Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
If that rumour's true, it's way more likely the AFL will shift one of the two licences it owns than try and coerce/cajole/bribe a Melbourne club across the Bass Strait.
Rubbish. Not in the next 10 years anyway.
The AFL only need to threaten to take away the extra $3 million+ it gives to Norf/Dogs/Dees every year and they'd agree. Because without it they'd be cactus.
As fun as the politics and rhetoric around the Great Big Waste of Money Giants is, they are drawing a reasonable crowd. Big time horizon on a return though, and does not justify the investment in the showground.
You make a good point, but it's clearly not a sustainable way forward. Saying that Australia's professional sporting competitions aren't built on sustainability...
For the millionth time - the AFL is taking a a very long term view with the Giants. Yes, giveaways aren't sustainable, but this is not a (historically) typical expansion team where there is a existing demand. The Giants with the assistance of the AFL are building demand with the introduction, development and growth of the team. This will take 10-20 years.
Not sure how many times this needs to be explained to people...
For the millionth time - the AFL is taking a a very long term view with the Giants. Yes, giveaways aren't sustainable, but this is not a (historically) typical expansion team where there is a existing demand. The Giants with the assistance of the AFL are building demand with the introduction, development and growth of the team. This will take 10-20 years.
Not sure how many times this needs to be explained to people...
Throwing around any length of time is not a credible counter-argument.
What will be the bar for success/survivability in 10-20 years? There's pretty solid inflation in AFL club costs. In 15 years time the cost of running an AFL club could double again. The low end figure of $32m that the Giants are padded up to now by the AFL could very easily be 50m p.a. in 10 years.
The Giants need some pretty spectacular growth off their own bat, not just to keep pace with the rest of the league, but to close the expanding gap. Look at the Swans - for all their success they're still one of the poorer clubs in the league and barely pull their weight within the AFL collective.
Waiting 10-20 years won't give the Giants success. Not with the rate of inflation within the AFL. It's just an exercise in kicking the can down the road. An excuse to remain in denial.
For the millionth time - the AFL is taking a a very long term view with the Giants. Yes, giveaways aren't sustainable, but this is not a (historically) typical expansion team where there is a existing demand. The Giants with the assistance of the AFL are building demand with the introduction, development and growth of the team. This will take 10-20 years.
Not sure how many times this needs to be explained to people...
Throwing around any length of time is not a credible counter-argument.
What will be the bar for success/survivability in 10-20 years? There's pretty solid inflation in AFL club costs. In 15 years time the cost of running an AFL club could double again. The low end figure of $32m that the Giants are padded up to now by the AFL could very easily be 50m p.a. in 10 years.
The Giants need some pretty spectacular growth off their own bat, not just to keep pace with the rest of the league, but to close the expanding gap. Look at the Swans - for all their success they're still one of the poorer clubs in the league and barely pull their weight within the AFL collective.
Waiting 10-20 years won't give the Giants success. Not with the rate of inflation within the AFL. It's just an exercise in kicking the can down the road. An excuse to remain in denial.
Setting a time horizon for a fixed number of years is a fantastic way of avoiding any scrutiny. Case in point? We cannot judge the success of GWS because we need to wait 20 years, just like last year. And in 2008 when the league expansion was announced, we couldn't criticise the decision because obviously we have to wait 20 years. By my count we should be 14 years away - if it wasn't a number pulled out of the mythical anus that drank from the fountain of youth.
Fusion Power - just 25 years from becoming a reality, since the 1950s. But this time it's different, because we'll make it out of graphene, which is only 5 years away!
GWS average attendance at games in Sydney not including the home derby was 7,914 in its first season and grew 4.6% to 8,281 in its second season. After 5 games this season it is down to 8,244. 2 of those games, however, were rain affected.
To fill the stadium in 20 years they need 6% pa growth in attendance which is triple the population growth rate in Western Sydney.
FYI. Their latest Financial Report is linked below.
When the expansion into Western Sydney was announced AD was saying that they would commit additional funding until 2016 and were prepared to extend that out to 10 years if necessary. After the club started playing in front of small crowds he was saying that they would provide funding as long as necessary. By the end of the season he had changed it to 20-30 years.
It is very easy to re-interpret history and say that the AFL were involved in a long term project but it is quite clear that they did badly misread the market. The interesting part about it is that the Swans told them what it would be like before they announced the expansion and the AFL took no notice.
gyfox wrote:When the expansion into Western Sydney was announced AD was saying that they would commit additional funding until 2016 and were prepared to extend that out to 10 years if necessary. After the club started playing in front of small crowds he was saying that they would provide funding as long as necessary. By the end of the season he had changed it to 20-30 years.
It is very easy to re-interpret history and say that the AFL were involved in a long term project but it is quite clear that they did badly misread the market. The interesting part about it is that the Swans told them what it would be like before they announced the expansion and the AFL took no notice.
At the risk of re-interpreting history though, they very well could have had 20-30 years in mind but knew it wouldn't fly with the public, so they figured let the sh*t hit the fan in increments. This is straight out of the public sector play book.
gyfox wrote:GWS average attendance at games in Sydney not including the home derby was 7,914 in its first season and grew 4.6% to 8,281 in its second season. After 5 games this season it is down to 8,244. 2 of those games, however, were rain affected.
To fill the stadium in 20 years they need 6% pa growth in attendance which is triple the population growth rate in Western Sydney.
FYI. Their latest Financial Report is linked below.
GWS reports 18.2 million in AFL distributions and match receipts. The 2013 AFL annual report shows GWS' club distribution was 10.7 million. That leaves us with 7.5 million in match receipts. This strikes me as rather high. It's likely Canberra and the Swans fixture is generating the lion's share, as my experience is the free tickets only surface for non Swans games in Sydney.
For the millionth time - the AFL is taking a a very long term view with the Giants. Yes, giveaways aren't sustainable, but this is not a (historically) typical expansion team where there is a existing demand. The Giants with the assistance of the AFL are building demand with the introduction, development and growth of the team. This will take 10-20 years.
Not sure how many times this needs to be explained to people...
For the millionth time in my counter-punch is that crowds were below what they expected in season one, so if they are below expectations in season 1 how can the AFL have any expectations for 20 years time?
Saying that the Sydney Swans extra living allowance grant has screwed over GWS this season. If they win another premiership, it makes GWS's job even harder. Not surprised it's been taken off them after the lance franklin signature.
