Your thoughts on GWS

[BarneyBent]

How can you say that?

Being the only AFL team in a massive city is what underpins Sydney's support. To say it has little significance is absurd. It's fundamental to Sydney developing a following.

Did you not read a single thing I just wrote?

You implied that Sydney had the entire city to itself, and the ability to draw support from that entire city. That is DEFINITELY not the case, because most of the sport-following population of Sydney follow union and league, which prevents them from actively supporting the Swans. While these are still potential supporters, it's not like they're clean slates just looking for an AFL club to support.

The Swans realistically, short term, have just the AFL following population to recruit supporters from. While the league and union supporters might consider the Swans "their AFL team", that doesn't equate to attending games, buying memberships, etc. Sure, there are a minority that follow both leage/union and the Swans with passion, but these people are rare.

As I said, it has an influence, but it's not that big. You seem to think that the Swans have 4-5 million people to readily recruit from, and that's simply not the case. It will take a lot of time before these markets are properly opened.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Did you not read a single thing I just wrote?

I read it.

You implied that Sydney had the entire city to itself, and the ability to draw support from that entire city.

As an AFL side, it has the city to itself. Ther are no other AFL teams competing for the support of any Sydneysiders who take an interest in AFL.

I am obviously not suggesting that there are no other clubs, from other codes, in Sydney.

That is DEFINITELY not the case, because most of the sport-following population of Sydney follow union and league, which prevents them from actively supporting the Swans. While these are still potential supporters, it's not like they're clean slates just looking for an AFL club to support.

How repetitive.

A lot of people in Sydney follow league and union. No shit.

But anyone in Sydney who takes an interest in AFL will naturally gravitate to the Swans. That means the Swans have a near-monopoly on any of the 5 million Sydneysiders who develop an interest in Aussie Rules. They don't have to share that supporter-base with another Sydney-based AFL club. In that way, being the only AFL club in Sydney is fundamental to the Swans building and retaining a following.

As I said, it has an influence, but it's not that big. You seem to think that the Swans have 4-5 million people to readily recruit from, and that's simply not the case.

No – not all of those 4-5 million people are interested in AFL.

But the ones who do take an interest in AFL will gravitate towards the Swans. To suggest that situation is not a significant factor in the Swans building a following is absurd.

 

[BarneyBent]

I read it.

As an AFL side, it has the city to itself. Ther are no other AFL teams competing for the support of any Sydneysiders who take an interest in AFL.

I am obviously not suggesting that there are no other clubs, from other codes, in Sydney.

At least we can agree on that.

How repetitive.

A lot of people in Sydney follow league and union. No shit.

But anyone in Sydney who takes an interest in AFL will naturally gravitate to the Swans. That means the Swans have a near-monopoly on any of the 5 million Sydneysiders who develop an interest in Aussie Rules. They don't have to share that supporter-base with another Sydney-based AFL club. In that way, being the only AFL club in Sydney is fundamental to the Swans building and retaining a following.

No – not all of those 4-5 million people are interested in AFL.

But the ones who do take an interest in AFL will gravitate towards the Swans. To suggest that situation is not a significant factor in the Swans building a following is absurd.

Yes, but how many do you think develop an interest? That's a bloody slow process. They're competing with other clubs from other codes over whether they follow the code. That's an even harder gap to bridge than clubs! A mother and father might follow one team, but their kids, while more likely to follow the same team, are certainly no guarantee to. But it's almost certain that they'll be following a team of the same code. You'd have much more Essendon families raising kids turning out to be Carlton supporters than league families raising kids who turn out to be AFL supporters. It's much harder to win support cross-code, and this HUGELY cancels out the flexibility of not being direct competitors with league or union clubs on the field.

Basically, my point is that while new AFL supporters will gravitate to the Swans, the number of people who are taking an interest in AFL in Sydney is increasing very slowly. Steadily, but slowly. So, it is not a particularly significant influence, and is being massively overstated.

Put simply: clubs in Aussie Rules territory get to convert young kids from one club to another. Of course, they're all doing this to each other, so membership growth overall is quite static. The Swans have to convert people from a completely different code! That is much more difficult, but the fact that they don't have competition from other clubs poaching their young support works in their favour (this is assuming that most support in people over 20 or so is more or less stable; they may lose interest, but they are highly unlikely to convert. Therefore, young kids are the primary source of new membership).

