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

[TP86]

GWS is an interpretation of what wealthy people think is "the west". They play at a ground in a drive-through suburb for commuters that is indisputably 'west' for anyone well off but a not even close to the west in reality. If they wanted to really give it a go, move games and training back to Blacktown, ideally not charge or charge a pittance for tickets and memberships, and no more puff pieces about breakfast point living arrangements or private school recruiting.

Stop behaving like a Victorian colonial outpost (and employment centre for past Essendon figures) and actually carve out your own identity unique to the area.

Right now the only identity they've carved out for themselves is "not the Swans" and instead of being a television event for the neutral their social media strategy has the only fans that watch TV actively barracking for their demise (smart!).

Canberra might work for the Giants and an actual western sydney team (not a made up place GWS) can be tried for team 20 or 21-22 at some point down the road.

 

[RedV3x]

GWS is an interpretation of what

people outside of Sydney think making suggestion without knowing the reality.

Who's going to build a decent stadium at Blacktown ?
Who's going to build a stadium platform.
Doesn't focussing on Blacktown narrow the perception to the Blacktown Giants.
The giants at Homebush, the geographical centre of Sydney doesn't make such a narrow connection.
Name one AFL team that plays out of it's exact geographical location. It's AFL not NSWFL.
So the Swans and neutrals apparently don't support GWS, well there's no way anyone except a neigbbour is going to drive to Blacktown and back again.
Eagles don't support Dockers. Many Melbourne clubs fans don't support any other clubs.
The only way to change that is to push the S.O.O. angle.

The only sense you made was that Victorians should stop acting like Victorians.

 

[sherb]

Canberra might work for the Giants and an actual western sydney team (not a made up place GWS) can be tried for team 20 or 21-22 at some point down the road.

It's not made up, it's a clearly defined area.

About Greater Western Sydney | Western Sydney University

www.westernsydney.edu.au

 

[TP86]

It's not made up, it's a clearly defined area.

About Greater Western Sydney | Western Sydney University

www.westernsydney.edu.au

Is that the same university that gave Raygun a PHD

 

[sherb]

Is that the same university that gave Raygun a PHD

No.

So please go ahead, read the article at the link I quoted, and educate yourself.

 

[mchal4]

Dwayne Russell said move some/all games to the SCG, basically give up on the western suburbs ( ''a lost cause'' ),
and call them 'Sydney Giants'
citing poor crowds at Homebush

 

[Canberra Pear]

Dwayne Russell said move some/all games to the SCG, basically give up on the western suburbs ( ''a lost cause'' ),
and call them 'Sydney Giants'

Russell says "Why would you choose the Giants over the Swans?", then suggests to take away the main point of difference.

 

[RedV3x]

Dwayne Russell said move some/all games to the SCG, basically give up on the western suburbs ( ''a lost cause'' ),
and call them 'Sydney Giants'

WTF is Dwayne Russell ?

 

[Bjo187]

Russell and Maher showing the world how completely clueless they actually are again.

 

[Walshawk]

It's not made up, it's a clearly defined area.

About Greater Western Sydney | Western Sydney University

www.westernsydney.edu.au

Yes, but absolutely nobody identifies as being from GWS. It is not a place, it is an area defined for statistical purposes.

 

[RedV3x]

Yes, but absolutely nobody identifies as being from GWS. It is not a place, it is an area defined for statistical purposes.

I have a much better idea where GWS is than where Hawthorn is.
Why aren't they named the "Eastern Hawks" - more appeal?
Hawthorn, easily has the ugliest jumper. let's update Hawthorn's jumper while we're at it.
Oh, Hawthorn AFC experimented with Tasmania - why don't we ship them off to Canberra.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I have a much better idea where GWS is than where Hawthorn is.
Why aren't they named the "Eastern Hawks" - more appeal?
Hawthorn, easily has the ugliest jumper. let's update Hawthorn's jumper while we're at it.
Oh, Hawthorn AFC experimented with Tasmania - why don't we ship them off to Canberra.

It's a good thing Hawthorn's a club founded in 1902 when it did represent the people from Hawthorn and was able to build a generational fanbase and identity from them. Your points might be valid if we're talking about creating a Melbourne-based team in the 21st century, not 1902.

Clubs will change name where appropriate, as shown by my team and an attempt to do so by North for a period of time.

 

[RedV3x]

Your points might be valid if we're talking about creating a Melbourne-based team in the 21st century, not 1902.

No, you missed the point totally.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I think this past week has highlighted why the Giants need to leave Canberra.

The Giants got 18k to a final. Probably lower than they would have hoped, but perfectly respectable. They've had four record crowds at Engie this year. Things are trending right.

But so much of the rhetoric has been "just move them to Canberra".

Canberra is too strong as a secondary market for the Giants. These relocation jabs won't stop while the partnership continues. And it can't be helpful for growing a fanbase in Sydney with that rhetoric.

 

[Giant YoYo]

I think this past week has highlighted why the Giants need to leave Canberra.

The Giants got 18k to a final. Probably lower than they would have hoped, but perfectly respectable. They've had four record crowds at Engie this year. Things are trending right.

