Greater Western Sydney Giants

[nobleoz]

The Giants certainly did better than the Bombers

[Jeffles]

GWS were within a goal of both sides? Were the other teams full strength? Do clubs try to win at NAB Cup level? These are serious questions BTW.

[nobleoz]

No
I hope so!

[Rob]

GWS were within a goal of both sides? Were the other teams full strength? Do clubs try to win at NAB Cup level? These are serious questions BTW.

Dogs weren't far off, maybe 3 or 4 not playing. Collingwood were missing quite a few, although they still had some big names out there. GWS were probably 2 players off full strength in their first game, but they just played kids against Collingwood. I think their most experienced player had played 18 games.

And most clubs don't try and win, although some clubs try more than others. This year it's probably more about not winning than the last few, as every club's schedule is mapped out regardless of the result. In saying that, you put a bunch of professional athletes out there and they're going to try and win. No co-incidence that the derby was probably double the intensity of any other game over the weekend.

[nobleoz]

I really think that most clubs want to win their games - esp in the final rounds. Only exception I can remember was St Kilda's win a few years back, when their response was more like a funeral. Didn't do them any good for the season that followed, tho.

[Jeffles]

When asking if clubs tried to win. it was more along the lines of "do they field the side most capable of winning"? Undoubtedly whoever is on the park tries his or her best, whatever the sport (except cricket in Pakistan).

If GWS continue to be this competitive they'll probably have a better first year than the Suns.

[Simmo79]

I was under the impression that pre-season games were played at a "I don't want to get hurt" level of intensity, so that even if full-strength teams were fielded they weren't going to being playing close to their best

[Rob]

If GWS continue to be this competitive they'll probably have a better first year than the Suns.

Well yeah, but bear in mind the Suns beat the Swans in the same round of the NAB cup last year as well.

TBH I expect them to do about the same, they'll cop some fearful floggings and get close to a few sides as well. Although I get a funny feeling that they might give the Swans a scare in round 1. Well worth putting a few down on the 99.5 point line that centrebet are offering.

[Jeffles]

Centrebet said they had a bloke put $1000 on GWS at $15 to win the game - no start!

[Nines]

I was under the impression that pre-season games were played at a "I don't want to get hurt" level of intensity,

Nobody plays like that as it's a recipe for getting hurt.

[Nines]

TBH I expect them to do about the same, they'll cop some fearful floggings and get close to a few sides as well.

They won't get flogged to the same level as the SUNS as Sheedy is a lot more defensive orientated.

[Simmo79]

THEY are hardly the sort of figures that would turn the hair of Penrith supremo Phil Gould a whiter shade of white, but the GWS Giants say the people of western Sydney are beginning to accept them.

Last week the Giants' membership crept past 6000, and while only just approaching half of the 12,165 foundation membership pledges last year, unlike then, the majority of the new members call the Greater West home.

When foundation memberships closed on October 31 last year, more than 40 per cent were based in Canberra, where the club will play three matches this season. Just 25 per cent were from the 14 local government areas that make up GWS regions, including Liverpool, Blacktown, Penrith, Parramatta, Fairfield, Auburn, Bankstown and Campbelltown, with the rest of Sydney, and Australia, making up the remainder. But of their 6027 members, 2304 - or 38 per cent - come from western Sydney area, while 1718 - or 29 per cent - are from Canberra, with the remaining 2005 from other parts of Sydney and Australia.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''We probably think it's tracking along as expected,'' GWS boss David Matthews said. ''Whilst we had a good foundation membership and there is an incentive there for foundation members [they get $50 off their new membership], there's not that long-term annual process that members have gone through, that they have at other clubs.

''We have set a very ambitious target for ourselves of 17,000, and we wanted to set the mark pretty high … in the last two weeks we've sold about 1800 memberships. We've been pleased with the rapid take-up in recent weeks. I think a lot of people have been waiting for the genuine start, and in a lot of people's minds that was when the NAB Cup kicked in, and the next month is going to be really important for us in terms of building the membership leading into round one.''

Their match against the Swans at ANZ Stadium is less than three weeks away, and Matthews said the Giants were targeting the record for the biggest home crowd by a debutant team in the AFL. In 1991, Adelaide had 44,902 for their first AFL game, against Hawthorn.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/not- ... z1oI9bPjv5

I can't see them getting close to the 17,000 member mark until they've had a run at the Premiership. They'll stay below 10k until that happens. I wonder what they've actually budgeted for if their CEO thought that 17k was achievable in the first season?

[Jeffles]

If they've budgeted anything it's not worth the paper it's written on. By that, I mean the AFL will fund them in the long term regardless of how close GWS comes to any forecast. They've got vision. The VFL was prepared to accept the Brisbane Bears losing $12m in 1987 (in 1987 dollars) and arguably the AFL is more committed today.

Anyway, the ratio of memberships is encouraging for them

[Nines]

If they've budgeted anything it's not worth the paper it's written on. By that, I mean the AFL will fund them in the long term regardless of how close GWS comes to any forecast. They've got vision. The VFL was prepared to accept the Brisbane Bears losing $12m in 1987 (in 1987 dollars) and arguably the AFL is more committed today.

Anyway, the ratio of memberships is encouraging for them

''We have set a very ambitious target for ourselves of 17,000"

[Simmo79]

See I don't buy that. No organisation anywhere in any context gives a blank cheque for an indefinite period to any project. There would have to be confidential benchmarks they need to achieve for continued funding. I imagine that the AFL Executive would be keen for that to be the case but I'd speculate that the AFL Commission would want more solid results in the medium term future. There's a political dimension that gets overlooked as well - the Commission can hardly throw money or other communcal resources at GWS without extending the same benefit to the other 17 clubs. I can't see the other clubs (via their influence on the Commission) tolerating special treatment beyond, say, a 5 year start up phase.

I can't predict how it will play out but I don't think it's as simple an equation as the AFL propping them up for indefinitely. They'll have to pull their own weight eventually. I don't know what the consequences of their failure to do that would be, though. No additional funding and an expectation that they will eat what they kill, which would disdvantage them year-in, year-out? Move them to Tasmania (unlikely given the preferred strategy of carving the state up between Hawthorn and North)?