WSYD What needs to happen for WS to work

[Howard Littlejohn]

That old chestnut. Why wouldn't they support the Swans already if they love footy so much??

a. They don't, for the most part, "love footy so much". That's the point of expansion, to give a large population a chance to come to love the game. It will take time and money, but it should eventually prove fruitful - and with minimal impact on the Swans, as the Swans don't have many fans out west. It also will allow the Swans to better target themselves, Sydney is a very big place for one team to try and cover with player appearances, etc.

b. (Only on anecdotal evidence) The Swans are seen by some as a plaything of the eastern suburbs. Some who otherwise may be prepared to give Australian Football a go aren't prepared to do so with the Swans.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Because I'm sure there's more than a few who don't want to support a club that has South Melbourne Football Club tacked on the back of their jumper.

This statement just makes a point on the fickleness of NSW sports fans. Surely if there is demand for AFL support in NSW then a tiny stitched 'SMFC' on the back of the Swans guernsey shouldn't be enough to turn people off the current NSW AFL brand.

Say you need 25-30,000 supporters/members to have a chance of survival in West Sydney. Are there that many people, really, that give a damn about Sydney's links to South Melbourne? Or is it more likely that the average armchair AFL fan in NSW without club allegiance don't care/aren't aware?

As a North supporter it's expected that my (and SLF's) opinions) will be met with some level of derision, especially from Swans supporters. However, I live in Sydney and take an active interest in any AFL news relevant to the state. I agree with the OP and I agree with SLF. Having two teams in a non-Vic state works in WA and SA... West Coast and Adelaide were successful, off-field and on and without another major code or two stealing the thunder in those states, Freo and Port have managed to be successful and not to the detriment of the original clubs in their state.

In NSW though, the Swans can't quite be considered a sound prospect and a Western Sydney club would be to their detriment. I believe this can change, but I believe its at least ten years away. And trust, I'm a supporter of a WS team being done properly- means I get to see North twice a year.

 

[SM]

I wasn't being literal. I meant that the fact the Swans originate from 'them' i.e Melbourne, seeing as I have to spell things out for you, means that a lot of Sydney people will automatically be turned off the team. West Sydney will be an original team from Sydney, for Sydney.

If, say, Manly Sea Eagles had relocated to Melbourne, surely there would not have been as much support for them as there was for the Melbourne Storm, a Melbourne team from Melbourne for Melbourne.

Sydney and Melbourne are always going to have a 'them vs us' mentality about them seeing as they are the two most populous Australian cities, both fought for the rights to be the capital of Australia, and are probably the two most famous Australian cities.

This rivalry, which I'm shocked that you don't know about, caused the hatred of NRL in Melbourne, and AFL in Sydney. The South MELBOURNE Swans are not a Sydney team, and thus will never gain as much popularity in Sydney as a Sydney-original team. Mark my words.

West Sydney are expanding into an area that don't already follow AFL teams, otherwise there would be no point for the expansion, no? They wouldn't be receiving any extra money if they stuck to AFL-crazy areas such as Tasmania, where everyone's already signing up for Hawks memberships.

There's work to do, sure, but having a team from Sydney originally will do a hell of a job of convincing people that this is their team to rally against that 'scum down in Melbourne'.

It's got nothing to do with the actual stitching on Swans guernsey's FFS.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

I'd like to say I stopped reading after your obviously soulful first sentence but...

...the Swans made it to Sydney in eighties. Do you really think anyone is STILL turned off by the fact the Swans are a relocated side... twenty years later? Do you think that most of the kids born, in NSW, over the last twenty years that show an interest in AFL are turned off because Gramps tells them stories about how the Bloods used to play at South Melbourne? You guys won a premiership and played in two Grand Finals in the last five years. And when was the last time you missed the finals? I know it must boggle your small mind, but claiming that sort of history as a reason for lack of power-house status is ridiculous.

I've seen Sydney embrace the Swans.

Just too bad its when you are winning.

Fickle NSW.

And claiming that Western Sydney is viable because they are 'expanding into an area that don't already follow AFL teams' is equally bone-headed. Does the decision to put a team there coincide with the introduction of electricity, television and the print media to WS? Is the only contact with the big city through the horse-drawn carriage bringing dem city folk to gawk at the slack jawed yokels of WS? They are within twenty minutes of watching the state represented AFL team play and if they haven't chosen to embrace that team, I'm unconvinced as to what the evidence is that suggests they would embrace their own team.