But so much of the rhetoric has been "just move them to Canberra".

Canberra is too strong as a secondary market for the Giants. These relocation jabs won't stop while the partnership continues. And it can't be helpful for growing a fanbase in Sydney with that rhetoric.

Totally agree.

The fact it has spilled over onto live national television, taking jabs at the Giants and saying the Giants are from Canberra really highlights the issue for me.

Pretty much all social media ads for Giants games, the commentary is much the same. Overall, the negative comments drown out the positive ones for Giants games, which is a pity. I haven't noticed the same for other clubs ads to that degree.

Surely the negative commentary under Giants game advertisements would be doing more harm, it shapes prospectives attendees perception of the club before they've even gone to a game.

There is far too much of this rhetoric/noise surrounding the club when on field the club is incredibly competitive for the most part.

Unfortunately, I cannot see it easing up anytime soon, either.

 

[Giant YoYo]

Totally agree.

The fact it has spilled over onto live national television, taking jabs at the Giants and saying the Giants are from Canberra really highlights the issue for me.

Pretty much all social media ads for Giants games, the commentary is much the same. Overall, the negative comments drown out the positive ones for Giants games, which is a pity. I haven't noticed the same for other clubs ads to that degree.

Surely the negative commentary under Giants game advertisements would be doing more harm, it shapes prospectives attendees perception of the club before they've even gone to a game.

There is far too much of this rhetoric/noise surrounding the club when on field the club is incredibly competitive for the most part.

Unfortunately, I cannot see it easing up anytime soon, either.

Furthermore, the club name being referred to as an acronym (GWS) for the most part across the media, reduces the strength of its name/branding. As an example, I have heard the acronym GWS referenced more times the last few weeks than I have the name of the club.

The only club in the comp with an acronym as its name. Branding is incredibly important and the name the club is being referred to is a big part of that.

As an example, it's also the only footy club on BF that appears as an acronym but I can live with that here because we all know what GWS is. In the media and elsewhere, the club really should have a name that's easy to say and won't end up being an acronym.

 

[TP86]

No.

So please go ahead, read the article at the link I quoted, and educate yourself.

My point, which you missed, being just because a university says it, it doesn't mean jack. Same as Raygun's PHD.

 

[TP86]

Russell says "Why would you choose the Giants over the Swans?", then suggests to take away the main point of difference.

They're not actually from "the west". They're from a drive-through commuter suburb with no residential that is still well east of anyone in the actual west. They're in no-mans land. They're like a poor man's Fremantle in that if West Coast sells out your only option to see AFL footy in WA is Freo. But imagine that Freo then plays at a less appealing stadium in a less appealing part of town.

 

[TP86]

I think this past week has highlighted why the Giants need to leave Canberra.

The Giants got 18k to a final. Probably lower than they would have hoped, but perfectly respectable. They've had four record crowds at Engie this year. Things are trending right.

But so much of the rhetoric has been "just move them to Canberra".

Canberra is too strong as a secondary market for the Giants. These relocation jabs won't stop while the partnership continues. And it can't be helpful for growing a fanbase in Sydney with that rhetoric.

Go the other way. Relocate the GIANTS to Canberra because at least it's resonated there. It's worked. Then bring in team 20 to offset the Tasmania bye as a second Sydney team playing out of the SCG.

Leave the actual west of Sydney for another 15-20 years down the track for team 21 and 22.

 

[RedV3x]

Furthermore, the club name being referred to as an acronym (GWS) for the most part across the media, reduces the strength of its name/branding. As an example, I have heard the acronym GWS referenced more times the last few weeks than I have the name of the club.

The only club in the comp with an acronym as its name. Branding is incredibly important and the name the club is being referred to is a big part of that.

As an example, it's also the only footy club on BF that appears as an acronym but I can live with that here because we all know what GWS is. In the media and elsewhere, the club really should have a name that's easy to say and won't end up being an acronym.

It's why the W.C.E. wanted to change it's name to Perth Eagles.
W.C.E. was a good name when they were the the West Australian team the Dockers changed all that.
The W.C.E. like being the "Perth" team but they're stuck with the W.C.E.
People know what the GWS and Giants are about now, but a name change would still be better.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Go the other way. Relocate the GIANTS to Canberra because at least it's resonated there. It's worked. Then bring in team 20 to offset the Tasmania bye as a second Sydney team playing out of the SCG. No need to geographically define them. Give them 21st century name and colours that will do just enough to appeal to the Australian chinese audience to the point that Albo might sling some of the PNG rugby league cash the AFL's way.

Leave the actual west of Sydney for another 15-20 years down the track for team 21 and 22.

Thank you for highlighting my point. You've fallen for the rhetoric.

The majority of Giants fans and members are in Sydney.

Just 18.6% of Giants members are in Canberra. And only about a third of them are actually Giants fans. Which means of the 36,639 Giants members this year, only about 2,440 would be Canberra Giants fans.

Canberra has bigger crowds because we have more AFL fans, not Giants fans.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Thank you for highlighting my point. You've fallen for the rhetoric.

The majority of Giants fans and members are in Sydney.

