GWS is the AFL's biggest problem - not North, GC, or Tassie

[Teen Wolf]

Jesus, looking to play at the SCG? one of the most stupid expansion ideas ever, the half-committal approach with Canberra getting a third of matches said enough but considering going to their rivals' homeground, on the other side of the city, is pretty much a foregoing of 'this isn't and won't be working.'

I guess the Geelong Football Club are a failure too then.

 

[Cmarsh]

It's ok for W games, no different to playing a couple of games at regional locations which teams do, but with a bigger capacity.

For places like Alice Springs where a game is played there for social equality reasons more than anything, yes I can understand it. But a ground of the quality of Henson Park just doesnt cut it when you are trying to make it as a well regarded professional outfit in a major city.

 

[errant bounce]

I guess the Geelong Football Club are a failure too then.

What a bizarre comparison. cmon.

 

[sherb]

I guess the Geelong Football Club are a failure too then.

Geelong aren't trying to establish themselves in their geographical area.

 

[sherb]

Jesus, looking to play at the SCG? one of the most stupid expansion ideas ever, the half-committal approach with Canberra getting a third of matches said enough but considering going to their rivals' homeground, on the other side of the city, is pretty much a foregoing of 'this isn't and won't be working.'

That Olympic Park precinct is pretty bad though. takes ages to get to; nothing there. I'd never heard the Henson Park noise but that's a much better idea. always thought they should've pandered more to the inner west than the expanses. you're going to adopt the children of yuppies and trendies in their 20s far more than you are multi-generational working class, already attached people in Penrith, Parramatta, and Liverpool.

Exactly right.

The problem is that GWS have never been 100% serious about committing to the Greater Western Sydney area - despite people in western Sydney being told that it was to be our club, according to the AFL's PR material.

Many people probably don't realize exactly how big Greater Western Sydney is - both geographically and population wise. It has, I think, 11 LGA's and probably 1 in 12 Australians live here. That's the area the Giants were given to work with, but it doesn't seem to be enough for them.

It's not just the games in Canberra, or the consideration of playing games at the SCG. Why are they playing AFLW games at Henson Park? That's in Marrickville, which is not in the GWS area. Hell, even their training base and home ground are only just in the GWS geographical area - they are on the eastern extreme - closer to the heart of Sydney than much of the west. I'm in Penrith - Engie Stadium is about 17km from the Sydney CBD, it's about twice that distance from me.

In the early days of the Giants, the brain surgeons running the joint decided to align themselves with Manly in the local Sydney AFL senior competition - a club despised by western Sydney clubs (for good reason). That put them offside with most of the people involved in senior football in the west of Sydney. Why alienate what should be a captive audience when you need all the support you can get? (I tried to explain this on BF when it happened, but club loyalty blinded Giants fans to the stupidity of it). That was an early indication of what the Giants thought of their supposed market.

The Giants seem to have no idea of what they want their identity to be. They seem to want to be a bit of this and a bit of that. They really need to make a decision - either throw their lot in fully with the area they purport to represent, or just drop the pretence and become a second Sydney team with no geographical affiliation - and call themselves the Sydney Giants.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Geelong aren't trying to establish themselves in their geographical area.

State government did it for them by building the club a stadium that they don't have to share with horses.

Maybe GWS will be so lucky one day, but until then... get off your own high horses. It's not the Giants who lack a commitment to western Sydney, rather the NSW Government has always lacked a serious commitment to them.

 

[Giant YoYo]

Jesus, looking to play at the SCG? one of the most stupid expansion ideas ever

The ground being unavailable for the Easter Show is an ongoing problem with this being proposed as a potential solution. Accor is far too big for games to be played there.

No games were played at the Giants home ground in two months and only one home game was played in 3 months.

Once the Giants are back with any regularity there's 5 home games before seasons end. Any momentum that could be gained is completely lost and the cycle continues.

Whilst the SCG is not ideal it seems to be leading Blacktown as an option.

 

[sherb]

State government did it for them by building the club a stadium that they don't have to share with horses.

