Will the Swans’ bandwagon roll in 2010?
Roar Guru Related coverage
For a team that finished eleventh on the AFL ladder in 2009, you have to admire the loyalty of the Swans fans who turned up for their first game, with a crowd over 30,000.
There the fans were in that first game against St Kilda covered in red and white from head to toe, cheering on the bloods in what became a tight enthralling game.
For Sydney, as a sporting city, any crowd over 30,000 is decent no matter the code or sport.
After round two, and the Swans demolition of the much fancied Adelaide Crows, the Swans now have a spring in the step. Or is that grease in their wheels?
Almost immediately, the Swans are featuring more prominently in the sport pages of the Sydney papers.
At least online.
Prior to the AFL season it was a very low key build up for AFL in the Sydney media.
The Sydney Morning Herald had even moved its AFL drop down tab to the far right, whilst the Daily Telegraph had relegated the AFL article block below boxing in its online version.
This in the wake of the mighty Swans bandwagon of 2003- 2007, which came to a halt in 2009.
In their heyday, 72,000 packed into ANZ Stadium to watch Sydney play Brisbane in a Preliminary Final.
In 2007, the bandwagon still rolling from the 2005 and 2006 Grand Final appearances, they managed three crowds over 60,000 at ANZ Stadium, such were the winning wheels of the Swans wagon.
Paul Roos has recruited well, maybe that crowd of 30,000 to the Swan’s first game of 2010 sensed a resurgence. Old wheels had been replaced and the bloods faithful could smell some blood on their opponents in 2010.
Whilst the Crows are struggling with injuries and poor form, they’re difficult to beat at AAMI Stadium in Adelaide.
The Swans smashed them in the first half. Rejuvenated with leg speed and traded players out to prove their former clubs wrong, the Swans have Top 8 next to their name all of a sudden.
When you consider they took St Kilda to within an inch of defeat, the gulf between the Swans and other Top 8 contenders is not as far as many believed.
Sydney loves a winner.
Those crowds of 60,000 won’t happen in 2010, but the Swans, in Paul Roos’ last year, will not die easily and that bandwagon already has a shiny look.
- Explore:
- AFL, Paul Roos, St Kilda Saints, Sydney Swans
April 7th 2010 @ 8:23am
Paul J said | April 7th 2010 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Well written Red B.
Just to play devil’s advocate – do you know the TV figures in Sydney for the Swans games? If they get 30K to the game but still only 100K watching at home then it’s more of the same this year.
If i was running the Swans i think i’d prefer to have 20K at the game but 200K (or more) watching at home.
April 7th 2010 @ 8:27am
Simmo said | April 7th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
TV revenue goes to the AFL. Swans get the money for bums on seats. Footy clubs will always prefer to have punters at the stadium rather than at home on the couch.
April 7th 2010 @ 8:54am
Paul J said | April 7th 2010 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Sure, but TV revenue is where the NRL will make it’s money to then spend on the clubs through grants, as well as development, marketing etc.
Is this not the same for the AFL?
April 7th 2010 @ 9:01am
Redb said | April 7th 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
The AFL has both great crowds and a good TV deal with funds for development.
I think TV ratings lag on field performance and more positive media coverage for the Swans. Their TV ratigns will grow if they remain competitive and start beating the more fancied teams.
Ratings and crowds are fluid dynamics.
The value of a national competition is that when one market is down another is doing well, at the moment Brisbane are the shining light in the non traditional markets.
Crowds are vital for a game’s mojo. The Swans do well.
April 7th 2010 @ 10:49am
Baz35 said | April 7th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Far more revenue is to be had by bums on seats than someone flicking through the channels, particularly for the club who only gets a small share of the TV revenues anyway.