Tasmania and Darwin are two locations that don't have the benefit of having a team to watch just down the highway... are they not as viable?

And they would go and watch them.

I've not met one person in Sydney that sees the point in a second team. And I worked in WS for two years and everybody I spoke to about the AFL either hated it or went for the Swans. I've not met one person that said they would change sides. However, believe it or not, more than half said they would support both. Yes, both. Wow, what a thrilling atmosphere that would be during rivalry round.

And I'm not as convinced that this whole Melbourne/Sydney rivalry is as big as it used to be. Look at the 2007 NRL Grand Final lead up... from what I could gather through the media and by chatting with league fans, if you weren't a Manly supporter, you backed Melbourne. As a Melbourne fan, I thought this was great (of course, the same couldn't be said for 2008 but that was the Storm's doing, not state pride).

I have not seen one reasonable excuse for a second team in Sydney, just as I haven't for GC17. But I'm happy to watch the AFL shoot themselves in the foot over this... two more clubs for them to prop up.

And have you thought about this... is it at all possible that the introduction of another team option coinciding with the Swans inevitable decline on the field will eat into all of the available resources for Sydney and spell the death of your beloved club?

I can see it.

There seems to be only enough love going round at the moment for AFL in NSW and whoever is left may just end up going for the team thats winning.

It's dangerous.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

So Stat_Machine tells us the reason West Sydney folk don't go for the Swans is because of the SMFC on the back of the jumper, and then a post later, tells us we are idiots for thinking that.

Forward pass ref!

(Excellent post by The Filth Wizard I might add)

 

[Docker Clint]

There's work to do, sure, but having a team from Sydney originally will do a hell of a job of convincing people that this is their team to rally against that 'scum down in Melbourne'.

Isn't that how they see the entire sport?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

And claiming that Western Sydney is viable because they are 'expanding into an area that don't already follow AFL teams' is equally bone-headed.

Nobody is saying WS will be viable from day one. It will take decades, and a lot of money (more, I suspect than the AFL have admitted to); but can (and should) bring new people to the game.

Tasmania and Darwin are two locations that don't have the benefit of having a team to watch just down the highway... are they not as viable?

And they would go and watch them.

In small numbers, because there are only small numbers of people.
In the very short term they are as viable as WS but no moreso. Maybe in 50 years if it keeps growing at a rapid rate Darwin will be truly viable (Tasmania never will be). But this thread isn't supposed to be about that, but how best to support WS for as long as is needed.

 

[emuboy]

I hope West Sydney do work, but one of the biggest obstacles would appear to be the different way sport is perceived in Sydney.

They seem to prefer representative sport over club based sport; a major difference with all of the other capital cities. As examples, a win by NSW in the state of origin frequently means more to fans whose NRL club wins the premiership.

 

[Rob]

I hope West Sydney do work, but one of the biggest obstacles would appear to be the different way sport is perceived in Sydney.

They seem to prefer representative sport over club based sport; a major difference with all of the other capital cities. As examples, a win by NSW in the state of origin frequently means more to fans whose NRL club wins the premiership.

I think that's more of a rugby league thing. Even State of origin, which is supposed to be the biggest sporting event in their calendar, struggles to sell out the stadium.
They're just not that passionate about sport there. In saying that, when you're looking at a population base of about 2 million people, you don't need many following you to be a success.

 

[emuboy]

I think that's more of a rugby league thing. Even State of origin, which is supposed to be the biggest sporting event in their calendar, struggles to sell out the stadium.
They're just not that passionate about sport there. In saying that, when you're looking at a population base of about 2 million people, you don't need many following you to be a success.

I noticed that there seemed to be limited interest in sport when I visited Sydney myself; even basic things like health and fitness you see very few people out running and cycling in the scenic spots, unlike Melbourne and other Australian cities.

The only thing they seem to be passionate about is the Olympic games, and still talk about the 2000 Olympics as though they took place in early 2008.

 

[Rob]

I noticed that there seemed to be limited interest in sport when I visited Sydney myself; even basic things like health and fitness you see very few people out running and cycling in the scenic spots, unlike Melbourne and other Australian cities.

