, it certainly has more credibility than.... 'an opinion'.

It's not about statistical samples, it's about the questions asked. If soccer has such high interest now, why the current small crowds, the tiny TV audiences and no other indicator of interest being off the chart? Because most people don't take anything more than a passing interest in it.
If the question asked is 'Do you have any interest in a sport?', then it's really not a measure at all, because what that doesn't measure is interest levels. If you took a passing interest in Australia's fortunes at the world cup, then you count just as much as if you are a diehard fan of your local soccer club and watch 50 matches a year. If you think that's reasonable, then the Sweeney report is for you. But if you think that less than 1000 people a session showing up to the Australian Swimming Championships indicates that most people couldn't give a rats arse about Swimming unless it's the Olympics or Commonwealth games, then the Sweeney report is a pile of dog turds.
I'm sure interest in yachting was pretty high during the mid 80's after we won the Americas Cup. It doesn't mean that it jumped to major sport status. Patriotism is a wonderful thing, it can get people to watch anything.

In your part of the world, the entire state represents just 10% of the Australian population. With all due respect, it fits perfectly into projections.

You mean like how in Perth it drew huge crowds and massive interest 5 or 6 years ago only for it to fall in a heap? We're seeing similar things in Melbourne. You're denying exactly the same thing is capable of happening there? Almost everything being said about soccer in Melbourne was said about soccer in Perth. How great the atmosphere is, what a great experience it is, and very little about the quality of the actual game itself. The novelty of that wore off in Perth when people realised they were watching 3rd rate crap. Obviously it remains to be seen whether the same thing will happen in Melbourne, but by gee it's a mirror image so far.

Currently, I think very few these days would blankly deny the increased support for soccer in Australia. Yet the beauty of it is, it does not have to be in competition with AFL at all.

I'm sure it has increased, given the old NSL was so poorly supported and Australia qualified for the World Cup for the first time in 32 years.

 

[Rob]

I think it is a little more complicated than "soccer is on the decline".

The local Perth team have been getting poor crowds, but there are various factors that come into play.

1. The Media. The West Australian, Channels Seven, Nine and Ten are almost totally dominated by AFL personalities, who ensure that footy gets the lion's share of all the news space and time.

There is a paranoid fear of soccer among many WA footy journalists and commenators as you probably know, Brad Hardie, Dennis Commetti etc.

The soccer paranoia tends to be a generational thing.

Soccer is relegated on a daily basis to a ten second sports news spot or a ten line article in the West Australian. The reason for this is that the AFL has much more financial clout than soccer in WA, which results in blanket coverage of footy.

That's just good business, destroy the opposition.

Footy's not even on during most of the soccer season. You think the WAFC or the AFL pays off the local media not to cover it? You have got to be joking - the West Australian even has a soccer section in Monday's edition! Although most of it seems to be directed at the pommie expats with very little news about local soccer. This is probably reflective of the general interest of the readership.

2. The Perth Glory soccer team are hopeless, and are at the bottom of the table.

3. The club is controlled by the FFA, who are more interested in seeing Melbourne and Sydney succeed this year, and have succeded admirably with Melbourne getting an average crowd of over 30,000.

Both true, but the Glory have been on the decline for many years now, prior to both those things happening.

As for soccer being in the decline in WA, registrations are at an all time high, and I hear many clubs have been turning kids away for lack of playing grounds.

Might be true, I wouldn't know. I'll wait for the next ABS figures to come out to be sure, because every sporting organisation in the country claims participation goes up every year.

 

[TheSaviour]

Footy's not even on during most of the soccer season. You think the WAFC or the AFL pays off the local media not to cover it? You have got to be joking - the West Australian even has a soccer section in Monday's edition! Although most of it seems to be directed at the pommie expats with very little news about local soccer. This is probably reflective of the general interest of the readership.



Both true, but the Glory have been on the decline for many years now, prior to both those things happening.



Might be true, I wouldn't know. I'll wait for the next ABS figures to come out to be sure, because every sporting organisation in the country claims participation goes up every year.

You may not be concerned but the AFL and WAFC are extremely concerned. The key to sporting popularity in the future is international contests which puts the AFL sh*t out of luck. See how the AFL were desperate to keep the IR series how about this consistant showing off the game in "new markets". The afl can't keep financing half the victorian clubs forever.