Maybe GWS will be so lucky one day, but until then... get off your own high horses. It's not the Giants who lack a commitment to Sydney, rather the NSW Government which has always lacked a serious commitment to them.

Regardless of whose "fault" it is, perception is very important.

And the Giants don't ooze the perception of 100% commitment to Greater Western Sydney.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Regardless of whose "fault" it is, perception is very important.

And the Giants don't ooze the perception of 100% commitment to Greater Western Sydney.

Uh no, solutions are very important, which is what your rant lacks.

 

[sherb]

Uh no, solutions are very important, which is what your rant lacks.

Ironic coming from someone who thinks comparing GWS to Geelong is remotely relevant, let alone a solution.

My solution is for the club to fully commit to the Greater Western Sydney region. Or un-commit. Don't sit somewhere between, which is where they currently are.

Why should people in the GWS area get fully behind the Giants when the club is half-arsed about getting fully behind them?

Ironically, they remind me a bit of your club - I remember well the days of North trying to push into the Sydney market. They didn't know what they wanted to be then either.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They're averaging 13k this year. They averaged 9k ten years ago.

They'll be averaging 19k ten years from now (same 45% growth as the past decade), and you'll still be saying they haven't increased their crowds.

Through the use of scheduling elements such as travelling Pies fans through Opening Round. Like-for-like it isn't a 45% growth, and you can't do that same maths again - are you suggesting 30,000 will show up opening round 10 years from now? (never mind the fact that percentage increases are always easier on a smaller number. Surely a linear 4k increase to 17k is a better argument, anyway)

Like-for-like crowds have improved but not by 45% anyway. For example a crowd of 6696 and 7828 vs North in the early years and 8036 this year. That's a tad over a 10% growth, roughly.

 

[Giant YoYo]

They really need to make a decision - either throw their lot in fully with the area they purport to represent, or just drop the pretence and become a second Sydney team with no geographical affiliation - and call themselves the Sydney Giants.

Totally agree.

I don't support the Giants because of the geographical affiliation or where I live. It just so happens that I live in Western Sydney.

I assume Western was required to be added to the name so as not to encroach on the name of Sydney (Swans) but there is sufficient distinction between the two clubs irrespective of location. I don't think location is a significant pull factor nowadays, perhaps in times gone by, yes, but not so much nowadays, IMO. People can support clubs from further afield (and do!).

Swans branding is strong enough nowadays that it's unlikely to be confused by a secondary club regardless of the secondary clubs geographical affiliation. Let alone one with orange as its colour.

Can understand that many will disagree because geographical affiliation can hold significant pull factor but it's probably not as important for certain demographics nowadays.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Funnily enough, it is absolutely true that Buddy had an impact on the growth of Sydney in the last decade. Some of the Swans' growth in fans would have found their way to the Giants had Buddy just gone to the Giants, which is well-known to what the AFL always wanted.

 

[sherb]

Totally agree.

I don't support the Giants because of the geographical affiliation or where I live. It just so happens that I live in Western Sydney.

I assume Western was required to be added to the name so as not to encroach on the name of Sydney (Swans) but there is sufficient distinction between the two clubs irrespective of location. I don't think location is a significant pull factor nowadays, perhaps in times gone by, yes, but not so much nowadays, IMO. People can support clubs from further afield (and do!).

Swans branding is strong enough nowadays that it's unlikely to be confused by a secondary club regardless of the secondary clubs geographical affiliation. Let alone one with orange as its colour.

Can understand that many will disagree because geographical affiliation can hold significant pull factor but it's probably not as important for certain demographics nowadays.

I feel strongly about this because the Giants were sold by the AFL as being western Sydney's club - ie it was promoted on a geographical basis. I've got a brochure somewhere which waxes lyrical about it. The problem is that it hasn't panned out that way, because the GWS aspect has been watered down.

I took out a foundation membership because I found the prospect of having a club representing my area to be exciting. I'm still a member, because I support the game here, but I'm far from a fanatical supporter because of how things have eventuated. Having lived in Sydney for over 40 years, I've kept my "local" allegiances with the Swans as a result. But if its the Giants playing someone else, I'll of course support them.

