The Giants are doing better than you think

x 2

+1 Give me a spectacle and i'll watch it. I've been accused of being an NRL, union and AFL member. Followed the premier league when living in London (sensational!) and Super Lig when living in Turkey. With the exception of the very latter I have enjoyed them all (Super Lig had its moments, but too much of a european divefest). Right now AFL is my code of choice, but i'll happily watch or talk about the other codes. I just think when a favourite code is slagged it gets people's backs up and they feel obliged to defend their preferred code with more codebashing, even though they may be partial to watching other types of football. Essentially there are way too many people who are easy trollbait on the football tabs :)

When it comes to crowds, no code in Australia comes close to the AFL, especially in the AFL states, but even in NSW & QLD, considering they are nowhere near the dominant code or even 2nd, their crowds are amazing.

The Giants don't double their crowds. The Roosters said 6,345 last night - not a chance. Is NRL the only code in the world that doesn't put crowd numbers in their match stats home page...

Roosters always inflate their crowds. Last night looked between 3 - 4,000. Similar in reality to what the Giants get in Homebush (real as opposed to inflated crowd figures).

Happy Jack, check your numbers buddy. Are you speaking of average crowds? The Swans have never averaged those numbers. In 86-87 they averaged 25k and 22k respectively. It rapidly declined after that until 94, when Tony Lockett and Paul Roos arrived and Sydney became exciting to watch and this is what drew the crowds back. Superleague talks may have happened earlier, causing fans to becoming dejected with NRL, but the competition began in 1997. Long before Superleague, Paul Kelly won the Brownlow in 95 and the Swans had an outstanding season in 96 making their first Grand Final since moving to Sydney. Their average crowds had already lifted to 15k and 24k in 95/96, long before Superleague. I would agree that perhaps some crowds came over in 97, but the arguement is pretty redundant considering the Swans have kept the average crowd above 25k ever since Superleague crashed and burned.

Funny many RL types complain that the RL hierarchy are way behind the AFL in development but they may have a barrow to push. The Storm crowds in Melbourne average 13K after 16 years and 3 or 4 premierships (incl the salary cap ones) and are rarely on FTA so their growth has been underwhelming even with Slater and cheating the salary cap for years...13K is not much more than 8K of Giants and Giants tickets are more expensive. Giants crowd more than at the Roosters crowd last night - any news on what it was because if there more than 3K I will give it away...

Swans don't play Friday nights often when the big TV audiences are - ask Nine whose NRL numbers are biggest on Friday nights...

Wanderers name is err British....Giants trying to cash in on San Francisco Giants baseball and basketball which are big games in WS...Smart in hostile territory - see posts above...

You don't think it odd the FFA owned the Wanderers allowed them to play with extra imports and were top of the comp from the start. Do you think they set them up to fail - sounds like the Melbourne Storm /News Corp model where the Storm won in their second year with players from 3 folded clubs

The Swans crowds in 86-87 were 40K so there was a precedent. RL has still to recover from going to 20 teams and over-reached itself. Super league funded many clubs for 5 years so there were benefits...

I've never heard anything of the sort. There reality is there is no rule of thumb. If there are KPI's you don't hear about them. If on field success is based on premierships then let's analyse other expansion clubs. It took Sydney 14 years to make their first GF and another 9 years to win one. West Coast came in in 87 and made the GF in 91, but didn't win their first until the following year. Winning another in 94 and 2006. Brisbane came in in 87 and didn't make or win one until their trio in 2001/2/3. Adelaide entered in 1990 and made and won their first in 97 going back to back. Fremantle came in in 1994 and only made their first in 2013. Port Adelaide started in 1997 and made and won their first in 2004, failing in 2007. Adelaide, West Coast and Brisbane haven't been there since. The Swans lost in 06 and won again in 2012, with another looming. If you base GWS on their big brother, there are no signs for concerns on a premiership, except to say the AFL might want to see them get there sooner than 23 years. If you base success on wins, then the only team you can compare them to is Gold Coast. They are one season behind GC who have won 10 but won't add to that. You could argue that without Ablett, that figure could have been far less. GWS have won 4 and could add to that if they beat the Dees. Next season, they won't win 10, but I would suggest 6-7 is possible and that would be a pass for coach Leon Cameron and the club. If off field success is based on crowds and memberships, it's hard to argue that the Giants are already on track. They have surpassed the Swans in both categories in their infancy, except to say that is a comparison that dates back to 1982-1986. Needless to say, the Swans were a ready made team competing with Rugby League. GWS are a team of youngsters with a few mature age rejects, competing with League, Union, Soccer and Basketball. Even if crowd numbers and memberships are over inflated by 5000odd as some readers have thrown around (a very non-AFL thing to say), they are still tracking better than the Swans in the same period. I can't think of too many other measures that the AFL would look at. Perhaps financial but I am in no position to comment on that.