 

[mediumsizered]

You may not be concerned but the AFL and WAFC are extremely concerned. The key to sporting popularity in the future is international contests which puts the AFL sh*t out of luck. See how the AFL were desperate to keep the IR series how about this consistant showing off the game in "new markets". The afl can't keep financing half the victorian clubs forever.

Actually the key to sporting popularity is being able to see the best players of any sport, live at the ground on a regular basis. At the moment & probably for many years to come, soccer fans in Australia will not be able to see the best Australian soccer players live in action more than once or twice a year. For the rest of the year they can only watch them in various overseas soccer leagues or contests like the Asian Cup on television. That is the main reason Australian Rules will always hold sway over soccer in Australia.

Spectators in Australia want to see the best players in action, not second or third rate players or those nearing the end of their careers.

 

[Ronin]

Actually the key to sporting popularity is being able to see the best players of any sport, live at the ground on a regular basis. At the moment & probably for many years to come, soccer fans in Australia will not be able to see the best Australian soccer players live in action more than once or twice a year. For the rest of the year they can only watch them in various overseas soccer leagues or contests like the Asian Cup on television. That is the main reason Australian Rules will always hold sway over soccer in Australia.

Spectators in Australia want to see the best players in action, not second or third rate players or those nearing the end of their careers.

So I guess no VFL or local league attendances are on the cards.

 

[realfootball]

Of course not, particularly when you compare it to:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/auss...6CDEFC1DCA256DEF0075E0E3/$File/41740_2002.pdf

I don't understand your point. You outline crowd figures, the latest being 2002. Nobody would deny AFL crowd figures are bigger than football, then, and now.

No, they say walking for exercise is the most popular for participants. Pretty bloody predictable if you ask me given just about 100% of the population is capable of it and it's easy for everyone to do. Ditto aerobics and swimming. I'm not sure what your point is.

That is exactly what I said, other than walking, swimming is next in line. My point is, as per discussion on prev. posts, you gave the sweeney findings zero credibility, yet they came up with the same result as the ABS.

It's not about statistical samples, it's about the questions asked. If soccer has such high interest now, why the current small crowds, the tiny TV audiences and no other indicator of interest being off the chart? Because most people don't take anything more than a passing interest in it.
If the question asked is 'Do you have any interest in a sport?', then it's really not a measure at all, because what that doesn't measure is interest levels.

Yes i think this is fair enough point. However, the current 'small crowds' as you suggest aren't really that small at all (Sure NZ and Glory have brought it down). It is small compared to the AFL, but not compared to the old NSL. Averages are also up from last year. re TV, my understanding is that foxtel were delighted with their ratings for the first year of a new comp, hence the recent big new 7 year deal.

If you took a passing interest in Australia's fortunes at the world cup, then you count just as much as if you are a diehard fan of your local soccer club and watch 50 matches a year. If you think that's reasonable, then the Sweeney report is for you.

Yes, but this all comes but to the original question, how do you measure 'support'. Attendance at first class matches in my view is not the only criteria, interest is part of that, and so is participation.

You mean like how in Perth it drew huge crowds and massive interest 5 or 6 years ago only for it to fall in a heap? We're seeing similar things in Melbourne. You're denying exactly the same thing is capable of happening there? Almost everything being said about soccer in Melbourne was said about soccer in Perth.

Drawing comparisons between Perth Glory in the NSL and Melb V, in the A-league is like comapring apples and oranges. NO team was sustainable in the NSL, none. The A-league is is well financed well structured and well managed. Seriously, do you honestly believe these people, the board of the FFA, are going to 'fail' with the 'A-league'
Mr Ron WALKER
Ms Suzanne WILLIAMS
Mr Phillip WOLANSKI
Mr Ron HARVEY
Chairman - Mr Frank LOWY AC
Deputy Chairman - Mr Brian SCHWARTZ AM

You have olympic bid commissioners, a high profile laywer, former AFL boss, head of the investec bank, director of IAG, second richest Australian and shopping centre magnate, former rugby CEO. And this is just a snippet of the cross section of the business acumen at the FFA.