And the TV revenue is determined once every five years (always significantly higher than League’s btw), and major sponsors often over similar timeframes, so week to week TV ratings have a far more benign impact on a clubs bottom line
The Rugby League focus on TV ratings I suspect is due to the fact that the gap between it and the AFL is smaller there than on attendance, rather than any objective reasoning
April 7th 2010 @ 12:21pm
JamesP said | April 7th 2010 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
According to this website http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2010.php
The ratings for the ANZ stadium game were only 98,000, so they still have a way to go
In Brisbane (with a third of Sydneys population) the ratings for the Lions v Blues game was 131,000
April 7th 2010 @ 8:45am
JK said | April 7th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
I actually hadn’t noticed that much press for the Swans, maybe not looking in the right places. It will probably take a bit more for the bandwagon to get going.
Personally I won’t read too much into the loss against the Saints, the games are always close over the last couple of years, just something about the Swans style that shuts the Saints down, and they lost anyway. The Crows game however different story, they were intense on the ball and accurate with thier disposal’s, Crows gave them a few soft goals though. Impressed with Seaby and Mumford, had a fear Jolly was going to be the biggest loss from last year but Roos has done well.
April 7th 2010 @ 9:57am
Jay said | April 7th 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
good crowd, well done to the swans. they go about their business in a more professional manner than the new gws cowboys (thus they get more support and respect from the sydney people, even though it is largely dependent on their performance).
with that size crowd, not about extra revenue they might earn, but it would have been electric at the scg.
April 7th 2010 @ 10:26am
LK said | April 7th 2010 @ 10:26am | Report comment
This article hasn’t attracted the comments I thought it might. You know, “Iron Chef beats Swans matches in the ratings, yada yada yada…”
Anyway, as a Swans fan there is plenty to be happy about. The results of the first two rounds have been great. The young kids coming through look impressive. Also, the game plan seems to have evolved since the flag (18 goals against the Crowbots!).
April 7th 2010 @ 12:22pm
JamesP said | April 7th 2010 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
There are many NRL games on Foxtel that get beaten by the Iron Chef too:)
April 7th 2010 @ 12:55pm
Redb said | April 7th 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Like the description ;Crowbots; – suits them well. When the programming is working uninterupted they are hard to stop but if you pluck out a wire or two they malfunction
April 7th 2010 @ 4:55pm
Paul J said | April 7th 2010 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
LK
The Iron Chef situation is still in effect with the Swans and the Lions and it will be with GWS and the Gold Coast. It will be in effect for the Storm if the NRL can manage FTA coverage with the next TV rights and it will be in effect when the NRL goes to Perth in 5 years.
The next code to get decent TV ratings away from their heartland will be the first.
April 7th 2010 @ 5:34pm
Dogs Of War said | April 7th 2010 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
It’s a funny situation. There is more than enough room for AFL and NRL to co-exist. They offer different products, and both require a couple of generations of TV exposure in the non-heartland states to build that support, and get people used to the other product.
I really do hope the legisation is changed so that sport can be shown on the secondary channels. It’s a win for all sports lovers around the country, and an even larger win for the sports themselves.
April 7th 2010 @ 5:45pm
Dogz R Barkn said | April 7th 2010 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
Sensible post – agree 100%.
Further to that – people keep ignoring the fact that about 50% of the Australian population has little interest in sport – that goes for Melbourne as much as anywhere else.
These are people that all sports can try and attract, and of course they should, they would be remiss in their fiduciary duties if they failed to do so (I’m talking about all the codes).
April 8th 2010 @ 10:54am
Lazza said | April 8th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Both codes have been ‘expanding’ since the the early 1990′s but there’s no evidence that they are becoming truly national sports. Good crowds but poor TV ratings just confirms that it’s the expat factor at work rather than converting new fans.
In pro sport it’s all about TV ratings these days – that’s where the majority of the money comes from.
April 8th 2010 @ 11:19am
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I think the Brisbane Lions are well beyond the expat factor. Not dominant but a strong No.2.
TV ratings in heartlands still provide the bread and butter, they’re the base, with expansion providing the jam and at times, honey.
April 8th 2010 @ 11:39am
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
They’d still be behind the Union mob, the Reds will pull decent crowds when they have a sustained period of good Union on the pitch, they’ll have no problem competing with the Lions for crowds.