 

[B_GLassi]

Firstly there will be game on in Syda-ney every week, or close to and secondly the blue collar beer drinkin folk in Western Sydney have a side to have an interest other than the "Chardonnay swilling middle class" Swans supporters.

I doubt it. I think AFL will target the North-West middle class who have plenty of money to spend and no one to represent them.

Contrary to what you might think, not everyone in the west is a beer drinkin jimmy barnes listening ute driving 'jim fairdinkum'. One look at the peak trains from the city to the west in the evening will show anyone not familiar with Sydney about this.

 

[jpdixon]

How can you say that?

Being the only AFL team in a massive city is what underpins Sydney's support. To say it has little significance is absurd. It's fundamental to Sydney developing a following.

I agree with both of you. The unique access to Sydney is what hugely important to the Swans the base they have got, however it's fairly irrelevant when it comes to the measures of success Gunnar is suggesting should be used in such a situation.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Yes, but how many do you think develop an interest? That's a bloody slow process.

Sure – but Sydney are better off for being the only AFL team in Sydney than if there were 2-3. You seem to be suggesting that this has not been of significant benefit to the Swans, which leaves me baffled.

If there were more teams, interest would perhaps spread more quickly, but not quickly enough to balance out those fans being split between those extra teams.

At the moment, the Swans have a virtual monopoly on Sydneysiders who take an interest in AFL. Any growth in interest in the game in Sydney automatically benefits the Swans. I don't see how you can argue that that has not been a significant factor in their ability to build a supporter base. I just see that as being self-evidently true. You can argue that it is balanced against the fact ther are other codes as well, but being the only AFL side in Sydney has still helped the Swans out massively. Again, I can't even see how that's a point of dispute.

The fact there are other codes is a counterweight to that advantage, but that advantage still exists; the Swans' status as the only AFL side in town is still a significant factor in their ability to build a following. Sure, they have to make their name in a non-AFL town. That's one thing. It's another thing completely to suggest that being the only AFL team in town hasn't been of significant utility.

It's much harder to win support cross-code, and this HUGELY cancels out the flexibility of not being direct competitors with league or union clubs on the field.

That's fine – I'm not disputing that the Swans have had a tough mission. I'm certainly not claiming it's easy to push AFL in Sydney.

But they've been up there for 25 years. They've had time to carve out a niche. And they've succeeded, to some degree, but I reckon they could still have done a better job of converting the significant number of blow-ins into dedicated followers. It's that part of the equation that is going to be severely tested if they have a spell down the bottom just as a second side comes in.

The hard core will stay. But the fairweather fans, of which there are a shitload, might drift.

Basically, my point is that while new AFL supporters will gravitate to the Swans, the number of people who are taking an interest in AFL in Sydney is increasing very slowly. Steadily, but slowly. So, it is not a particularly significant influence, and is being massively overstated.

This is all sixes and sevens.

You're just saying that "it's tough in Sydney because there are other codes". That's fine – no-one is disputing that. But that does not automatically mean that the Swans being the only team in Sydney hasn't been a major factor in their ability to build a fanbase. You can argue that they balance each other out to some extent, but that doesn't mean the advantge of being the only AFL team in town was not significant to begin with.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I agree with both of you. The unique access to Sydney is what hugely important to the Swans the base they have got, however it's fairly irrelevant when it comes to the measures of success Gunnar is suggesting should be used in such a situation.

Sorry – walk me through this part.

 

[BarneyBent]

Sure – but Sydney are better off for being the only AFL team in Sydney than if there were 2-3. You seem to be suggesting that this has not been of significant benefit to the Swans, which leaves me baffled.

If there were more teams, interest would perhaps spread more quickly, but not quickly enough to balance out those fans being split between those extra teams.

At the moment, the Swans have a virtual monopoly on Sydneysiders who take an interest in AFL. Any growth in interest in the game in Sydney automatically benefits the Swans. I don't see how you can argue that that has not been a significant factor in their ability to build a supporter base. I just see that as being self-evidently true. You can argue that it is balanced against the fact ther are other codes as well, but being the only AFL side in Sydney has still helped the Swans out massively. Again, I can't even see how that's a point of dispute.