I think it's a shame that the Giants support hasn't grown as much as I could have. I firmly believe that if they had thrown their lot in with the GWS area 100% from the outset, their support may well have been stronger. The other thing that I think cost them early on was their decision to recruit and play mostly kids - resulting in early a lot of thrashings and general lack of competitiveness. While this strategy eventually paid dividends, I wonder how many people they turned away by winning only 2 or 3 games in their first couple of years?

I want the Giants to succeed. Sydney is easily big enough for a second club and warrants having one. I just think that they are making life unnecessarily hard for themselves the way they are going about it. As I said before, they really exude not knowing what they want their identity to be.

 

[Giant YoYo]

Through the use of scheduling elements such as travelling Pies fans through Opening Round. Like-for-like it isn't a 45% growth, and you can't do that same maths again - are you suggesting 30,000 will show up opening round 10 years from now? (never mind the fact that percentage increases are always easier on a smaller number. Surely a linear 4k increase to 17k is a better argument, anyway)

Like-for-like crowds have improved but not by 45% anyway. For example a crowd of 6696 and 7828 vs North in the early years and 8036 this year. That's a tad over a 10% growth, roughly.

While fair points, more people will generally always turn out for bigger games across the footy world.

Giants fanbase attendance would've swelled for the Pies game but then you get a large contingent of Pies fans too. We go from boom to much lower figures.

We generally don't get a huge opposition fanbase out this way for games so the onus is on Giants fanbase to turnout for more games but it's cyclical because people generally won't turnout for the smaller games but you want to have a base of fans that do turnout each game. Building the base that turns up for all home games seems to be a much slower process as I've heard we tend to skew towards 3 game memberships.

You want more of those 3 game memberships converted to 8 and so far this season, it seems to be the case as I can see greater numbers in the members stand but you continuously need to keep the growth going (increasing from 3 to 8 game memberships and feed in from newbie to member) to make a notable impact.

I'd personally like to see more growth and try to do my part of advocating for footy (even if it means interest goes to the Swans) and try to encourage people to attend games or invite them to a game.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Ironic coming from someone who thinks comparing GWS to Geelong is remotely relevant, let alone a solution.

My solution is for the club to fully commit to the Greater Western Sydney region. Or un-commit. Don't sit somewhere between, which is where they currently are.

Why should people in the GWS area get fully behind the Giants when the club is half-arsed about getting fully behind them?

Ironically, they remind me a bit of your club - I remember well the days of North trying to push into the Sydney market. They didn't know what they wanted to be then either.

A solution means a specific action, such as "play a home game at the SCG during Easter". That answers the problem the Giants currently have (i.e. the core base doesn't have a reasonable chance of seeing them play live for 8 weeks). A solution is not a vague statement like "go all in and fully commit".

As for comparisons: Geelong are forced to play home games away from their primary stadium... Just like GWS. North Melbourne choose to play home games away from their primary stadium... Not like GWS at all.

Furthermore, a trip up the road from Geelong to the MCG is similar to a trip from say Blacktown to the SCG. Neither are anything like a trip from North Melbourne to Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, or Hobart.

 

[Giant YoYo]

I feel strongly about this because the Giants were sold by the AFL as being western Sydney's club - ie it was promoted on a geographical basis. I've got a brochure somewhere which waxes lyrical about it. The problem is that it hasn't panned out that way, because the GWS aspect has been watered down.

I can see why you'd feel strongly about it and I'd agree with you.

I wasn't into Aussie Rules prior to 2023. The location of the Giants wasn't a pull factor for me so it's probably why it's still not as much as a factor but can completely understand if it was sold that way then it should probably remain that way.

I think it's a shame that the Giants support hasn't grown as much as I could have. I firmly believe that if they had thrown their lot in with the GWS area 100% from the outset, their support may well have been stronger.

Agree

The other thing that I think cost them early on wa their decision to recruit and play mostly kids - resulting in early a lot of thrashings and general lack of competitiveness. While this strategy eventually paid dividends, I wonder how many people they turned away by winning only 2 or 3 games in their first couple of years?

