Western Bulldogs and the Western Growth Region

[Black Diamond]

I've been wondering about this ever since I saw Dogs supporters on the main board* telling us how all the residents new to Melbourne's western suburbs will soon enough be aboard the Whitten Oval express.

However, I would have thought that as long as the AFL pursues this 'maximise attendances/viewers' goal, and thereby make the already largest clubs even bigger through the best draws and TV schedules, the new residents to the west will see far more of Collingwood, Essendon, and the other larger clubs than they will of the Bulldogs. Obviously, this will mean these larger clubs effectively get first shot at these new migrants.

Am I the only one with this take on affairs? Living in Brisbane I could well have missed something, and my knowledge of outer Melbourne geography has faded a little since residing in Camberwell between 4 and 7 years old in the '90's.

Anyhow, thoughts?

*I didn't post this on the main board because it has been shitting me lately.

 

[LT Smash]

I think the Bulldogs geographic reach extends to Braybrook and certainly well short of Laverton and Point Cook, at which point Geelong takes over. If the Dogs had won 3 of the last 5 premierships, then maybe they would own the west but not now.

 

[Long time fan]

I live in the west and don't believe it is owned by the bulldogs. I was at a cricket match for disabled in the west recently and they announced highlights of their coming football season: one was that North Melbourne players would be coming to a training night during the year (no mention of Bullodgs). I am pleased to see that we are using our werrribee connection for initiatives like this. This generous approach is a valuable contribution to the local community, and will build good will and perhaps occasional members

 

[MaddAdam]

In fewer than five years, the AFL will be telling us about two city synergies of the merged Greater Western Bulldogs.

Despite all my trolling of those losers, I take no pleasure in this. It will cause family members great pain.

But they've had a 10 year uninterrupted crack at the fastest growing region in the nation and right now, after we went through the decade from hell, they are 220 members aheade of us.

We'll end up well head - 1/2k - this year.

Then despite the Wilkie short term stuff, they are still getting screwed on the pokie reform. Even Julia's walk away option involved them making capital intensive alterations to the machines they simply can't afford.

They're in the shit and no mistake.

 

[Old Skool]

The Bulldogs zone runs from Ballarat road to Brooklyn, turns left in to Altona, hooks back around to Willi, then traces the western bank of the Maribyrnong back to Ballarat Road.

That's it.

 

[Tas]

Money talks, bullshit walks. They are being outspent and are being hit on all flanks. Geelong is heavily assaulting the outer western suburbs while Essendon and Collingwood have probably made more progress in recent years in the eastern and northern portions of the Western suburbs.

We are now shitting in the NW of the area, it is not what one club brings, it is what everyone brings, we can afford to spend more in the focused areas, as can Geelong, Collingwood and Essendon. Bulldogs are in a difficult position, had they the resources to invest heavily in promotion ten years ago they would be in a similar size/strength to Hawthorn by now. Lack of money and possibly vision has cost them dearly.

They don't have the resources now to match these clubs let alone counter the free ride they are getting in terms of FTA saturation, every week they turn the telly on they see Collingwood and Essendon or Geelong, not the Dogs. Dogs would need to spend 10x what these clubs do on promotion just to counter the negative effect of media saturation.

AFL policy is making the rich richer and the poor poorer by chasing crowds and ratings, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that 10 clubs can't survive in Victoria, largely because their policy is driving the core problems.

 

[Black Diamond]

They don't have the resources now to match these clubs let alone counter the free ride they are getting in terms of FTA saturation, every week they turn the telly on they see Collingwood and Essendon or Geelong, not the Dogs. Dogs would need to spend 10x what these clubs do on promotion just to counter the negative effect of media saturation.

AFL policy is making the rich richer and the poor poorer by chasing crowds and ratings, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that 10 clubs can't survive in Victoria, largely because their policy is driving the core problems.

This is really what I was wanting to find out from other posters, Tas. I can't see how the Dogs or even a mid tier club could counter the AFL's policy and grow.

 

[Bulldog1954]

In fewer than five years, the AFL will be telling us about two city synergies of the merged Greater Western Bulldogs.

Despite all my trolling of those losers, I take no pleasure in this. It will cause family members great pain.

But they've had a 10 year uninterrupted crack at the fastest growing region in the nation and right now, after we went through the decade from hell, they are 220 members aheade of us.

We'll end up well head - 1/2k - this year.

Then despite the Wilkie short term stuff, they are still getting screwed on the pokie reform. Even Julia's walk away option involved them making capital intensive alterations to the machines they simply can't afford.

They're in the shit and no mistake.