The fact there are other codes is a counterweight to that advantage, but that advantage still exists; the Swans' status as the only AFL side in town is still a significant factor in their ability to build a following. Sure, they have to make their name in a non-AFL town. That's one thing. It's another thing completely to suggest that being the only AFL team in town hasn't been of significant utility.

That's fine – I'm not disputing that the Swans have had a tough mission. I'm certainly not claiming it's easy to push AFL in Sydney.

But they've been up there for 25 years. They've had time to carve out a niche. And they've succeeded, to some degree, but I reckon they could still have done a better job of converting the significant number of blow-ins into dedicated followers. It's that part of the equation that is going to be severely tested if they have a spell down the bottom just as a second side comes in.

The hard core will stay. But the fairweather fans, of which there are a shitload, might drift.

This is all sixes and sevens.

You're just saying that "it's tough in Sydney because there are other codes". That's fine – no-one is disputing that. But that does not automatically mean that the Swans being the only team in Sydney hasn't been a major factor in their ability to build a fanbase. You can argue that they balance each other out to some extent, but that doesn't mean the advantge of being the only AFL team in town was not significant to begin with.

I think we may be arguing on slightly different points here.

I never said that being the only AFL side HASN'T helped the Swans. It has. But I just reckon you're overstating the influence massively. Certainly, in the formative years of the Sydney Swans, when they'd just moved over and Sydney was given its first taste of genuine VFL/AFL football, the fact that the Swans were the only Sydney side meant that basically all the potential supporters went to them, and there were a lot to be had. But that period is well over now, and has been for a long time. It WAS a major influence, but it no longer is, because things have stabilised. All those that were chomping at the bit to embrace AFL have. Now the effect, while still there, is not nearly as significant as you're portraying it to be, because pretty much everybody has been exposed to the game in the Swans current target area (it would be nice to be able to fully target the West and South, but that would simply be spreading the club too thin at this point). It's now a matter of slowly consolidating, and has been for a while.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I never said that being the only AFL side HASN'T helped the Swans. It has..

You said it was of "relatively little significance" to the Swans' developing a supporter base, which is utterly counter-intuitive as far as I'm concerned.

Being the only AFL team in town has been fundamental to the Swans building a following.

Now the effect, while still there, is not nearly as significant as you're portraying it to be, because pretty much everybody has been exposed to the game in the Swans current target area (it would be nice to be able to fully target the West and South, but that would simply be spreading the club too thin at this point).

So what about all the kids the AFL is trying to win over through junior clinics and school visits?

All the Sydney kids who are part of that – sure, they might not all fall madly in love with AFL. But the ones who do develop an interest will gravitate towards the Swans. That is the advantage of being the only team in the nation's biggest city. Again, it's balanced against the existence of rival codes, but that doesn't mean the Swans don't glean a significant utlity from being the only AFL team in town.

 

[jakos]

You said it was of "relatively little significance" to the Swans' developing a supporter base, which is utterly counter-intuitive as far as I'm concerned.

Being the only AFL team in town has been fundamental to the Swans building a following.

So what about all the kids the AFL is trying to win over through junior clinics and school visits?

All the Sydney kids who are part of that – sure, they might not all fall madly in love with AFL. But the ones who do develop an interest will gravitate towards the Swans. That is the advantage of being the only team in the nation's biggest city. Again, it's balanced against the existence of rival codes, but that doesn't mean the Swans don't glean a significant utlity from being the only AFL team in town.

I take an opposing view. A second Sydney club may split the potential supporter base, but it is naive to think that that base isn't already split, with many footy followers in Sydney retaining allegiances to interstate clubs. Those supporters may get along to Sydney games and thus contribute to the Swans' coffers, but they are equally likely to go to the footy to see their clubs play the new side, potentially bringing them to games more often.

A second club doubles the number of games being played locally, and ensures that a local match is on every weekend. Across Australia there are die-hard sports fans who will attend matches that their club isn't playing in, and footy in Melbourne is a prime example. It may actually mean that Swans supporters go to 22 matches per year, rather than 11, even to watch the new club.