Totally agree.

Possibly losing players frequently didn't help as well. I've seen posts that talked to kids being upset of seeing their favourite players leave regularly and no longer really wanting to attend games anymore.

I have spoken to some former Giants attendees, and no one really could give me a proper reason for no longer attending.

It seems they just lost engagement (possibly because of the above). I have spoken to three of them and all seemed interested once I mentioned how the club appears to be more stable, players are re-signing and doing relatively well on field. Two seemed interested to attend a game now that they've heard how things are going.

One said he'd be attending a game coming up but I haven't caught up with them to hear whether they have attended the PA or Swans game yesterday.

I imagine there would be others that have just become disengaged from the club that could be interested to come back to a game if they knew how the club was going.

I want the Giants to succeed. Sydney is easily big enough for a second club and warrants having one. I just think that they are making life unnecessarily hard for themselves the way they are going about it. As I said before, they really exude not knowing what they want their identity to be.

I'd like them to succeed and it's incredibly frustrating seeing them not succeed as well as they possibly could. It's strange seeing the Swans turning people away from games meanwhile Giants not doing anywhere near as well. I'd say the Giants want to absorb some of this footy interest.

FWIW, I didn't enjoy the no games in 2 months for the Easter Show and 1 game (Bulldogs) in 3 months thereafter. Not looking forward to it again next year. The footy starvation is real.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Through the use of scheduling elements such as travelling Pies fans through Opening Round. Like-for-like it isn't a 45% growth, and you can't do that same maths again - are you suggesting 30,000 will show up opening round 10 years from now? (never mind the fact that percentage increases are always easier on a smaller number. Surely a linear 4k increase to 17k is a better argument, anyway)

Like-for-like crowds have improved but not by 45% anyway. For example a crowd of 6696 and 7828 vs North in the early years and 8036 this year. That's a tad over a 10% growth, roughly.

Surely a better argument would be to avoid saying "crowds haven't increased" when they clearly have, thus putting yourself in the position of having to backtrack with fluff when proven wrong like you are now (just like the last time you lied about GWS crowds on here).

Btw, since you're obviously not paying attention: I'm suggesting GWS will get 30k (if not more) to a home Easter game at the SCG ten years from now. Come back to us in 2034 and if the Giants aren't averaging 19k+, then you may critique my "argument" without looking so foolish.

 

[sherb]

A solution means a specific action, such as "play a home game at the SCG during Easter". That answers the problem the Giants currently have (i.e. the core base doesn't have a reasonable chance of seeing them play live for 8 weeks). A solution is not a vague statement like "go all in and fully commit".

As for comparisons: Geelong are forced to play home games away from their primary stadium... Just like GWS. North Melbourne choose to play home games away from their primary stadium... Not like GWS at all.

Furthermore, a trip up the road from Geelong to the MCG is similar to a trip from say Blacktown to the SCG. Neither are anything like a trip from North Melbourne to Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, or Hobart.

By pointing out issues, I thought the answers would be clear. But as I have to spell it out to you, here I go -
*Play AFLW games in Greater Western Sydney, not at Henson Park
*Announce that when the Canberra contract expires, all home games will be played in Sydney
*Sure, if they want to play an SCG game or two when Easter is on, go ahead and do so - but make it clear that it doesn't lessen its commitment to the Greater Western Sydney area and it is only being done out of necessity.

Another thing they could do would be to hold major events (eg B&F count) in Greater Western Sydney, not in the Sydney CBD. Support their area ffs. Surely in 11 LGA's they could find a suitable function facility? It's almost as if holding a function in the GWS area is beneath them.

Unfortunately they are stuck at Engie Stadium, so there probably isn't an immediate solution to that, but it still doesn't help the perception of not being 100% committed to their area. And it makes you wonder about the processes that were followed in the early days regarding training and playing facilities. Is this the best they could come up with, given the clout of the AFL?

Your bringing Geelong into the argument is a nonsense, because you are comparing a club established in the 1800s which doesn't have to develop a local identity with a club formed 12 years ago which is still battling to forge one. It's chalk and cheese.