North were not forced to go to the Gold Coast. Why will we be forced to merge with a team already formed?

 

[Tas]

This is really what I was wanting to find out from other posters, Tas. I can't see how the Dogs or even a mid tier club could counter the AFL's policy and grow.

Most can't. Some clubs that are in a premiership window cycle have a short reprieve from the onslaught because of the belief of success. But the longer your window is open, the greater you are at risk of spending a significant amount of time in the rebuild phase and a lot of the positives can be undone if your club management falters.

AFL is running the comp like it is a profit making enterprise and their policy is flawed. Very flawed because the clubs who make the biggest sacrifices for the policy get no benefit from it, all the money and the free promotion heavily favours a handful of clubs which makes them grow bigger and larger and they continue to get the free ride.

AFL says they want a level playing field but how can you when resources is a big part of determining the playing field and the resources are heavily influenced by their policy.

AFL has no plan whatesoever or strategy on how a club like North, Bulldogs or Saints can succeed with the AFL plan, that makes their plan a shit plan because they are breaching their duty to look out for the interests of all stakeholders equally and to do what is best for the game. Making Collingwood and Essendon too big by favouring them creates a lot of problems that they bandaid over.

AFL administrator bonuses need to be based on factors outside of market share, ratings and attendances because they are ****ing the game and potentially harming the game long-term by looking at short-term goals which give them the biggest pay bonuses.

 

[Tas]

North were not forced to go to the Gold Coast. Why will we be forced to merge with a team already formed?

The environment in 2008 wasn't there to force relocation and merger, ie, we were getting by okay.

If the current problems continue to spiral out of control nobody is going to put a gun and force you to merge, you will just be faced with the option of merge, relocate or disband because you can't afford to operate.

That isn't a dig at the Dogs, it will impact a lot of clubs and it will be a domino effect that will hit other clubs as well.

However, I think it will be longer than 5 years and will be beyond the current administration, by the time people realise the runaway train is going to derail the people responsible for setting the train in motion will be long gone.

We are just one AFL CEO like Whacko Jacko away from having several clubs killed off for a super league designed around fewer larger clubs playing eachother more often, think EPL without the deadbeats getting in the way.

All they have to do is cut the income equalisation benefits, the underwriting and guarantee of future income and clubs would fold up like deck chairs over night, or take whatever option was given to them.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

The doggies have a distinct doggies feel to their historic territory, layed out by Oldskool above. I admire that in their little western front. I use the word admire because i would just love to have the same feel in Errol St, Macauley Rd, Racecourse Rd and even Union Rd. We just don't have a Nth Melbourne feel in these strips like the doggies do in their hood.

Not sure on the numbers, but i like the association with VUT and the alleged packs they give all new borns out west. not sure if thats true or not. But the point is they seem to have a few good initiatives in place, in their long term zone. This can't be a bad thing.

I can't see how one of us can look at the doggies camp and say theyr'e ****ed and somehow think if they go down we will manage to dodge the same axe. It would have to be a truly monumental shift in the group think to see another melb club disappear and us survive as we know ourselves today. it just seems like everyone'agreed it will be us, ive heard it so many times they've almost made be believe it the c****.

It's going to take Dollars and Success, but we can grow in Melbourne, in particulary out west. A shift in FTA time would be nice, but we're going to have to do it the hard way i'm afraid.

Our number one priority must be to fortify Ballarat. Never to play WB there ever. Ballarat will be our keystone to the west.

 

[R00StaR]

The Dogs, like us will be in a vastly different position once Docklands is AFL owned. Having lived out that way some time ago they had strong support throughout the West and id suspect still do.

I just dont buy the argument Melbourne cant support 10 teams, in fact i believe the AFL cant afford not to have 10 teams.

Get rid of 2 for a 16 team comp: 8 Vic and 8 other, all 8 would have to play interstate every second week. Collingwood only playing in Vic every second week? yeah right, that'll go down like a lead balloon. It reduces the average number of games played in Melb each week from 5 to 4 which reduces the games market saturation. The bigger Vic clubs would also have to play more of their homes games Vs interstate side which dont carry the same interest as Vic V Vic.

Relocate 2 Melb clubs and your left with 8 Melb and 10 interstate. While every second game should be a home game leaving still 4 games a week average the AFL would have even a harder time doctoring the draw for return games of the Vic clubs. The Big clubs would simply have to play more games Vs interstate teams.

Currently all smaller Melb based clubs have around 30k members, where else can they be put and guaranteed that sort of support? The bigger clubs already have more than enough supporters for 50-70k + members while Melbourne is set to boom population wise over the next 30+ years.