Seriously, do you honestly believe, these people will allow failure? Do you really think that this is like the old NSL??! Do you think the recent Nike sponsorship deal (Nike said the deal, covering the FFA and its national teams, represented its "biggest ever commitment to any sport in Australia".) is just a flash in the pan?

It is the FFA who run the a-league, not the clubs. If a club goes broke, another will take it's place. Failure is not an option for these people.

 

[Rob]

I don't understand your point. You outline crowd figures, the latest being 2002. Nobody would deny AFL crowd figures are bigger than football, then, and now.

BEcause it's an actual factual statistic, not something as weak as 'interest'.

That is exactly what I said, other than walking, swimming is next in line. My point is, as per discussion on prev. posts, you gave the sweeney findings zero credibility, yet they came up with the same result as the ABS.

No they didn't. Participation is veyr different from interest in the sport. I run 3 or 4 times a week, but I wouldn't say I have an interest in watching athletics.

Yes i think this is fair enough point. However, the current 'small crowds' as you suggest aren't really that small at all (Sure NZ and Glory have brought it down). It is small compared to the AFL, but not compared to the old NSL. Averages are also up from last year. re TV, my understanding is that foxtel were delighted with their ratings for the first year of a new comp, hence the recent big new 7 year deal.

You want to compete with the big boys, you have to expect to be compared against the big boys. Crowds are, other than 1 club, a joke.
The ratings for an A-League match nationally on Fox seem to be around 50,000 a match. Compared to the million or so that watch an AFL match, it's pathetic. Sure, compared to basketball, the A-League might rate well, but like I said, if you want to compete with the big boys....

Yes, but this all comes but to the original question, how do you measure 'support'. Attendance at first class matches in my view is not the only criteria, interest is part of that, and so is participation.

Drawing comparisons between Perth Glory in the NSL and Melb V, in the A-league is like comapring apples and oranges. NO team was sustainable in the NSL, none. The A-league is is well financed well structured and well managed. Seriously, do you honestly believe these people, the board of the FFA, are going to 'fail' with the 'A-league'
Mr Ron WALKER
Ms Suzanne WILLIAMS
Mr Phillip WOLANSKI
Mr Ron HARVEY
Chairman - Mr Frank LOWY AC
Deputy Chairman - Mr Brian SCHWARTZ AM

You have olympic bid commissioners, a high profile laywer, former AFL boss, head of the investec bank, director of IAG, second richest Australian and shopping centre magnate, former rugby CEO. And this is just a snippet of the cross section of the business acumen at the FFA.

Seriously, do you honestly believe, these people will allow failure? Do you really think that this is like the old NSL??! Do you think the recent Nike sponsorship deal (Nike said the deal, covering the FFA and its national teams, represented its "biggest ever commitment to any sport in Australia".) is just a flash in the pan?

It is the FFA who run the a-league, not the clubs. If a club goes broke, another will take it's place. Failure is not an option for these people.

Funny how you say all of that, because I recently read that at least half the A-League clubs are in serious need of financial assistance after just 2 years of operation. All well and good to say they'll be replaced with another team, but fans won't cop that.
No matter who's in charge, you can't force people to put bums on seats.

 

[realfootball]

BEcause it's an actual factual statistic, not something as weak as 'interest'.

It's old attendance records, infact well before the start of the a-league. Not that I would deny the large difference between the two attendance figures today anyway.
In any case, sure it may be a fact, but again, do you really think the only criteria for 'support' for a sport is attenance at a first class match?

No they didn't. Participation is veyr different from interest in the sport. I run 3 or 4 times a week, but I wouldn't say I have an interest in watching athletics.

Interest may be somewhat different to participation, but the fact remains, abs stats say football participation outranks AFL, and the only credible source that i can find says that interest in football is right up there with sports like AFL. I would say both those two criteria are important when measuring support for a sport, not just attendance at a first class match.

You want to compete with the big boys, you have to expect to be compared against the big boys. Crowds are, other than 1 club, a joke.
The ratings for an A-League match nationally on Fox seem to be around 50,000 a match. Compared to the million or so that watch an AFL match, it's pathetic. Sure, compared to basketball, the A-League might rate well, but like I said, if you want to compete with the big boys....