As for TV ratings, if the Reds had FTA, more QLDers would watch them over the Lions guaranteed.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:31pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
I doubt you can guarantee that Rod.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:40pm
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Why?
They have been garbage for 10 years and the Reds still average 20k.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:40pm
JamesP said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
The Lions have been in front of the Reds in QLD since they premiership hatrick in 01 – 03. Their crowds have now built to a comfortable 30k average (give or take), and solid tv ratings (130,000) as I posted above which are good figures for that sized market. The Reds are not of FTA for the same reason the A-League is not on FTA – no one wants to whatch RU or soccer, apart from the International games.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:44pm
Matt said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Its a close second with the Reds. Depends on form more or less for 2nd/3rd in Brisvagas.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:53pm
AndyRoo said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
JamesP, either your a fantical AFL fan or you don’t live in Brisbane.
“The Reds are not of FTA for the same reason the A-League is not on FTA – no one wants to whatch RU or soccer, apart from the International games.”
If the Reds were on FTA then they would give the Lions a run for their money.
The reason their not on FTA though is the way their sport is stuctured it gets more money from pay TV and it can’t afford to turn that down.
The Lions don’t get the coverage they get on FTA purely on merit either, it’s been essentially subsidised by the AFL’s strength in other markets for a long time and is only now getting to the point where they justify it themselves.
Edit: Rod’s already said it. Unions been in a lul, anyone who watched it prior to this season could see why but your one of the AFL fans that understimate other codes JamesP.
April 8th 2010 @ 3:07pm
AndyRoo said | April 8th 2010 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
JamesP
The Pay TV ratings dont break it up by state but the Reds ratings look very comaprable to the Lions ratings in Brisbane despite one being on FTA (a huge advantage) and the other on pay TV.
April 7th 2010 @ 11:01am
ac said | April 7th 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
The simple fact is that even when the Swans did get good crowds to the gams the TV Ratings where Poor. I think this has to do a lot with Aussie Footy. It is better to see live at a ground. I went to a Sydney Hawthorn match at the Olympic Stadium and it was great. The next week watch the swans on tv and you miss half the action. Rugby League is a much better product on TV because of its nature. Sorry, but thats how i see it. AFL is much better LIVE at the game. I think the people of Sydney are a little more fickle than Melbournians. If the swans win then its good but if they are not winning they are not very interested. I dont think that will change. But best wishes to the Swannies. I think selling AFL to Western Sydney is gonna be a lot harder than the AFL thinks myself. But, at least they are trying . They are cashed up and so good on them too. But in Sydney Parra, West Tigers and Penrith are a big thing to bring down
April 7th 2010 @ 3:31pm
Redb said | April 7th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
No probs with that.
I do think your last sentence is wrong though, it’s not about bringing any other team down for GWS. This self defeating rhetoric is puzzling. Why can’t the teams co-exist, isn’t that what the NRL want for the Storm, coz they cant seriously beleive otherwise.
April 7th 2010 @ 5:39pm
Dogs Of War said | April 7th 2010 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Agree with you Redb (for once). Really it’s about how long the NRL/AFL are prepared to bankroll the team, because it will be 10-15 years at the very least before it can stand on it’s own 2 feet. It’s one of the issues that have cropped up in the News Ltd exit plan before the IC is implemented. News Ltd understand the importance of bankrolling the Storm for another 5 years, while the rest of the clubs just want the cash for there own club, without thinking what the Storm bring to the table via TV rights, and larger support markets. I think AFL clubs will feel the same if they feel GWS is just a giant sinkhole of money, and it affects their clubs adversely (ie financial strife, AFL unwilling to assist).
April 7th 2010 @ 5:49pm
Dogz R Barkn said | April 7th 2010 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
The Lions and Swans show how important it is to have a presence in every capital city – the cost to the AFL is nothing compared to the riches delivered via sponsorships and TV rights.