I only brought North into it because their Sydney days definitely remind me of the Giants - "who are we, who do we want to be, where do we want to be?". Ie, a bit lost, struggling with identity and where they belonged. Thankfully those days seem to have gone for your club.

 

[Teen Wolf]

By pointing out issues, I thought the answers would be clear. But as I have to spell it out to you, here I go -
*Play AFLW games in Greater Western Sydney, not at Henson Park
*Announce that when the Canberra contract expires, all games will be played in Sydney
*Sure, if they want to play an SCG game when Easter is on, go ahead and do so - but make it clear that it doesn't lessen its commitment to the Greater Western Sydney area and it is only being done out of necessity.

It's been pointed out there's no suitable venue in Greater Western Sydney for 8 weeks of the AFL season, nor is there a suitable venue for AFLW most of the time. So, again, you haven't provided a solution to the actual problems.

"Make it clear that it doesn't lessen its commitment"... I'm willing to bet there's nothing they can do to satisfy you in that regard. Moving the club B&F certainly won't be it, not sure why you're pretending otherwise.

Your bringing Geelong into the argument is a nonsense, because you are comparing a club established in the 1800s which doesn't have to develop a local identity with a club formed 12 years ago which is still battling to forge one.

There is nothing wrong with the Giants' identity. The availability of their home ground is the only real problem which won't be solved by merely letting time pass.

160 or 12 years old, a well-run footy club with heaps of members (which is clearly true of GWS) can withstand the unthinkable burden of playing 30-60 minutes further east once a year. Matter of fact, it might even help them prosper.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Does anybody know what the capacity of Tom Wills Oval will be?

The most the Suns has ever hosted in Sydney is 8,308. Surely it wouldn't take much to get Tom Wills up to 10k for an annual Suns match during the Easter Show.

That way you keep building the culture of attending at Olympic Park. And once it grows to a point that it can't hold the Suns matches, swap the Easter Show match to a big team at Accor.

 

[Rob]

Does anybody know what the capacity of Tom Wills Oval will be?

The most the Suns has ever hosted in Sydney is 8,308. Surely it wouldn't take much to get Tom Wills up to 10k for an annual Suns match during the Easter Show.

That way you keep building the culture of attending at Olympic Park. And once it grows to a point that it can't hold the Suns matches, swap the Easter Show match to a big team at Accor.

May as well play at Blacktown if you want to do that.

7 weeks between home games is ridiculous, and they need to do something.

 

[Canberra Pear]

May as well play at Blacktown if you want to do that.

7 weeks between home games is ridiculous, and they need to do something.

Not opposed to Blacktown, but Tom Wills is at least already in the same precinct, so it's not new for current fans. And it's already getting developed for AFLW.

 

[Coolangatta]

sherb what grounds could they play at that’s actually in Western Sydney and are they easily accessible?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Surely a better argument would be to avoid saying "crowds haven't increased" when they clearly have, thus putting yourself in the position of having to backtrack with fluff when proven wrong like you are now (just like the last time you lied about GWS crowds on here).

Btw, since you're obviously not paying attention: I'm suggesting GWS will get 30k (if not more) to a home Easter game at the SCG ten years from now. Come back to us in 2034 and if the Giants aren't averaging 19k+, then you may critique my "argument" without looking so foolish.

The discussion was in the context of what is acceptable crowds. Me saying the word "meaningfully" or "to levels that would help securire financial independence and security for GWS" is implied after the post saying their crowds haven't improved.

I think the range of crowds to GWS is a lot closer to not growing at all, as is a lore reasonable assessment of their crowd situation, opposed to some general belief of constant 45% growth over consecutive decades that can be easily debunked through common sense of what actually contributes to the crowd.

I do not that they will get 19k average crowds in 2034, even if you give them one sell-out crowd at the SCG. It suggests that a typical crowd at Showgrounds in a non-marquee slot would increase several thousand more on average average than the increase that has already taken place (of a couple of thousand so far) which is just not a common sense projection.