Well I don't know if it is a 'competiton'. But even still, nobody could expect any new sport govening body to instantly produce similar figures to a sport that has a long standing social history and well balanced economic management. I wouldn't call the crowds a joke at all. It has met all benchmarks set by the FFA at the start. It is less than AFL, but would anyone expect anything different, just 2 years in? Any start up comp needs a realistic timeframe.

Funny how you say all of that, because I recently read that at least half the A-League clubs are in serious need of financial assistance after just 2 years of operation. All well and good to say they'll be replaced with another team, but fans won't cop that.
No matter who's in charge, you can't force people to put bums on seats.

Well, I don't know where you read this, because only the FFA would by privy to this information, despite what is written in the paper. Even if this were the case, not one person would have to walk through the gate at an a-league game for the next 3 years, for the a-league to stay afloat.

Now, it DOES matter whose in charge. Do you really think that without the current FFA board many other people would have mustered up such great corporate and sponsorship appeal and support, and produce crowds of up to 50K, literally, out of nothing? It matters alot, and people will go if it is done right. You will note that the sydney swans when they first came, the crowds were, other than the 2 semi final years, in your words 'pathetic'. Less than the crowds of sydney FC. But the AFL hung in with them until eventual success. It's if run right, crowds will eventually come.

 

[Rob]

It's old attendance records, infact well before the start of the a-league. Not that I would deny the large difference between the two attendance figures today anyway.
In any case, sure it may be a fact, but again, do you really think the only criteria for 'support' for a sport is attenance at a first class match?

Of course not, but surely you wouldn't give similar weighting for someone that goes to 30 matches a year and someone that reads the newspaper once every few weeks?

Interest may be somewhat different to participation, but the fact remains, abs stats say football participation outranks AFL, and the only credible source that i can find says that interest in football is right up there with sports like AFL. I would say both those two criteria are important when measuring support for a sport, not just attendance at a first class match.

Whatever you reckon. But in any case, soccer participation has been high for ages now, using your logic then that means it's less likely to be able to grow into the future.

Well I don't know if it is a 'competiton'. But even still, nobody could expect any new sport govening body to instantly produce similar figures to a sport that has a long standing social history and well balanced economic management. I wouldn't call the crowds a joke at all. It has met all benchmarks set by the FFA at the start. It is less than AFL, but would anyone expect anything different, just 2 years in? Any start up comp needs a realistic timeframe.

Fair enough, but more time certainly doesn't guarantee success.

Well, I don't know where you read this, because only the FFA would by privy to this information, despite what is written in the paper. Even if this were the case, not one person would have to walk through the gate at an a-league game for the next 3 years, for the a-league to stay afloat.

A week ago:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,20968024-5000940,00.html

Just in case you can't be bothered reading the whole story:
"NEWCASTLE Jets owner Con Constantine has implored Football Federation Australia to dig into its World Cup coffers to provide urgent financial aid as the A-League drowns in a $20 million sink hole."

"the fiscal foundation the A-League requires to prosper is anything but concrete."

"the clubs collectively having lost between $16 million and $20 million last year - more than had been forecast"

That's the problem with private ownership and with some clubs much stronger than others. The controlling body is not that eager to go around handing out funds like a charity to certain clubs and not others. Prop one up and they'll all expect it, and consequently they'll be loathe to put in their own money. I'll quote the article again:

"Reigning champion Sydney FC would have perished but for the intervention of the Lowy family, whose head, Frank Lowy, is the FFA chairman."

No wonder the FFA aren't jumping in head first to prop up basketcase clubs, the chairman had to use his own money to do so for one, so he's hardly going to vote to use FFA money for others.

Now, it DOES matter whose in charge. Do you really think that without the current FFA board many other people would have mustered up such great corporate and sponsorship appeal and support, and produce crowds of up to 50K, literally, out of nothing? It matters alot, and people will go if it is done right. You will note that the sydney swans when they first came, the crowds were, other than the 2 semi final years, in your words 'pathetic'. Less than the crowds of sydney FC. But the AFL hung in with them until eventual success. It's if run right, crowds will eventually come.

