GWS are going to win the premiership

[Sweet Jesus]

Meant from this point on

This is their first year.

 

[Dan26]

C'mon mate, they are absolutely boring everyone to tears.

The giants are a breath of fresh air, we have single handedly re-vitalised this competition.

I'm on board. Go Giants. Despite what a few people are saying on here, I don't think any neutrals really want Hawthorn to beat GWS.

 

[Valian]

C'mon mate, they are absolutely boring everyone to tears.

The giants are a breath of fresh air, we have single handedly re-vitalised this competition.

plastic fresh air , you cant breath it mate!

 

[Gigantor]

Just listening to the Mike Fitzpatrick interview on the ABC.

So before they went ahead with the Giants, the AFL had metrics of people from Western Sydney sampling games at ANZ without regularly going to the SCG to watch the footy.

His expectation is that the Giants will become a big club.

I think he's right.

 

[Dan26]

Their crowds are very disappointing considering the success they're having on field

Not really. They are only in their 5th season.

Its taken Melbourne Storm the best part of 20 years to be averaging close to 20,000. They had many crowds under 10,000 in their early years.

They key is to have continued success and boost the average by 1-2,000 every year.

Even if they are reigning premiers entering 2017, I wouldn't expect the average would be more than about 14,000, but after a few years, bit by bit, it will grow towards the high teens.

 

[JD Tomahawk]

Whatever gave you the idea you get to decide that?

Im clearly speaking from my account so that's what I think.

 

[TheSunGod]

....This is a 20-30 year project/ experiment before its worthwhile really taking a long hard look at it - and the same for the Gold Coast for that matter.

Bookmarked. Will check again in 20-30 years....if I'm still around.

 

[Bokonon]

Im clearly speaking from my account so that's what I think.

Actually you made a statement that our flags wont mean anything.
I perfectly reasonably asked how you concluded that was your decision.
Simples

 

[Glorious couch life]

You basically dismissed the example of the broadcast rights deal because it was inconvenient. Like I said, powerful argument.

Forgive me for being facetious, but I don't think you were being serious with your example.

The draw is weighted to favour clubs that finish lower the previous year but in reality it's quite unpredictable.

In March, playing Fremantle twice would have seemed like a disadvantage. By September, not so much.

And I'm still not clear how this systematically favours certain clubs? It will vary from year to year. There's no specific agenda driving it beyond wanting to have 22 games for each side each season. I accept that it's messy but it doesn't really favour particular clubs over others.

Clubs are also also disadvantaged by exposure, or lack of it. Do Collingwood get all the blockbuster games because they're a huge club? Or are they a huge club because they get all the blockbusters? It's less an issue of fixturing fairness (as you said; it's messy, but difficult to correct outside of reducing the number of teams in the comp), more an issue of favouring the big clubs while consigning the smaller ones to holding the cap out via the CBF.

And if your complaint is that GWS have been set up to dominate, then this skewed fixturing will end up working against them. Doesn't that run counter to your whole argument?

How GWS respond to the weighted fixture remains to be seen. The example I provided was more to highlight that the AFL is happy to disadvantage some clubs financially while favouring others. You could argue that the money these clubs miss out on is returned to them via the CBF. I think it ultimately means they get a smaller seat at the negotiating table.

People love to throw around the phrase "integrity of the competition".

We can argue about whether the AFL was right to restrict the Swans but to suggest it undermines "the integrity of the competition" goes too far.

You think it's fair to penalise a club for operating within the rules?

And really, if this is one of your primary arguments about how GWS have been artificially and unduly advantaged by the AFL, it's not very persuasive. It's hard cheese for the Swans but delivers no lasting benefit to GWS.

The Franklin example wasn't an argument about how GWS have been advantaged. It was an example of the AFL compromising the integrity of it's own competition by trying to manufacture an outcome, then throwing the toys out of the cot when they didn't get their way.

The point is that GWS's success is not simply a function of AFL concessions. The backlash seems to suggest that the AFL engineered that success in a way that made it inevitable. That's simply not the case. GWS have had to do a lot of things well to get to this point. The Suns' example proves this.

There you go. You say you acknowledge that GWS have played their hand well but then pivot back to suggesting they haven't earned their success.

Don't pretend that you're giving them credit for what they've achieved and then basically say it's been given to them on a platter.

They developed their list rather than simply poaching the best player in the comp. To say they haven't earned their success is just petulant.

It's like you can't decide whether to give credit to GWS or write off their success as being inevitable. You do both in this post. Which one is it?

Their strategy of going to the draft and developing their kids was sound, and GC would've done well to go with a similar strategy. An avalanche of draft picks (along with a couple of mini drafts) has meant that they've been able to compile an incredible list, despite the fact they've had more than their fair share of draft misses. Weight of numbers has told the tale. No other club could have as many first round misses yet still turn out a team which is largely compromised of first round picks.