That is reflected in the stats, with NSW having the lowest adult participation rate in sport and physical recreation of all states (although not by that much), as well as the lowest attendance rate of all states. Not that the latter would be a surprise to many people.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Nobody is saying WS will be viable from day one. It will take decades, and a lot of money (more, I suspect than the AFL have admitted to); but can (and should) bring new people to the game.



In small numbers, because there are only small numbers of people.
In the very short term they are as viable as WS but no moreso. Maybe in 50 years if it keeps growing at a rapid rate Darwin will be truly viable (Tasmania never will be). But this thread isn't supposed to be about that, but how best to support WS for as long as is needed.

Yeah, the Darwin/Tasmania reference was a bit throwaway. I just used it to emphasise that the demand is elsewhere for another team, if at all.

GC17 is in, like it or not. It just seems to me though that an 18th license is unnecessary in this climate and is being rushed with to do nothing more than prevent scheduling headaches.

I have a problem with your first statement, Howard. You say it will take decades for a WS team to be viable. Decades. Having a new team that will likely drain the AFL of funds over ten to twenty years not only sets back any further growth of the competition but also takes up funds that could prevent some struggling clubs from potentially folding in the next decade. And for what? An inevitable Swans/WS merger (a lot of money down the drain to add 10-20,000 new members to the existing failing state license).

For mine, the most immediately viable option for an 18th license, if we must have one, is a third WA license. The Eagles have more members than seats at Subiaco. It is an AFL state.

Otherwise, I think we should just stick with a 17 team comp for at least five years before adding a new team for the sake of it.

 

[Roos4eva]

For mine, the most immediately viable option for an 18th license, if we must have one, is a third WA license. The Eagles have more members than seats at Subiaco. It is an AFL state.

Exactly, yet the AFL are too hellbent, obsessed and stubborn on expansion that they would rather take a punt on something that has very little chance of working, but would pay massive dividends if it does in fact somehow workout. A third WA team would be a guaranteed success, but the AFL have that market won over so they would rather take the make or break option.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

For mine, the most immediately viable option for an 18th license, if we must have one, is a third WA license. The Eagles have more members than seats at Subiaco. It is an AFL state.

A 3rd WA side is an absolute must as far as I'm concerned, and should have gone ahead before WS (which I'm sure will eventually work) or GC (which starts ahead, but has far less prospect of eventually working).

But, to use your terminology, both GC and WS are here, like it or not. The question now, is how to make them work.
At least they can bring new people to the game, which in many respects is more important than the dollar return. WA, Tas and NT would not do that.

 

[Rob]

A 3rd WA team? What are you people on? That's just going to split the AFL's profit an extra way without adding anything to income. it's not going to happen for similar reasons to why a Tassie team probably won't happen. At least a West Sydney team is likely to increase the value of the TV rights (up for debate by how much). A 3rd WA team won't - everyone over here already watches football.

There's a lot more to the overall viability of a footy team than bums on seats. It's not as black and white as many people think.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

A 3rd WA team? What are you people on? That's just going to split the AFL's profit an extra way without adding anything to income. it's not going to happen for similar reasons to why a Tassie team probably won't happen. At least a West Sydney team is likely to increase the value of the TV rights (up for debate by how much). A 3rd WA team won't - everyone over here already watches football.

There's a lot more to the overall viability of a footy team than bums on seats. It's not as black and white as many people think.

I don't disagree with you Rob. And I made that comment without knowing how Fremantle are currently sitting (I assume, well).

I'm just saying, if there has to be an 18th team...

 

[Roos4eva]

A 3rd WA team? What are you people on? That's just going to split the AFL's profit an extra way without adding anything to income. it's not going to happen for similar reasons to why a Tassie team probably won't happen. At least a West Sydney team is likely to increase the value of the TV rights (up for debate by how much). A 3rd WA team won't - everyone over here already watches football.

There's a lot more to the overall viability of a footy team than bums on seats. It's not as black and white as many people think.

Which is my point- the AFL would rather take the make or break option, the option that could give them the biggest upside, but they are too stubborn to realise what the actual chances are of that option working out.

 

[Helix]

Why is it the common perception that the AFL have not "ran the figures" here, and are a bunch of stubborn old men who can't see the obvious catastrophic result of expansion? Do you all honestly think you know the situation better, given you don't have access to any of the data that has no doubt been collected?

I guess people just like to whine about it when their own clubs are either to rich or to poor. Another mouth to feed by their club, or at the expense of their club. Expansion has increased the popularity of the sport. That is a fact. Clubs are better off because of it.