The Swans didn't draw pathetic crowds, in fact for their first 10 or so years they averaged well above the local rugby league comp average, with an average well into the 20k's for their 4th and 5th season (strangely enough when they were competitive).
What stuffed the Swans up was that they had a run of 4 straight spoons which meant they were drawing crowds averaging just under 10k. FFS, didn't Sydney FC win the comp last year, and are 2nd this year? Support for them is likely to be at a peak. Imagine if they had a run like 26 losses in a row - what do you think their crowds would be like then? 2 or 3,000? Just look at the NZ Knights I suppose - but even they aren't as sh*t as the Swans were back in their dark days.

 

[littleduck]

You may not be concerned but the AFL and WAFC are extremely concerned. The key to sporting popularity in the future is international contests which puts the AFL sh*t out of luck.

bollocks.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

bollocks.

why?

 

[mediumsizered]

So I guess no VFL or local league attendances are on the cards.

These leagues only attract the diehards, many of who have extremely close links to the clubs. I think WA is a good example of spectators voting with their feet to watch the elite players. WA's are able to go & see players like Chris Judd & Matthew Pavlich on a regular basis, hence they pack Subiaco week in week out. On the other hand the Perth Glory are unable to put on show the best soccer players Australia has to offer, as a result the people stay away in their droves.

Just as Australian cricket fans will flock to the MCG, WACA, Adelaide Oval etc to see the Australian cricket team on the handful of occasions that they play at these venues each year, so soccer fans will go & watch the Socceroos on the 1-2 occasions each year they play in Australia. On the other hand cricket fans won't turn out in masses to watch the Pura Cup, because of the unavailability of most of the elite players. This will continue to be the big challenge for the A-League. Except for Melbourne, which is the spectator capital of Australia, FFA have a lot of work ahead of them to sell a competition that will never contain the elite players of Australian soccer.

 

[gotheflag]

If people in Australia wanted to watch the best soccer players they would be paying $100 to $150 to watch a game.

In a-league you can get in for $20 to $30 which is probably comparible to Australian sports.

Why stop people who want to improve themselves and go overseas, ala golfers, swimmers tennis players etc

The Uraguay game in Sydney were $65 to $200 a ticket with the average being around $150.

If the best are here people will pay and go I suppose.

 

[realfootball]

Of course not, but surely you wouldn't give similar weighting for someone that goes to 30 matches a year and someone that reads the newspaper once every few weeks?

Sure, I wouldn't.

Whatever you reckon. But in any case, soccer participation has been high for ages now, using your logic then that means it's less likely to be able to grow into the future.

Not at all. If anything, it's a matter of continuing to harness this support. And to some extent that has already happened. If someone said in the final season of the NSL that they predicted soccer crowds to grow at least 3 fold instantly in the he first season of new A-league, they would have been sent to the looney bin. Who would of thought that the two provincial teams, central coast and Newcastle would have pulled in 16K and 21K respectively this weekend? No matter which way you look at it, it's impressive. Not impressive compared to AFL, but impressive compared to expectations, and even compared to RL.

A week ago:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,20968024-5000940,00.html

Just in case you can't be bothered reading the whole story:
"NEWCASTLE Jets owner Con Constantine has implored Football Federation Australia to dig into its World Cup coffers to provide urgent financial aid as the A-League drowns in a $20 million sink hole."

"the fiscal foundation the A-League requires to prosper is anything but concrete."


"Reigning champion Sydney FC would have perished but for the intervention of the Lowy family, whose head, Frank Lowy, is the FFA chairman."

No wonder the FFA aren't jumping in head first to prop up basketcase clubs, the chairman had to use his own money to do so for one, so he's hardly going to vote to use FFA money for others.

It's no secret that some of the clubs have struggled, sure, but I wouldn't take any of these media reports as gospel. It's hard to tell which clubs lost out, and by how much. But hey, AFL and RL have had very simialr stories with clubs, including my club, the swans. The beauty is, the FFA has the ability to support these franchises, if they choose to.
Lowy did not prop up sydney, but I assume his son/family did help out. It seems that Sydney was not well managed fiscally last year, but it was always going to be hard in the first few years anyway. Remember some high profile business people are running this league. They know how to manage money. The people who run the FFA have incredible financial mangement ability. Few surely could deny this.