Just 18.6% of Giants members are in Canberra. And only about a third of them are actually Giants fans. Which means of the 36,639 Giants members this year, only about 2,440 would be Canberra Giants fans.

Canberra has bigger crowds because we have more AFL fans, not Giants fans.

Surely the takeaway from the very point you're making is 100% of fans to give up supporting their existing team to support a new Canberra team, while at least with the Giants, it's only two thirds (if we are to assume that all footy fans in Canberra buy a membership to at least access the games) ? Even accepting that a completely new club carries less baggage and new, unique branding and no baggage of rivalries, that your very statistics goes against the point of your post?

There could legitimately be Canberrans who don't support a new Canberra team over the Giants (as is the case that Canberrans who newly supported Sydney from the days that they played games there, consistently, as the away team vs North/Dogs days) on the basis that they started supporting the Giants over the course of the last 12 years and now would not change for any new team. Like your post above it would range from the hundreds to the low thousands, but it's still a meaningful chunk of the 10,000 or whatever members that might have otherwise purchased a 11 game home membership.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Surely the takeaway from the very point you're making is 100% of fans to give up supporting their existing team to support Canberra, while at least with the Giants, it's only two thirds (if we are to assume that all footy fans in Giants buy a membership to at least access the game) ? Even accepting that a completely new club carries less baggage and new, unique branding and no baggage of rivalries, that your very statistics goes against the point of your post?

My point is that the Giants aren't as embedded in Canberra as everyone seems to believe.

Everybody sees the large crowds and thinks we're Giants territory, but we're (mostly) just here for the AFL.

If the Giants moved to Canberra, they would slowly start to grow as Canberra's actual team, but as of right now, the Giants' deepest roots are firmly in Sydney. And uprooting that with a relocation would be a massive waste.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

My point is that the Giants aren't as embedded in Canberra as everyone seems to believe.

Everybody sees the large crowds and thinks we're Giants territory, but we're (mostly) just here for the AFL.

If the Giants moved to Canberra, they would slowly start to grow as Canberra's actual team, but as of right now, the Giants' deepest roots are firmly in Sydney. And uprooting that with a relocation would be a massive waste.

But I don't think anyone except for some dumb idiots with an agenda on Bigfooty were making any claim otherwise. The whole purpose of Giants in Canberra was to let the AFL offset some element of the fact that the Giants are still a subsidied team and will be so for some decades, as well as to give some consistency in home opponent and branding in terms of academies etc. (it's better for talented juniors to merely move to Western Sydney rather than across the nation, and then play some games back at home, like a Tom Green). Any build up of Canberra being Giants territory would be slow and generational, such as when kids in primary school having more Giants fans in their demographic becoming Giants fans eventually (should the Giants/Canberra relarionship extend beyond 2031). It's a very similar thing to the Dogs and Ballarat: Nobody is realistically claiming a majority of fans in Ballarat region are Dogs fans, but they may be in a generation's time, and there's financial benefits in taking a number of home games to a new market, and many Ballarat residents who support new teams go to the games.

Moving GWS to Canberra may undo their roots in Western Sydney but AFL is still paying 10s of millions per year on their behalf to try and build those roots. It may not happen for decades, but at some stage either the team needs to give up or the roots need to flower. A related but distinct consideration is such is the growth of the Swans' attendance and engaged fan base in the last 5 years it may be considered worthwhile the SCG getting 22 home games a year, and not just 11, in a similar manner to Adelaide Oval and Perth Stadium hosting those amount of games.

 

[Badger17]

Surely the takeaway from the very point you're making is 100% of fans to give up supporting their existing team to support a new Canberra team, while at least with the Giants, it's only two thirds (if we are to assume that all footy fans in Canberra buy a membership to at least access the games) ? Even accepting that a completely new club carries less baggage and new, unique branding and no baggage of rivalries, that your very statistics goes against the point of your post?

There could legitimately be Canberrans who don't support a new Canberra team over the Giants (as is the case that Canberrans who newly supported Sydney from the days that they played games there, consistently, as the away team vs North/Dogs days) on the basis that they started supporting the Giants over the course of the last 12 years and now would not change for any new team. Like your post above it would range from the hundreds to the low thousands, but it's still a meaningful chunk of the 10,000 or whatever members that might have otherwise purchased a 11 game home membership.

Yeah and there're still old blokes that support their old Sydney team over the Raiders 40 years later. They're a minority that becomes smaller with the passing of each generation, and the same would be true of an AFL side.

It's an inevitable side effect of the expansion process that isn't unique to Canberra either. There're people in Tasmania right now who will continue to support their preferred team over the Devils, and more that'll pick up the Devils as their 'second team' at least initially.

It can't be changed, and it's silly to hold it against anybody.

But I don't think anyone except for some dumb idiots with an agenda on Bigfooty were making any claim otherwise.

For a long time now 'Canberra is Giants territory' has been the first response when expansion to Canberra has been proposed, with basically every pundit that's offered an opinion on the subject, and multiple administrators including the former CEO, having expressed that opinion or something akin to it.

That's slowly started to change over the last year or two, but for the most part Canberra is still pooh-poohed in the mainstream in favour of the NT, and the main reasoning given is that GWS are entrenched in the market.