Maybe, just maybe, the sport will improve again after the Gold Coast and West Sydney are introduced.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Maybe, just maybe, the sport will improve again after the Gold Coast and West Sydney are introduced.

Or maybe, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Are Brisbane and Sydney strong enough teams off-field to warrant second teams taking a slice of their pie?

Look at the NRL. At least four teams are fighting for survival in Sydney and this is the state code.

And the Swans don't have the foothold in the state to warrant any competition.

It's common sense.

And we all know it's not beyond the AFL to be blinded by those big dollar signs in front of their eyes.

 

[Helix]

Or maybe, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Are Brisbane and Sydney strong enough teams off-field to warrant second teams taking a slice of their pie?

Look at the NRL. At least four teams are fighting for survival in Sydney and this is the state code.

And the Swans don't have the foothold in the state to warrant any competition.

It's common sense.

And we all know it's not beyond the AFL to be blinded by those big dollar signs in front of their eyes.

Here is a news flash for you. It is about the money.

Out of interest, which four (or more) sydney based NRL teams are fighting for survival? And what constitutes a foothold by the swans?

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Here is a news flash for you. It is about the money.

Out of interest, which four (or more) sydney based NRL teams are fighting for survival? And what constitutes a foothold by the swans?

Well, duh.

I think I said that.

Anyway, refer to this article http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=568460 , for teams that are in trouble financially. I assure you not much has changed since May last year. And, on top of those, Wests and Sydney aren't running safely either.

This article is quite relevant also to this thread... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23736958-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

And, Sydney's foothold... they lost almost $800,000 in 2008 and had realatively poor membership.

It is about the money. Yes. And if the Swans aren't viable, how is WS a possibility?

 

[Helix]

Well, duh.

I think I said that.

Anyway, refer to this article http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=568460 , for teams that are in trouble financially. I assure you not much has changed since May last year. And, on top of those, Wests and Sydney aren't running safely either.

This article is quite relevant also to this thread... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23736958-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

And, Sydney's foothold... they lost almost $800,000 in 2008 and had realatively poor membership.

It is about the money. Yes. And if the Swans aren't viable, how is WS a possibility?

Fair enough regarding the NRL teams. Wouldn't that help the AFL in the area though? And you don't think that having half a stadium missing affected 2008 membership? I know it had a huge impact to the Lions during the Gabba redelevopment.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Fair enough regarding the NRL teams. Wouldn't that help the AFL in the area though? And you don't think that having half a stadium missing affected 2008 membership? I know it had a huge impact to the Lions during the Gabba redelevopment.

Frankly, I don't think the death of NRL clubs will benefit the AFL at all. The problem with NSW sports fans, and the reason their clubs are dying, is that they just don't want to put their hands in their pockets. There is no reason why they would then do this to support a code that isn't 'theirs'.

And certainly you may be right about the stadium affecting the Swans financial year and membership numbers. But it has now become more speculative, surely, as to whether a second club will work. I don't want to see a competition without Sydney being represented. Maybe though, the timing is just all wrong to add a second option when the first option is showing signs of strain. Keep in mind as well that the Lions aren't looking too healthy yet either.

And I apologise for that 'well, duh' crack. Very impertinent of me

 

[Rob]

Which is my point- the AFL would rather take the make or break option, the option that could give them the biggest upside, but they are too stubborn to realise what the actual chances are of that option working out.

How do you know they don't? As much of an imbecile vlad is, I doubt the AFL commission (which consists mainly of pretty clever people) would go head first into this unless they were fully aware of the risks.

 

[Rob]

Or maybe, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Worst argument ever.

Or do you still watch your 23cm CRT TV, use your VCR and listen to music on your 8 track?

Are Brisbane and Sydney strong enough teams off-field to warrant second teams taking a slice of their pie?

Depends if you think that the new team will take a slice of their pie. The Gold Coast almost certainly won't, and it's well and truly arguable that most of West Sydney's fanbase is not going to come from the Swans, with the exception of a few people thast attend the odd game at Homebush.

Look at the NRL. At least four teams are fighting for survival in Sydney and this is the state code.

Which is similar for the AFL in Melbourne, with 3 teams needing huge handouts every year just to stay solvent.
Says more about the gross overrepresentation of teams located in each respective city more than anything else.