It’s the exact same deal with the Storm, and will be with a revitalised Perth team – it costs a bit, but that’s nothing compared to what it brings to the game over the long haul.
I’ve already written somewhere else about the basic economics of the 17th and 18th AFL teams – that’s one extra game per round, a minimum of a 12.5% increase in TV rights, or $100 million over 5 years.
More than likely, that will be a $300 million increase over 5 years.
When you look at it that way – the decision to create 17th and 18th teams is an absolute no brainer.
April 7th 2010 @ 11:12am
bazza said | April 7th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
It is good to see the Sydney media finally giving the swans and AFL the coverage that they truly deserve
April 8th 2010 @ 12:35am
cuzybros cuz said | April 8th 2010 @ 12:35am | Report comment
i disagree with you bazza
April 8th 2010 @ 1:48pm
Matt said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Paid ads on Channel 10 and the newspapers, free tickets and compulsory showing of games written into the TV Contract is hardly the AFL “getting the coverage it deserves”
If it went on ratings, all AFL related media would be shown at 3am after a dodgy European movie on SBS on a Tuesday.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:57pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
yes i think the Herald Sun would run far less articles on its team in Melbourne as well if it didn’t own it.
again this is not about tv ratings its about crowds for the Swans.
April 8th 2010 @ 12:37am
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 12:37am | Report comment
54k on the box last weekend in Sydney.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:44pm
JamesP said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
It was a sunday timelot. There was almost double that for Saints game, plus 30k at the ground….
Look, they have a long way to go…no one is denying that, just need to get rid of the “I hate Melbourne” mentality. If Aussie Rules was invented in Perth or Adelaide, I dare say the gap between NRL and AFL in Sydney would have been a lot smaller.
April 9th 2010 @ 4:29pm
Matt said | April 9th 2010 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
You could argue that AFL would be as relevant as A league in that scenario. AFL and RL developed strongly because they were centred in the two most important cities in late 19th-20th centuries.
If dwarf tossing became the king sport in Melbourne or Sydney I bet there would be a very healthy following today. It wasn’t spite for AFL or melbourne that ment it didn’t develop here. Simply that we already had a great game putting down big cultural ties to the community by the time AFL showed up.
April 8th 2010 @ 12:39am
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 12:39am | Report comment
The swans have always had very good coverage with live tv games every week to reports on all the news channels and the papers trotting out whatever they trot out.
It’s people outside Sydney who seem to be the ones complaining.
April 8th 2010 @ 10:15am
Simmo said | April 8th 2010 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Agreed. The swans get the best coverage of any footy club in Sydney. Almost all their games are on FTA, usually live. All their club news makes the evening bulletins and the daily papers. It’s much better coverage than any individual NRL club, the Waratahs or SFC.
I doubt there’s much more that they can actually get.
April 8th 2010 @ 10:39am
Dogz R Barkn said | April 8th 2010 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I am not a Swans supporter, but you have to admit that in terms of club memberships, attendances, and general interest, they are one of the most popular clubs in Sydney of any sport (note: that is different to saying that the AFL is popular, clearly, the AFL as a whole is behind the other three football codes and is more of a niche sport in Sydney).
April 8th 2010 @ 11:41am
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
A heap of their memberships come from Victoria still, Souths would be getting very close to them now if you take out the Vic memberships and so would the Saints and Dogs.
You might think because they average 30k a game that they are popular, but on the box they aren’t, every Sydney NRL team would be more popular.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:29pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
This is primarily about Sydney’s bandwagon crowds not what the NRL teams rate on TV.
The Melb member base of the Swans is not heaps, I dont know the number but I bet they don’t form a big part of the Sydney crowd for the Swans.
eg: The Lions a few weeks before the season started had about 22,000 members only 2,000 were Melb based.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:36pm
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
So 20k for the lions who have been flogging memberships for two and a half decades compared to the Broncos with around 10/11k who have been flogging them for two years.
Hmmm.