The AFL wanted GWS to be competitive, for obvious reasons. And now in their fifth season, they've won a final for the first time, having developed their list around young talent. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with the AFL engineering success by gifting a side exclusive access to most of the top end talent, forcing other clubs to try and rebuild through years of compromised drafts and condemning their supporters to watching their club come up short to a bunch of all-stars?

I said it's better for the competition for the expansion sides to be competitive, like GWS, than be basket cases, like GC. Surely that's a given.

I think it's better for the competition for all sides to have more equal access to the talent.

You like to talk about "the integrity of the competition" but non-competitive teams do real damage to that.

If all teams get a fair go with respect to drafting, player academies and so on, how does that do damage to the integrity of the competition?[/QUOTE]

 

[madmug]

Yes, the Giants were given a lot of concessions, but they still had to build their own empire. They have nailed everything playing wise, specifically. their drafting and their recruits. As a result they are building a strong identity. However it's still a bit of a square peg, round hole regarding the location of the team, in that they don't really fit into the culture of Western Sydney.

Always thought gold coast was the more likely to succeed out of the two, but they have stuffed up just about everything and have had bad luck thrown in.

The record of sports clubs on the GC speaks for itself.
Maybe its having too many distractions. Nightclubs & 'substances'

 

[Garlic muncher]

Well it will be interesting to see not only membership next year but also crowd averages, GWS must go over and above what many other clubs need to do to engage locals.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Forgive me for being facetious, but I don't think you were being serious with your example.

The broadcasting rights deal is not a valid example of where it makes complete sense for the AFL to be focused on financial imperatives?

Clubs are also also disadvantaged by exposure, or lack of it. Do Collingwood get all the blockbuster games because they're a huge club? Or are they a huge club because they get all the blockbusters? It's less an issue of fixturing fairness (as you said; it's messy, but difficult to correct outside of reducing the number of teams in the comp), more an issue of favouring the big clubs while consigning the smaller ones to holding the cap out via the CBF.

So that's a complete air swing on fixturing.

How does it damage the integrity of the competition? How does the draw systematically advantage certain sides more than others? Your comments here do nothing to make that case.

And I don't think Collingwood helps your argument. They might get a lot of eyeballs but it has hardly translated into sustained on-field success.

How GWS respond to the weighted fixture remains to be seen. The example I provided was more to highlight that the AFL is happy to disadvantage some clubs financially while favouring others.

Isn't this a thread about how GWS have been set up to succeed by the AFL?

It sounds like your complaints about the fixturing actually have nothing to do with this.

You think it's fair to penalise a club for operating within the rules?

I think it falls short of undermining "the integrity of the competition".

The Franklin example wasn't an argument about how GWS have been advantaged. It was an example of the AFL compromising the integrity of it's own competition by trying to manufacture an outcome, then throwing the toys out of the cot when they didn't get their way.

So you've moved into general criticisms of the AFL that are no longer connected to the claims made about GWS in this thread. OK, I didn't realise.

I assume you're also upset about the GF being played at the MCG every year. Add that to your list of grievances. Or maybe you don't care about that one.

What's wrong with the AFL engineering success by gifting a side exclusive access to most of the top end talent, forcing other clubs to try and rebuild through years of compromised drafts and condemning their supporters to watching their club come up short to a bunch of all-stars?

Exclusive access? Rubbish.

You can't sheet home the stalled development of other clubs to a handful of compromised drafts.

WC were denied the No 1 pick in 2010 because of GC coming in but that didn't stop them getting back to a GF in 2015. The Bulldogs have made a decent fist of it as well despite being down the bottom 2012-14.

So this notion that the draft concessions given to the expansion clubs have condemned other teams to unending shitness is just selective and hyperbolic.

I think it's better for the competition for all sides to have more equal access to the talent..

The reality is that expansion sides needed that leg-up initially otherwise they simply wouldn't have been competitive. And that would have been a disaster. In GC's case it still wasn't enough. And we've now returned to business as usual. You can't keep complaining about draft concessions five years after they ended.

If all teams get a fair go with respect to drafting, player academies and so on, how does that do damage to the integrity of the competition?

It doesn't. What's your point?

You're the one jumping at shadows and claiming any mechanism that helps the expansion sides "damages the integrity of the competition".

 

[maxmustard]

I wasnt a fan of how much they got or even their existence initially but the whinging about them is going to be more annoying than their success. Nobody cared this much until they played a ripping final get over it its already done.

 

[JD Tomahawk]

Actually you made a statement that our flags wont mean anything.
I perfectly reasonably asked how you concluded that was your decision.
Simples

Because I believe your club was given far to many concessions. When you lose a first rounder you replace them with more first rounders. This was always going to happen. The AFL did everything they could to make sure the Giants win a flag whilst they're all still relevant.

 

[Rimmer]

All things take time ... they have the team to attract the interest of the Sydney public though it is very early in their incarnation to build up a die hard supporter base.