The Swans didn't draw pathetic crowds, in fact for their first 10 or so years they averaged well above the local rugby league comp average, with an average well into the 20k's for their 4th and 5th season (strangely enough when they were competitive).
What stuffed the Swans up was that they had a run of 4 straight spoons which meant they were drawing crowds averaging just under 10k. FFS, didn't Sydney FC win the comp last year, and are 2nd this year? Support for them is likely to be at a peak. Imagine if they had a run like 26 losses in a row - what do you think their crowds would be like then? 2 or 3,000? Just look at the NZ Knights I suppose - but even they aren't as sh*t as the Swans were back in their dark days.

You fail to mention that apart from those years, (and it was the 5th and 6th season), they did draw pathetic crowds for seasons 2,3,4, and 7 through to 13. They averaged around 11k, and for 4 of those years they failed to crack 10K. And I should know, I was there for alot of them. Sydney FC crowds too so far, on average are quite respectable, when compared to this.

Yes, Sydney FC won the comp last year, and it is also true that the sydney marketing machine has been pathetic. Even so, the crowds would be far greater than you predict if they came dead last, and lost every game. The fact remains the club already has around 9000 members.
Support for them has far from peaked, just like it hadn't for the swans in 86, 87. It takes years to established a iconic team in Sydney. It will not happen overnight.

 

[Rob]

Sure, I wouldn't.

Not at all. If anything, it's a matter of continuing to harness this support. And to some extent that has already happened. If someone said in the final season of the NSL that they predicted soccer crowds to grow at least 3 fold instantly in the he first season of new A-league, they would have been sent to the looney bin. Who would of thought that the two provincial teams, central coast and Newcastle would have pulled in 16K and 21K respectively this weekend? No matter which way you look at it, it's impressive. Not impressive compared to AFL, but impressive compared to expectations, and even compared to RL.

Settle down, crowds haven't gone up 3 fold because there's half the teams. When you've only got 8 teams, none of which intrude on each other's market, obviously average crowds are going to rise.

It's no secret that some of the clubs have struggled, sure, but I wouldn't take any of these media reports as gospel. It's hard to tell which clubs lost out, and by how much. But hey, AFL and RL have had very simialr stories with clubs, including my club, the swans. The beauty is, the FFA has the ability to support these franchises, if they choose to.

A bit of a difference there, the major one being 100% private ownership of clubs. The FFA would not want to prop up privately owned businesses, because you're going to firstly deter any club owner from ever using their own money to do it (which is clearly the preferable option for the FFA), and secondly because these clubs are businesses they're going to expect to be treated equally. They want to make profits, and if one club gets a million bucks from general a-League revenue, that's essentially money that comes from other clubs. If you owned a McDonalds franchise in Sydney, you'd be pretty **********ed if McDonalds gave money to a franchise in Melbourne without giving you the same amount, irrespective of your financial position.

Lowy did not prop up sydney, but I assume his son/family did help out. It seems that Sydney was not well managed fiscally last year, but it was always going to be hard in the first few years anyway. Remember some high profile business people are running this league. They know how to manage money. You know what Lowy created in his business life, and you also would be aware what O'Neil did for rugby. The people who run the FFA have incredible financial mangement ability. Few surely could deny this.

I would have thought the chairman of the controlling body using his own money to prop up one of the clubs creates a monster conflict of interest. A supposedly neutral role as chairman gets compromised. That aint good business. Possibly explains why the CEO of one of the other clubs is holding his hand out for money and has gone public with it.

You fail to mention that apart from those years, (and it was the 5th and 6th season), they did draw pathetic crowds for seasons 2,3,4, and 7 through to 13. They averaged around 11k, and for 4 of those years they failed to crack 10K. And I should know, I was there for alot of them. Sydney FC crowds too so far, on average are quite respectable, when compared to this.

What, 20 years later? FFS, you can't compare crowds of any sport today to crowds 20 years ago. People are more affluent now and generally have more discretionary income to spend on things like sporting tickets. What was a decent crowd back then might not be a decent crowd now. Hell, for most of the 80's the Sydney RL average crowd was well under 10k.