I’ve read that the swans have around 5k memberships from Vic, if that’s the case and the swans are the lowest membership club even behind the lions 22k, when do the swans start looking over their shoulder at the NRL clubs memberships?
April 8th 2010 @ 3:11pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t have a shot at membership levels in AFL clubs. Get your own backyard up to scratch.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:26pm
Dogz R Barkn said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Rod
I deliberately talked about the Swans as a club. The club itself is reasonably popular – each individual Sydney based NRL club is probably more popular – but there ain’t nothing wrong with accepting that the Swans have a decent level of support in Sydney.
I think the Melbourne component of the membership is around the 5,000 mark (but don’t quote me, I’m not sure).
April 8th 2010 @ 11:10am
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
They will if the bandwagon rolls again.
Many non AFL fans said the same thing about the Lions TV ratings. Success brings increased crowds and ratings. The Lions packed out the GABBA, got 131,000 average for a 1hr delay telecast, beat the NRL footy show,etc.
It’s all about momentum, takes a while for the general public to pick up on success, if the Swans are 8 and 3 by half way they will have the big MO and the media will jump aboard followed by a greater part of the sporting public.
April 8th 2010 @ 11:44am
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:44am | Report comment
lol, it beat the NRL footy show.
Hey RedB, just about everything beats the NRL footy show because it’s garbage.
How would the Lions have went with a RL game on at the same time on another channel, that’s the big question.
But that question will never get answered for the Lions and the Swans because ch9 keeps giving these two clubs a free hit in their markets by not putting FTA RL games on at the same time.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:26pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
You miss the point Rod.
Bris lions ratings were under 80K at times last year.
I dont doubt the NRL game would rate more head to head especially if a Broncos game. (this occured last year I think and the Broncos ‘won’ easily, but the Lions audience was still OK).
I still dont beleive the Lions are anywhere near bigger than the Broncos and probably never will be, but that is not the only yardstick of success.
Strong No.2 for AFL in QLD is fine.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:31pm
Rod said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
And they’ll rate 80k again this year many times, I’ll have a bet with you about that if you like.
If I remember right, the Thursday night game has been around for 3 seasons now and the Lions have played 3 times, on those 3 times the ratings have been around the same as they were this year.
Later in the seasons though, they dropped off as they always do.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:47pm
JamesP said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Excactly. And that is what they are aiming for in NSW too.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:05pm
AndyRoo said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
I think they beat the Wallabies when they went head to head.
I thought that was a pretty big achievment and proof their number 2 in QLD.
QLD only has 3 League teams so it’s not like second place is just the crumbs either.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:11pm
Jay said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
I dont think they would have beaten the wallabies.
Wallabies had a better attendance for that game against SA.
As for no.2 – dont discount the resurgence by the Queensland Reds. Lions are probably no.3, but the gap between 2 and 3 isnt that large.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:14pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
I should clarify that Jay, I think what the AFL is aiming for is a strong no.2 in QLD, and not just crowds and tv ratings, but also participation.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:14pm
AndyRoo said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
They won the TV ratings which was surprising to me. I’m not an AFL fan Jay but I remember that because I was surprised.
Red’s will defintely be in for better years since they have turned the corner, plus next year more Aussie derbies will be great. I wonder if that will flow on to the Wallabies?
Edit: But the Reds aren’t on free to air so thats a big impediment to growth.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:17pm
Matt said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
And a pathetic 4th in NSW, Australias most populous state.
April 8th 2010 @ 3:27pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Not patethic at all in NSW. Comparitively, the AFL is well ahead of its rivals in their beach-heads.
April 8th 2010 @ 5:51pm
JamesP said | April 8th 2010 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Interesting AndyRoo
You bag my comments further up when I suggested that the Lions are Number 2 in QLD (undeniably based on attendances, and arguably based on tv audiences), then you rip out this chestnut:
“I think they beat the Wallabies when they went head to head.
I thought that was a pretty big achievment and proof their number 2 in QLD.”
What exactly are you saying?