As to crowd numbers many games are played in Victoria and most interstaters who come here are shipped off to Etihad or Kardinia Park as its difficult for supporters to travel regularly (unless its a final). Port, the Crows, WC and Freo pull their own huge crowds at home. Sydney and Brisbane (when winning) do the same.

Nothing succeeds like success ...

 

[little graham]

They won't win it this year? Who will then? They will be bloody hard to stop.

They will struggle to beat Adelaide in the grand final (if both make it). Adelaide touched them up earlier in the year when they (GWS) were flying.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

I reckon they are becoming louder and more passionate...

They really ought to get in bed with Western Sydney Wanderers and offer their members half price tickets and get a % of the 20,000 who attend those games to jump on board. What do they all do between March and October?

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

They will struggle to beat Adelaide in the grand final (if both make it). Adelaide touched them up earlier in the year when they (GWS) were flying.

I'm not sure I'd call 22 points a "touch up"..

 

[little graham]

I'm not sure I'd call 22 points a "touch up"..

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

Their system failed. We done it to many teams this year, then backed off in the last. Including last Saturday.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

I reckon they are becoming louder and more passionate...

They really ought to get in bed with Western Sydney Wanderers and offer their members half price tickets and get a % of the 20,000 who attend those games to jump on board. What do they all do between March and October?

I don't know - what to fans of Victory and Heart City do over the same period?

 

[aCunningPlan]

I don't know - what to fans of Victory and Heart City do over the same period?

We wait patiently until the season starts to see super Timmy Cahill in action!! Come to Ballarat this Sunday!

 

[Glorious couch life]

The broadcasting rights deal is not a valid example of where it makes complete sense for the AFL to be focused on financial imperatives?

The alternative you suggested was to give away the TV rights for nothing. Forgive me for not taking you seriously.

So that's a complete air swing on fixturing.

How does it damage the integrity of the competition? How does the draw systematically advantage certain sides more than others? Your comments here do nothing to make that case.

And I don't think Collingwood helps your argument. They might get a lot of eyeballs but it has hardly translated into sustained on-field success.

The AFL maximise revenue while at the same time restricting some clubs in their ability to generate their own. You've made the assumption that a compromised draw can only affect a club's onfield success.

Isn't this a thread about how GWS have been set up to succeed by the AFL?

It sounds like your complaints about the fixturing actually have nothing to do with this.

I think it falls short of undermining "the integrity of the competition".

So you've moved into general criticisms of the AFL that are no longer connected to the claims made about GWS in this thread. OK, I didn't realise.

I haven't moved anywhere. My beef has always been with the AFL (as I mentioned in my first or second post). I'm cynical of the AFL's motives and I think that their attempts to generate success for GWS is just another example of them compromising the integrity of the competition.

Kind of why listed a few other examples where I think they've prioritised money over integrity.

I assume you're also upset about the GF being played at the MCG every year. Add that to your list of grievances. Or maybe you don't care about that one.

If Sydney or Perth knocked up a 100,000+ stadium I'd have no problem with them hosting the GF.

Exclusive access? Rubbish.

You can't sheet home the stalled development of other clubs to a handful of compromised drafts.

WC were denied the No 1 pick in 2010 because of GC coming in but that didn't stop them getting back to a GF in 2015. The Bulldogs have made a decent fist of it as well despite being down the bottom 2012-14.

So this notion that the draft concessions given to the expansion clubs have condemned other teams to unending shitness is just selective and hyperbolic.

"Unending shitness?" Settle petal.

I do think they this is just the beginning for GWS. They've still got early picks in the pipeline and their young guns are just that. They're also plentiful with long careers still ahead of them.

The reality is that expansion sides needed that leg-up initially otherwise they simply wouldn't have been competitive. And that would have been a disaster. In GC's case it still wasn't enough. And we've now returned to business as usual. You can't keep complaining about draft concessions five years after they ended.

It's one hell of a leg up. GC making a meal of things took quite some doing on their behalf, but still doesn't justify the overly generous concessions to GWS imo. And it's not really "business as usual". GWS are still running with COLA, can secure talent through their academy, and can trade off players for more early picks - as clubs try to fill holes in their list caused by years of compromised drafts.

It doesn't. What's your point?

What was yours? Why should non-competitive teams do damage to the integrity of the competition? I'd have thought compromising drafts to the extent the AFL has does more.

You're the one jumping at shadows and claiming any mechanism that helps the expansion sides "damages the integrity of the competition".

No, not any mechanism.

 

[King Wavo]

'AFL Allstars' is pretty funny, albeit a little bay-like.

 

[Blue1980]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

I don't know - what to fans of Victory and Heart City do over the same period?

Probably smoke crack like the rest of the country.

I'm a South Melbourne Hellas fan, so like all 50,000 of us, we wait patiently.