Now you are clutching at straws, both Collingwood & Port Adelaide are hated (like Manchester United is the most hated club in the EPL) for their success (off field in Collingwood's case) & their arrogance for being the biggest & the best. This is not the case with GWS, who are just not liked well, for a varying of reasons. This is not to say they do not deserve to be there & that in the long run they will be successful, but please do not get confused, most people in Sydney would struggle to mention 1 person involved with the club since Sheedy & Falou has left the club.

@ Yewonk, i think in Sydney the aim is to be an alternative and i think everyone is realistic to understand that. Doesn't stop the AFL from trying as hard as they can though and they have every right.

I wouldn't say GWS were hated, to hate something you must have feeling towards it and most NSW just feel apathy towards GWS, they don't stir any emotion unlike the other 2 club you mention.

The Swans do OK, maybe the Gianst can do the same, that is the real point.

Does anyone really know the AFL’s long term goals are for GWS ? Approximately half of Australia's population (approximately 23 million) is located in NSW/ACT and Queensland and approximately half of Australia's economic activity is within NSW/ACT and Queensland. For the AFL to continue to grow, the AFL had several options including, grow the brand within Australia, grow the brand overseas and grow the brand only in the traditional football states and accept that growth in the remainder of Australia particularly in NSW/ACT and Queensland would be marginal at best. Realistic growth overseas would be non existant AFL in the traditional football states has reached near market saturation with expectations of growth minimal and would be generally in line with population growth. For the AFL to grow, the markets with opportunity for growth are the NSW/ACT/Queensland markets. Even though Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions have been in these markets for some considerable time, basically all measurable football KPI's are low compared to the traditional football states and there is considerable room for growth with low market penetration. GWS and the Gold Coast are part of the growh stategy of the AFL building on the foundations laid by the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions. For the strategy to have an expectation of success dollars are required to be invested and it has to be long term. GWS are at the forefront of and a key part of the AFL strategy for growth. The expansion is a multi front long term strategy which is not limited to the introduction of the Gold Coast and GWS to the AFL competition and includes increasing participation in Auskick and junior clubs; schools programs; Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS academies; the NEAFL competion and arresting the decline of Australian Football in the ACT and surrounding areas. GWS located in western Sydney is operating in arguably the toughest sporting market in the world and are bearing the brunt of the startup difficulties of the AFL growth strategy which includes the often vitriolic questioning of their existance. The success or failure of GWS as part of the AFL growth strategy will have ramifications for Australian Football in the future which will either maintain its arguable market dominance of Australian sport or mark the start of the decline of the dominance.

It will not let me respond to your last comment. I honestly believe it is the best interest of any codes administration to ensure that the expansion clubs they introduce, survive. I don't believe the AFL needs to try and lure fans from other codes. What they will do is continue to market AFL at grass roots as an alternative sport to play. Every code must do this to attract youth and to develop a talent pool for the sport. Fans will come from the way the team is marketed, and on field performance. There are enough people in Greater Sydney to support every major team in Sydney.

Do you honestly believe it is not the intent of the afl to use whatever means they have available to help gws to only be an alternative?

Are those death riding GWS going to admit they were wrong when GWS does inevitably succeed??? Ha..another thread filled with GWS hate!..pretty funny. Collingwood the most hated team in Victoria. Port Adelaide the most hated team in SA. GWS the most hated team in NSW. I'd say their in good company.