April 8th 2010 @ 9:30pm
AndyRoo said | April 8th 2010 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
I ripped into your post because it reeked of superiority about the Lions being on FTA while the Reds and the Roar aren’t. That isn’t because AFL is a more popular sport in QLD it’s because the AFL do a better job and are in a better position than the ARU.
The Reds if on free to air and well run would be Brisbane’s number two team, but their not so they aren’t.
Nothing to do with “no one wants to whatch RU or soccer, apart from the International games.” … that’s just over simplified rubbish to bag other codes when the reality is the Lions coverage has been is part of the TV contract subsidised by the codes strength in Melbourne.
April 8th 2010 @ 9:59pm
jimbo_ said | April 8th 2010 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
AFL is on the anti-siphoning list and Super14 and A-League aren’t, so it has to be shown FTA by law.
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91822
NRL is on the list too.
The networks save money by showing the same program in all states – AFL, even if the ratings are low in some states.
April 8th 2010 @ 11:16am
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:16am | Report comment
how is anyone complaining?
The Swans at the peak had massive crowds and were an unqualified success.
April 8th 2010 @ 10:31am
cuzybros cuz said | April 8th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
quote paul Roos from yesterdays Daily telegraph
“You hear a lot of rhetoric out of the AFL and numbers and all this stuff they tell you about, but when you see it at the coalface you know it’s vastly different to what you hear out of Melbourne,”
April 8th 2010 @ 11:15am
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
The AFL has squandered the last 30 years of development and now is starting to realise what it needs to put in place to grow the game or take it to the next level.
recent moves:
The AFL Sydney academy
Head of AFL development moving to Sydney
Two AFL teams in Sydney
Contrast this to other codes in their non heartlands and they also have a huge task ahead to get beyond the low hanging fruit of expats and novelty interest.
April 8th 2010 @ 11:57am
cuzybros cuz said | April 8th 2010 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Red, you have the coach of the Sydney swans who is saying the opposite of you mate and his critiscms are that what comes out of the mouths of the AFL and Melburnians is vastly different to what you see at the coal face. Your comments verify what Paul Roos is on about. No matter what anybody says on here Red, you will put a pro AFL spin on everything and defend the game to the death. No person has been at the coal face longer in the last decade than Roos yet you are doing exactly what he is criticising the AFL and Melburnians about.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:17pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Hey so cuz,
I agreed the AFL has squandered the past 30 years, I’m backing Roos not disagreeing with him.
Your selective quoting is interesting becuase Roos also fully endorsed what the AFL are doing now in Sydney he just wishes it had been earlier and that they had listened to the Swans HQ.
The move of Dave Matthews to Sydney as head Development Manager alone shows a change of direction by the AFL.
You can read more about Matthews and the Swans view here:
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/critical-appointment-to-boost-afls-appeal-in-sydney-20100407-rs5h.html
April 8th 2010 @ 1:27pm
cuzybros cuz said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
I’m sure Roos does fully endorse current programmes. They may turn out to be fruitfull, however, the point I am making and the quote I highlighted bro was that spin doctors in melbourne paint a different picture to what actually is occurring at the coal face. Roos understands that south of the Murray, people lap up these so called figures without question, north of the Murray, we scratch our heads with bemusement. The fact that they have introduced these programmes has nothing to do with that quote.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:32pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
I don’t think any code is immune from hubris.
As a frequent traveller I agree its easy to see things from your city’s perspective but again melbourne is not immune to that either I assure you.
That is why the move of Dave Mathews (AFL Development Manager) to Sydney is a significant shift from the heartland. It is far easier to gain knowledge on the ground.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:21pm
Matt said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
No code is free of hubris Red, but AFL in NSW is 90% hubris.
I think this is the point being made by the coach of the only AFL side in Sydney.
Also, GWS being talked up as giving Sydney a second side to bandwagon behind and for “rivalry” is a positive spin.
A negative take on it is that it could halve the attendences, merchandise sales et cetera for the Swans and at the same time double or treble the cost of running AFL in NSW for no financial gain for at least 10 years with no long tem guarentee of success. People with an interest in AFL will sea-saw between the two clubs for no net growth.