A second club also increases the media coverage and grassroots development clinics being carried out by AFL players in Sydney. If the new club turns over anywhere near the average for AFL clubs nationally (and with the backing of the AFL that is likely), then you're potentially doubling the amount of money spent on professional-level promotion of Australian footy, even before AFL NSW/ACT monies that are spent at the grassroots. It's also fact that with 44 players on your list, there is only so many clinics and promotional events that can be staged. A second club doubles the number of players to promote footy.

Finally, you get the chance to build a genuine club rivalry in Sydney. By the time the new club joins the competition, every state will have such a rivalry, which gain a lot of exposure locally and help to build awareness of the game. They also act as conversation subjects - much more so than when, say, work colleagues support the same team.

All of these factors will really shake up the status-quo for footy in Sydney. I believe a second Sydney team is an inspired decision.

 

[jpdixon]

Sorry – walk me through this part.

Your first comment along these lines suggested that (huge) success as the only team in the country's biggest city could only be being a "powerhouse". That's going a bit far.

What you've said since then has been more nuanced, but then again, since then the only difference between your comments and bloodstainedangel5's has basically been arguing about what you and he originally said.

Put it this way: You're absolutely right that GWS isn't going to hit the ground running in off the field terms, although they'll be aiming to have as good a start as possible, but if in 25-30 years they are in a position even vaguely like the Swans now, it would be fair to call it a pretty big success.

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

The league really needed to get rid of a couple of Melbourne teams to give these expansion teams more of a chance. The league is becoming too watered down, more teams equal less exposure. Apparently nobody in Victoria takes an interest in Port or Fremantle. Nobody in the world gives a shit about Melbourne or North

Except for our passionate supporters and the CEO of the AFL who gave us the kick up the butt that Melbourne needed.

Port Adelaide will go titts up before Melbourne does. Bookmark that.

 

[ash84]

I think it is a joke, since 1879 they have had a footy league in tasmania, and produced some of the greatest players ever to play the game! There are 1/2 million people in tassie who would love to have a team down there and they would sellout every week.

But they give it to another Sydney team, what a joke!! I hope it fails miserably in terms of team success. There will be something wrong if there isn't a tasmanian team in the next decade!

Tassie deserve a team!

 

[floppinab]

Just hazarding a guess but I reckon one of the reasons why Swans crowds have dropped at Homebush is that the cost to those matches are more than the SCG, aren't they?

I think the cheapest ticket is about $40-50 per ticket and that is in the nose bleed section. If they want to get more punters sell some $30 tickets as well.
I guess the cost isn't as bad as rugby union, though, as that charges over $100 for their crawl along the ground fest.

Definately a factor, the Swans screwed up their membership terribly this year and alienated many. We might scream about RL but the cost for a walk up ticket to go to the Olympic Stadium for AR compared to RL is a joke and does not help AR's cause, particularly given the number of tickets they give away anyway

 

[floppinab]

Watch the two sides develop along class lines...my tip...and the difference be actively promoted by the AFL.

"If you don't like them middle class Sydney twats then you have to at least support the Western Sydney Blue Healers cause they're battlers just like you"

Divide and conquer.

You are generalising GWS there. GWS won't actively market itself in this way, they'll be happy to let that tone sit as a bit of an undercurrent but they won't risk alienating particularly the Northwest (who certainly don't see themselves as the blue singleted battlers) and some of the upmarket Penrith area suburbs, not to mention the migrant popultation, and any other minority in the area.
They'll be careful in any approach and to ensure they have broad appeal in order to maximise membership and general support.

 

[floppinab]

Kevin Sheedy???
You reckon he could actually resist?

Watch for this statement, or very similar, in the near future.

"We are going to build this club on a sound working class ethic. We won't be parading any million dollar men, just hard working, honest footballers doing their best to earn the support of the hard working people of Western Sydney."

You've put it reasonably well there, walking the line without falling into cattledogs vs poodles territory. They'll be happy to have the subtext out there without plastering it in peoples faces.

 

[BarneyBent]

You said it was of "relatively little significance" to the Swans' developing a supporter base, which is utterly counter-intuitive as far as I'm concerned.