Yes, Sydney FC won the comp last year, and it is also true that the sydney marketing machine has been pathetic. Even so, the crowds would be far greater than you predict if they came dead last, and lost every game. The fact remains the club already has around 9000 members.
Support for them has far from peaked, just like it hadn't for the swans in 86, 87. It takes years to established a iconic team in Sydney. It will not happen overnight.

You mean like Northern Spirit?

(Yes I know, it was bad management and that won't happen again because it's so well run)

 

[Tredders66]

Well considering I said this was the first time I've ever been, yeah, I woudl say that was quite obvious.

Then why would you judge the atmosphere of Soccer off one game?

 

[tess]

They want to make profits, and if one club gets a million bucks from general a-League revenue, that's essentially money that comes from other clubs. If you owned a McDonalds franchise in Sydney, you'd be pretty **********ed if McDonalds gave money to a franchise in Melbourne without giving you the same amount, irrespective of your financial position.

You mean like the Eagles and Freo are "privately" owned by the Western Australia Football Commision? Similar to Port and the Crows being "privately" owned by the South Australian national Football League!

 

[realfootball]

Settle down, crowds haven't gone up 3 fold because there's half the teams. When you've only got 8 teams, none of which intrude on each other's market, obviously average crowds are going to rise.

That's a pretty poor argument, to say that the crowds 'look better' because the average goes up, since the number of clubs have gone down. If none intrude on each others markets, then as you say, the crowds should be stagnant, since the a-league as you believe, is going nowhere. Yet look at the crowds at new QLD roar vs the old brsibane strkers. The old Newcastle breakers vs the 'new' newcastle jets. The melbourne victory vs all the old victorian nsl teams combined. They would be flogging th old crowd averages. I haven't checked the stats for Adelaide, but i'm sure they are well up on average. Sydney and Perth may be the exception, not the rule.

A bit of a difference there, the major one being 100% private ownership of clubs. The FFA would not want to prop up privately owned businesses, because you're going to firstly deter any club owner from ever using their own money to do it (which is clearly the preferable option for the FFA), and secondly because these clubs are businesses they're going to expect to be treated equally. They want to make profits, and if one club gets a million bucks from general a-League revenue, that's essentially money that comes from other clubs. If you owned a McDonalds franchise in Sydney, you'd be pretty **********ed if McDonalds gave money to a franchise in Melbourne without giving you the same amount, irrespective of your financial position.

Well, they already have. With New Zealand, and goodness knows how much with Glory. The entire glory administration for Glory takes place out of Sydney currently. The fact remains, as long as clubs meet most targets, the FFA have will 'prop up' clubs for the first five years, the period of the licences, if necessary.

What, 20 years later? FFS, you can't compare crowds of any sport today to crowds 20 years ago. People are more affluent now and generally have more discretionary income to spend on things like sporting tickets. What was a decent crowd back then might not be a decent crowd now. Hell, for most of the 80's the Sydney RL average crowd was well under 10k.

Well maybe not, but I think you understand my point. And that is, you are not going to create success overnight. And I can say, living in Sydney, barely anyone had even heard of, or even cared for the swans for thier first 10 years of existence, and even still now to some degree, struggle for mainstream acceptance. But with careful management, the perception of sydneysiders towards AFL has slowly changed.

You mean like Northern Spirit?

Well this is what it all comes down to doesn't it. That you view that this is all some flash in the pan, based on what happened to Glory, and the old NSL. But the reality is, it is a VERY different ball game now. It is well run, with a management board the envy of any other sport in oz, has met all benchmarks, and i certainly know here in Sydney and the central coast, and I am sure in Melbourne as well, football/soccer is mainstream. And It is only going to get bigger, irrespective of what happens in Perth. There's also not much point to the argument 'well why aren't sydney getting bigger crowds'. The fact is, sydney people take years to accept any form any sport club as iconic, and even then, they must win everything

 

[Rob]

You mean like the Eagles and Freo are "privately" owned by the Western Australia Football Commision? Similar to Port and the Crows being "privately" owned by the South Australian national Football League!

Both non profit organisations.

Good effort, just lacking a bit in research. 3/10.