If the AFL intends to maintain market dominance in its heartland how to they cater for all these new people? Squeeze them all into the MCG or Docklands? They'd risk leaving the door ajar for other sports, such as soccer and losing some of that saturation they currently enjoy.

With 1 less game per week and that being a Melb game you can bet TV rights takes a big hit to. Nope it makes far more sense to maintain 10 Melbourne clubs which will mean (in time) the AFL will want to start promoting and strengthening the weaker clubs. Step 1 is buying out docklands and removing the fear your newly supported club might go belly up. Once its widely accepted we have 10 strong clubs and theyre here to stay more support will drift in for the smaller clubs.

 

[MaddAdam]

Bulldogs are in a difficult position, had they the resources to invest heavily in promotion ten years ago they would be in a similar size/strength to Hawthorn by now.

Bullshit.

Hawthorn wisely flogged 4 of their games to one area and stuck to it.

**** me dead, we get called the "Travelling Kangaroos" but the Dogs have punted games to Darwin and Canberra too.

They've been poorly directed. Campbell Rose did well to manage the day to day stuff by Smorgon running the board at a strategic level is an ego driven dud.

 

[MaddAdam]

North were not forced to go to the Gold Coast. Why will we be forced to merge with a team already formed?

Because I don't think you'll be forced.

I've said all along that one team will sooner or later take an AFL offer.

They'll propose something along the lines of what we were that looks really good on paper (but doesn't really add up) and it will be too tempting.

There were plenty of North folk who were willing to believe the crap on GC. It depends on how many of you there are and where the club is when they strike. They will also have learned from the last time, just like they learned from the Fitzroy murder when they started on us.

I actually think St Kilda is the most likely of any teams to go for such a deal but this thread is about you, so I used your example.

 

[Old Skool]

This holocaust version of "musical chairs" is a disgraceful, degrading thing.

I first aired the idea years ago, and I will do it again. The "small 4" would be much better served by banding together and forming some sort of mutual assistance/survival pact.

BTW, remember and utilise the term "small 4" folks. Utilise it often.

We are cut from the pack and singled out far too often. It's time a more truthful term was tossed in to the vernacular.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

I just dont buy the argument Melbourne cant support 10 teams, in fact i believe the AFL cant afford not to have 10 teams.

But it is generally accepted propaganda beyond rebuttal in BF and media land!

Even relocating games is different to relocating teams.

North play WCE twice next year and the AFL will get tv coverage out of WA, VIC and TAS with no loss in attendance and some grass roots engagement.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Have to agree with OS. If you see AFL policy as threatening any of the boutique four, it threatens us all. Same if you see it as less than ideal but generally supportive - the four clubs have roughly the same opportunity to come through successfully.

As annoying as Dogs and Dees and Saints supporters can be, it's illogical as well as tawdry to look for relative weaknesses and celebrate relative successes as though North keeps its head above water by pushing someone else below. The four have common interests, as do the big four/five, and can explore pursuing these while still competing vigorously.

 

[R00StaR]

But it is generally accepted propaganda beyond rebuttal in BF and media land!

Thats because theyre morons who cant do simple math. All they can see is extra money handed out without any consideration to what the alternatives would cost.

Even relocating games is different to relocating teams.

Vastly different, relocating games rather than teams mean they can dump more low drawing games on the smaller clubs while keeping the large clubs playing in Melb more often.

North play WCE twice next year and the AFL will get tv coverage out of WA, VIC and TAS with no loss in attendance and some grass roots engagement.

Spot on

The few mill the smaller clubs receive compared to what the AFL gains in fixing fixtures/ TV rights and having clubs pay off their stadium is chicken feed. A mill here and there to get crap stadium deal, continuously be accused of handouts, never endng relocation speculation and lack of opportunity to grow the brand, well its not exactly a good deal.

That said im sure the AFL see the need for 10 clubs, they dont exactly want less tenants for Docklands when they own it. If their revenue over fairness model results in an early buy out of Docklands and a great stadium deal i think we'd be pretty satisfied. The AFL can right so many things with a simple buyout (at the right price, which it appears they are trying)

Our alignment with Ballarat and an AFL owned Docklands would be huge and go along way towards putting the relocation/ death speculation to bed once and for all. To be able to build a secondary market in your home state for the long term should not be underestimated.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Have to agree with OS. If you see AFL policy as threatening any of the boutique four, it threatens us all. Same if you see it as less than ideal but generally supportive - the four clubs have roughly the same opportunity to come through successfully.