Being the only AFL team in town has been fundamental to the Swans building a following.

You keep saying that, but you're not explaining why. Sure, the initial flood of supporters was due to this. But any new team is going to get a bunch of new supporters. The effect wore off very quickly, and now has little influence due to the cancelling factor of Sydney being a rugby city.

So what about all the kids the AFL is trying to win over through junior clinics and school visits?

All the Sydney kids who are part of that – sure, they might not all fall madly in love with AFL. But the ones who do develop an interest will gravitate towards the Swans. That is the advantage of being the only team in the nation's biggest city. Again, it's balanced against the existence of rival codes, but that doesn't mean the Swans don't glean a significant utlity from being the only AFL team in town.

What about them? Yes, we're trying to convert them. Yes, this is a very slow process due to the influence of rival codes. Yes, the Swans benefit overall from this.

What I'm saying is that you're massively overstating the benefit they get from this. In a way, you're right: it has been fundamental to our success. However, because the Swans are the only club really promoting the game here, promoting the game is almost equal to promoting the club, so the effect extends only slightly further (and this is only due to the other minor AFL influences) than what the Swans recruitment efforts achieve.

What you're doing is taking the effect in isolation: people who become interested in AFL become interested in the Swans because they're the only Sydney team. What you're missing is the fact that almost all of these people become interested in the AFL BECAUSE of the Swans. Therefore, almost all of the implied benefits that the Swans receive from this are illusory, as they still have to work for these fans. In fact, as I pointed out, recruiting young fans from a different CODE would be considerably more difficult than recruiting them from a different club. While the Swans still get that little slice up the top that comes from AFL exposure NOT directly linked to them, they have to work harder for the rest of it.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Your first comment along these lines suggested that (huge) success as the only team in the country's biggest city could only be being a "powerhouse". That's going a bit far.

Huh?

These statements are unrecognisable to me.

Put it this way: You're absolutely right that GWS isn't going to hit the ground running in off the field terms, although they'll be aiming to have as good a start as possible, but if in 25-30 years they are in a position even vaguely like the Swans now, it would be fair to call it a pretty big success.

In theory, that's fine.

But how can you make any kind of projection that far into the future?

The landscape in 25-30 years could be totally different.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

A second Sydney club may split the potential supporter base, but it is naive to think that that base isn't already split, with many footy followers in Sydney retaining allegiances to interstate clubs.

You think it's naive to assume that the overwhelming majority of Sydneysiders who develop an interest in Aussie Rules gravitate towards the Swans?

That's a strange choice of words.

A second club doubles the number of games being played locally, and ensures that a local match is on every weekend. Across Australia there are die-hard sports fans who will attend matches that their club isn't playing in, and footy in Melbourne is a prime example. It may actually mean that Swans supporters go to 22 matches per year, rather than 11, even to watch the new club.

Right – I'm naive for suggesting that people in Sydney tend overwhelmingly to support the Sydney team.

But now you're suggesting that some Swans fans will also attend every GWS home game.

Which of these two suggestions is actually more fanciful?

A second club also increases the media coverage and grassroots development clinics being carried out by AFL players in Sydney. If the new club turns over anywhere near the average for AFL clubs nationally (and with the backing of the AFL that is likely), then you're potentially doubling the amount of money spent on professional-level promotion of Australian footy, even before AFL NSW/ACT monies that are spent at the grassroots. It's also fact that with 44 players on your list, there is only so many clinics and promotional events that can be staged. A second club doubles the number of players to promote footy.

A second club will increase the visibility of the code and expand its opportunities to penetrate at a grassroots level.

That goes without saying.

We're all familiar with the benefits of setting up a second team.

Finally, you get the chance to build a genuine club rivalry in Sydney. By the time the new club joins the competition, every state will have such a rivalry, which gain a lot of exposure locally and help to build awareness of the game. They also act as conversation subjects - much more so than when, say, work colleagues support the same team.

These arguments are well-worn.

The question is whether a second team is going to create so many new fans that it will outweigh the disadvantage incurred by the Swans by having their virtual monopoly on the city's AFL community broken.