I have heard AFL fans talk about this as a very real costly outcome. It makes as much sense as the NRL putting a second team into Melbourne right now.
April 8th 2010 @ 12:47pm
jimbo_ said | April 8th 2010 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Sydney’s a great place to do anything – even watch sport. We have a great selection to choose from, so the Swans are doing OK, even though their numbers are down on last year already.
The Swans get a very good go here in Sydney and I don’t think there is lack of knowledge or lack of opportunity to watch a Swans game, live or on TV.
Even the RTA is behind the Swans in Sydney.
I’ve noticed every time there is a Swans game on in Sydney, the electronic traffic signs say something like “Swans Game – Use Public Transport” even though there seems to be no traffic problems and even on traffic notice boards 20 or 30ks from the stadiums. They don’t do this for NRL games or SFC games.
More advertising for the AFL – I wonder if this is pre-arranged or pre-paid by the AFL?
April 8th 2010 @ 1:18pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
They don’t need to for SFC games.
April 8th 2010 @ 1:50pm
jimbo_ said | April 8th 2010 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Probably right this year
Although the SFS is not very good for public transport and most people drive and park.
The entrance to the stadium is also very close to one of the tunnel exits and some major city roads so it does get congested and takes a long time to park, even for a 10-15K crowd.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:02pm
AndyRoo said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
I don’t know if this is still in place or wether other codes do it too but in 1998 you could go to the train station (NSW Central Coast) and buy a combined train and Swans ticket at a much better price than buying them separately.
A very good initiative.
Not needed in Brisbane though as any sports event expecting over 5k comes with free (well the club pays) public transport.
One of the positives for AFL fans and Football fans is that once we have two teams in Sydney then it will no longer be “AFL/Football had a bad year” but Swans/SFC instead when these teams have dips. Although I guess that goes both ways (will reduce the hoopla about rising crowds too) but should actually grow the amount of genuine sports discussion rather than issue discussion. Lets face it their’s only so much you can talk about the one team, a second adds variety and interest.
April 8th 2010 @ 2:32pm
Matt said | April 8th 2010 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Or it could be a massive financial burden that puts pressure on not well to do AFL clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne, Sydney et cetera. It could also drive down demand and divide the already small market and fan base in Sydney.
No one knows what the effect GWS will have 10 years from now in Sydney. But with RL going good, A League introducing a second side, a FIFA World Cup likely in 2022, a reshuffle of the super 15 format, the GWS side is looking like being a bigger white elephant than ANZ Stadium.
But I can see why AFL is doing it. There is nowhere else to go to grow the pie, and if AFL doesn’t get into Sydney with a second club now, they never will.
April 8th 2010 @ 3:06pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
They don’t need to find other regions in OZ, the AFL is already laying down the foundations in the five main states. Tassie and maybe NT to come later.
April 9th 2010 @ 5:02pm
Matt said | April 9th 2010 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Neither does the NRL. The only two southern cities that are needed in a national comp, Perth and Melbourne, will be covered in 2013.
NRL will have in 2013 a presence in 8 of Australia’s 10 largest popualation centres, only Adelaide and the Sunshine Coast (mooted for a side or a Sea Eagles/Sharks relocation) without a side, compared to AFL’s 6 (including GC).
That said, AFL is focusing on the biggest cities with 2 in each state capital, where NRL favours a 1 team city model with regional centres represented. The NRLs apraoch will ensure it remains strongest in the large growth areas of NSW and QLD.
Adelaide is the only place to go then of any relevence, and its only relevant because of TV ratings there counting.
It would be a very long term issue for the NRL, with a second New Zealand side in Wellington, an Ipswich side and a Sunshine Coast team in Qld more important.
Conversely, where is the AFL’s long term growth going to come from? Perth? Hobart? South Africa?
April 8th 2010 @ 3:04pm
Redb said | April 8th 2010 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Spot on AndyRoo.