As annoying as Dogs and Dees and Saints supporters can be, it's illogical as well as tawdry to look for relative weaknesses and celebrate relative successes as though North keeps its head above water by pushing someone else below. The four have common interests, as do the big four/five, and can explore pursuing these while still competing vigorously.

St Kilda are spin city and not to be trusted and Melbourne are well just hopeless. I'm happy to side with them in some loose alliance but only when our interests are being protected or improved.

I have nothing against the Dogs.

Always happy to explore the ''small 4'' concept further.

 

[Kangalicious]

Although I'm generally happy to join in the chorus of 'the AFL is evil', in this instance it's not justified. The AFL divides up greater Melbourne among all of the Victorian clubs, to meet both game development (AFL) and fan development (clubs) needs, and to ensure all schools, local clubs and Auskick clinics have access to AFL clubs for player visit etc.

The West is divided between the Bulldogs, Essendon, Geelong and North. From 2012, North will have about 75% of Wyndham. This is in addition to our local area, Ballarat, and of course, Hobart.

Turning this opportunity into a long term win for the club is essential, and ultimately will depend on us - not on what Collingwood, Essendon, the Dogs, the AFL, or anyone else does.

 

[Tas]

Bullshit.

Hawthorn wisely flogged 4 of their games to one area and stuck to it.

**** me dead, we get called the "Travelling Kangaroos" but the Dogs have punted games to Darwin and Canberra too.

They've been poorly directed. Campbell Rose did well to manage the day to day stuff by Smorgon running the board at a strategic level is an ego driven dud.

Hawthorn don't have 60k+ members because they stuck with Tasmania, they have the support because they invested a lot of money into the eastern suburbs and specifically targeted groups like the asian community and they stuck with it over a long period of time.

Doggies just expected people in the west to follow the dogs. We piss farted around with Casey before anyone else did but like everything we did, we had no follow through and did a half-arsed job.

We just need to commit fully to what we plan to do and not flip flop.

 

[Kangalicious]

Hawthorn don't have 60k+ members because they stuck with Tasmania, they have the support because they invested a lot of money into the eastern suburbs and specifically targeted groups like the asian community and they stuck with it over a long period of time.

Doggies just expected people in the west to follow the dogs. We piss farted around with Casey before anyone else did but like everything we did, we had no follow through and did a half-arsed job.

We just need to commit fully to what we plan to do and not flip flop.

I agree on the Hawks, but you're wrong on the Bulldogs. They have done a lot of work in parts of the West, and with specific communities. But the growth in the area has been stratospheric and they haven't had the resources to keep up with that. Also, fan development is important, but conversion to membership takes time. Some of the work they've done wont show dividends for a while yet.

Gosh. Don't post in ages, then turn up to defend the AFL and the Bulldogs. Off to take a long hard look at myself.

 

[Tas]

I agree on the Hawks, but you're wrong on the Bulldogs. They have done a lot of work in parts of the West, and with specific communities. But the growth in the area has been stratospheric and they haven't had the resources to keep up with that. Also, fan development is important, but conversion to membership takes time. Some of the work they've done wont show dividends for a while yet.

Gosh. Don't post in ages, then turn up to defend the AFL and the Bulldogs. Off to take a long hard look at myself.

They didn't hit the west hard though, as I said in my other post, they probably didn't have the resources, didn't have the exposure and didn't have the success so they have become vulnerable in different areas from different clubs.

It would be insanely difficult for them to service the entire area and out-spend and out-service a number of other clubs who focused on a very specific area in the west.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

The AFL can divi up the areas of Melbourne however they like but it will count for little because at the end of the day prime time FTA coverage is what counts the most.

This has benefits on many fronts. Not only exposure to new people, but other teams' supporters (just watching the game as a neutral) who will become familiar with some of our players, maybe see something interesting (like the ziebell reiwoldt hit) and then have some interest in going when we play their team.

In response to the OP, the west has had heaps of growth, but people aren't aligned to their local team like it used to be, there's little attachment when they all play at the same two venues.

 

[incubi]

Because I don't think you'll be forced.

I've said all along that one team will sooner or later take an AFL offer.

They'll propose something along the lines of what we were that looks really good on paper (but doesn't really add up) and it will be too tempting.

There were plenty of North folk who were willing to believe the crap on GC. It depends on how many of you there are and where the club is when they strike. They will also have learned from the last time, just like they learned from the Fitzroy murder when they started on us.

I actually think St Kilda is the most likely of any teams to go for such a deal but this thread is about you, so I used your example.

The dogs history shows we would not take up an option like that. Just look at 89 when we were announced as merging. We also dont have a history of looking at mergers as an option.