 

[Rob]

That's a pretty poor argument, to say that the crowds 'look better' because the average goes up, since the number of clubs have gone down. If none intrude on each others markets, then as you say, the crowds should be stagnant, since the a-league as you believe, is going nowhere.

I never said that. I just refuted the claim that because soccer is less popular than footy in every state (and to avoid argument, let's clarify that as a spectator sport only), it's in a better position to become more popular nationally.

Yet look at the crowds at new QLD roar vs the old brsibane strkers. The old Newcastle breakers vs the 'new' newcastle jets. The melbourne victory vs all the old victorian nsl teams combined. They would be flogging th old crowd averages. I haven't checked the stats for Adelaide, but i'm sure they are well up on average. Sydney and Perth may be the exception, not the rule.

So 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.

Well, they already have. With New Zealand, and goodness knows how much with Glory. The entire glory administration for Glory takes place out of Sydney currently. The fact remains, as long as clubs meet most targets, the FFA have will 'prop up' clubs for the first five years, the period of the licences, if necessary.

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.

Well maybe not, but I think you understand my point. And that is, you are not going to create success overnight. And I can say, living in Sydney, barely anyone had even heard of, or even cared for the swans for thier first 10 years of existence, and even still now to some degree, struggle for mainstream acceptance. But with careful management, the perception of sydneysiders towards AFL has slowly changed.

I do see where you're coming from, but my point was that time is no guarantee of success.

Well this is what it all comes down to doesn't it. That you view that this is all some flash in the pan, based on what happened to Glory, and the old NSL. But the reality is, it is a VERY different ball game now. It is well run, with a management board the envy of any other sport in oz, has met all benchmarks, and i certainly know here in Sydney and the central coast, and I am sure in Melbourne as well, football/soccer is mainstream. And It is only going to get bigger, irrespective of what happens in Perth. There's also not much point to the argument 'well why aren't sydney getting bigger crowds'. The fact is, sydney people take years to accept any form any sport club as iconic, and even then, they must win everything

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.

 

[Grunty]

I think you overstate 'management'. Most people don't show up to a sporting event because of what happens in the boardroom.

I would agree with that, but it's the people in the board room who bring in the money to give financial stability to a league.

Look at Ben Buckley, he'd only been in the FFA job a few days and he was using his old Nike contacts from Japan to swing a deal for the FFA with Nike worth $40 million.

It was also the solid management of the FFA that wiped out the $4 million debt that the previous inept Soccer Australia administration had accumulated.

And while Perth Glory temporarily flounders with crowds of 8000, Newcastle have just broken their record with a 20,000 plus crowd, while Central Coast got a crowd of 15,000 this weekend.

Of course these crowds are nowhere near what the Eagles or even the Dockers get, and probably never will be, but I am sure Frank Lowy would see these numbers as being on target for the second A-League season. After all, he didn't build up his $30 billion Westfield empire overnight.

 

[TigerCraig]

By defintion, if you referee a game, then you must watch it too. Otherwise, what else did you do when you were refereeing?

Well, a lot of fans would probably suggest I wasn't watching

But, seriously when refereeing you are involved - running around, concentrating, making decisions. Plus you are being pretty well paid. The result and quality of play is pretty much immaterial, unless it is a really dire game.

 

[mustapha]

I would agree with that, but it's the people in the board room who bring in the money to give financial stability to a league.

Look at Ben Buckley, he'd only been in the FFA job a few days and he was using his old Nike contacts from Japan to swing a deal for the FFA with Nike worth $40 million.

It was also the solid management of the FFA that wiped out the $4 million debt that the previous inept Soccer Australia administration had accumulated.

And while Perth Glory temporarily flounders with crowds of 8000, Newcastle have just broken their record with a 20,000 plus crowd, while Central Coast got a crowd of 15,000 this weekend.

Of course these crowds are nowhere near what the Eagles or even the Dockers get, and probably never will be, but I am sure Frank Lowy would see these numbers as being on target for the second A-League season. After all, he didn't build up his $30 billion Westfield empire overnight.

These results occurring in the second year of the competition. Amazing!

 

[evertonfc]

15,000+ in Gosford on NYE.

21,000 in Newcastle yesterday.

Great signs for the A-League that the game is proving a massive drawcard in rural areas.



Full steam ahead for a huge 2007