Purely in terms of their ability to attract new fans, I think the Swans will take a bit of a hit. But, long-term, what's good for the game in NSW is good for the Swans.

All of these factors will really shake up the status-quo for footy in Sydney. I believe a second Sydney team is an inspired decision.

Do you think that I am against the idea?

I'm not. The AFL should expand aggressively.

All I'm saying is that it will be tough for the new team and that the Swans' example doesn't suggest otherwise.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I think it is a joke, since 1879 they have had a footy league in tasmania, and produced some of the greatest players ever to play the game! There are 1/2 million people in tassie who would love to have a team down there and they would sellout every week.

But they give it to another Sydney team, what a joke!! I hope it fails miserably in terms of team success. There will be something wrong if there isn't a tasmanian team in the next decade!

Tassie deserve a team!

It doesn't grow the game.

The Gold Coast and GWS are the two fastest-growing regions in the country, population-wise. The AFL has to establish footholds in these places.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

You keep saying that, but you're not explaining why. Sure, the initial flood of supporters was due to this. But any new team is going to get a bunch of new supporters. The effect wore off very quickly, and now has little influence due to the cancelling factor of Sydney being a rugby city.

Sorry – you want me to explain why Sydneysiders who develop an interest in Aussie Rules would gravitate towards supporting the Sydney side?

Really? That needs to be explained?

Do you also want me to explain why people in WA who develop an interest in Aussie Rules would overwhelmingly tend to support the Eagles or the Dockers?

What I'm saying is that you're massively overstating the benefit they get from this. In a way, you're right: it has been fundamental to our success.

So what's left for you to disagree with me about?

You've just conceded my main point.

However, because the Swans are the only club really promoting the game here, promoting the game is almost equal to promoting the club, so the effect extends only slightly further (and this is only due to the other minor AFL influences) than what the Swans recruitment efforts achieve.

What you're doing is taking the effect in isolation: people who become interested in AFL become interested in the Swans because they're the only Sydney team. What you're missing is the fact that almost all of these people become interested in the AFL BECAUSE of the Swans. Therefore, almost all of the implied benefits that the Swans receive from this are illusory, as they still have to work for these fans. In fact, as I pointed out, recruiting young fans from a different CODE would be considerably more difficult than recruiting them from a different club. While the Swans still get that little slice up the top that comes from AFL exposure NOT directly linked to them, they have to work harder for the rest of it.

In short, you are arguing that the benefit of being the only AFL team in the city is balanced against the fact that there are other codes in the mix.

That's fine. I don't dispute that.

All I've been saying is that being the only AFL team in the city has been a significant factor in the Swans' ability to build a following. You bizarrely disputed that initially, but have now conceded that point.

 

[speedpeck23]

POSTED by GUNNAR LONG.......All I'm saying is that it will be tough for the new team and that the Swans' example doesn't suggest otherwise.[/QUOTE]



The Swans example is at best a poor comparison. The Swans were a financially destitute VFL club "transplanted to Sydney" 27 years ago. They were the "odd one" out in an otherwise strictly Victorian competition. The forward planning by the then VFL was almost non existent. GWS goes in directly as a home grown club in a far more professionally run and financially strong organisation which already has a national image.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The Swans example is at best a poor comparison.

It wasn't my example.

Another poster suggested that GWS will be successful and pointed to the Swans as evidence.

I agree that there are sufficient differences to make that analogy problematic – my point was that, even if you accept the comparison, it hardly indicates that GWS will have an easy time of it.

 

[speedpeck23]

It wasn't my example.

Another poster suggested that GWS will be successful and pointed to the Swans as evidence.

I agree that there are sufficient differences to make that analogy problematic – my point was that, even if you accept the comparison, it hardly indicates that GWS will have an easy time of it.

Fair enough... different set of issues for GWS.... but the Swans have succeeded despite having such a humble beginning. When the Swans went to Sydney the whole of Sydney was RL "heartland" IMO GWS will succeed probably far more quickly than the Swans. Despite this Rugby League will retain its popularity in NSW and may even improve its product and professionalism with AFL/GWS showing how to do it.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

IMO GWS will succeed probably far more quickly than the Swans.

Well, if they take longer, it would be hard to consider it "a success".