Pies look to Sydney

[Mel_C]

If the Swans allow Collingwood to play their home game up in Sydney then I give up.

It's bad enough that we lose out on going to see 2 games a year in Melbourne....now they want to make it 3!! Surely the club has to understand how important the crowd support for them in Melbourne is. The other interstate teams are jealous.

If this gets the green light, it's only fair then that we are guaranteed extra games in Melbourne. This will keep everyone happy.

[penga]

maybe the swans should have a couple of home games in melbourne as compensation???

just a thought

[Bas]

It is only preliminary discussions at this stage but I hadn't realised that Vic Swans supporters would be missing out when I first read the story..

Nevertheless, if you're going to protest, you better do it now.

The home games in Sydney are being dollar driven by the Melbourne Clubs. You don't see any of the other interstate clubs asking for home games in Sydney. I believe, Sydney will not transfer it's home games To Melbourne because it would not be profitable to them.

The only solution would be for Sydney to play less away games in other states to compensate for more games in Melbourne. That would be good, no more trips to Perth for a few years. Collingwood didn't play any away games here (Sydney) for two years.

It's a thought because the Melbourne sides "home" games will happen in Sydney unless in the unlikely probability that the financial situation of Melbourne teams improves. Collingwood is not being driven to do this out of financial despair however. Greater reasons.... you guess....

I'd petition for less interstate games to compensate for more Vic games because of the Sydney "home" games. Asking to transfer Swans homes games to Melbourne - Club won't consider it.

Has anyone here had a look at the figures for Vic members and see how financially significant their membership is to the Swans compared to alienating them with more games in Sydney? It would be interesting to know because I don't think you can compare 6,000 or so Vic members to 6,000 Sydney members because we pay more annually (because of the different level of memberships) to Vic members.

Another question as harsh as this may seem, does it matter to the Club (financially) if it had no or few Vic members? It seems it doesn't.

Unfortunately, barracking longer does not equate to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Bas
The only solution would be for Sydney to play less away games in other states to compensate for more games in Melbourne.

Good idea. And if the Swans were indeed serious about Victorian supporters, they'd better be seen as demanding that compensation.

Originally posted by Bas
...because we pay more annually (because of the different level of memberships) to Vic members.

Oh I thought that was because of the 15% standard of living factor.

[Charlie]

I don't care what's best for the club in this instance. Either they look after us Melbourne based fans, or I'm finished with them. Simple.

I don't see why it would be so hard to give us 7 a year. 12 in Sydney, 1 each in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane, 7 in Melbourne. I don't think we should play in Canberra. How hard is that?

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Bas

Unfortunately, barracking longer does not equate to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Then the TotC becomes a farcical joke. Ponder that in your tooshy.

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by Charlie
I don't care what's best for the club in this instance. Either they look after us Melbourne based fans, or I'm finished with them. Simple.

I don't see why it would be so hard to give us 7 a year. 12 in Sydney, 1 each in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane, 7 in Melbourne. I don't think we should play in Canberra. How hard is that?

The question, Charlie, is "Does the club determine the AFL fixture?"

The answer is NO. They can submit a list of preferences (which they do), but in the end the decision is out of the club's hands. We don't have a choice whether we play in Canberra or not, because it's North's home game. The Dogs' Sydney game, and the proposed Collingwood game is out of the clubs' hands too - it's their home game, they can do whatever the hell they like with them..

The plan was discussed in Melbourne on Tuesday at a meeting of Stadium Australia officials, AFL department heads Andrew Demetriou and Tony Peek, and Collingwood chief executive Greg Swann.

We weren't even invited to the meeting. If we say we don't want to be involved, Collingwood just shrug their shoulders and make their own deal directly with the AFL and SA management. How is that the club's fault?

I agree that the SFC should fight to retain as many melbourne games as possible, but I don't think they're to blame here.

[DST]

Des is absolutely right, the AFL set the fixture and we are only in a position to present a wish list to the AFL. The club asked for 7 this year and only got 5.

From my reading of the articles, the Doggies are in the last year of their SCG home game contract so the Pies will replace the Doggies as the 12th game in Sydney. The Doggies are already looking at Cairns & Darwin for next year. This is a win/win for the AFL as they have a ready made extra Telstra Stadium game to cover the games requirement.

The only way we are going to get the extra game back in Melbourne to get back to 6 is if they let us travel less to Brisbane, Perth & Adelaide.

I don't think we will ever get back to 7 in Melbourne as the trade off for the ANZAC day clash with the Demons in Sydney is balanced up with not getting what we wanted with 7 games in Melbourne/Geelong

My tip for next year is the Pies to replace the Doggies for the 12th home game, 6 games for Melbourne/Geelong and 4 times to Brisbane, Adelaide & Perth.

DST

[SWANSBEST]

This a very emotional issue. Both Des and DST have analysed the situation perfectly . Both Collingwood and the Roos can determine where they play their " HOME GAMES " subject to AFL approval . The Roos play games in Canberra purely for the money provided by the ACT Government and the AFL . This money is very substantial and helps to keep the club afloat . In regard to the Eddies I would say the jury is out on why this sudden interest in the Sydney market unless it tied up to Eddie's ego to further spread his influence and interests.
Those Victorian based supporters who were so against SSI should start a strong lobbying campaign to protect their interests.

[Steve]

Gee they (Collingwood) are asking for a lot.

By my calculations (I actually did the sums before the season started), this year Collingwood will spend almost 18 less hours travelling (and that only includes flight durations) than the Kangaroos, who travel the most out of the Victorian teams.

Collingwood travel for (roughy) 12 hours, and the Victorian average is over 22.

And they still aren't happy to leave the fixture fall whichever way it does.

I get the impression Collingwood will try and bargain this deal (ie. a guaranteed maximum of 2 games outside of Melbourne/Sydney) with the AFL in return for silence on all the issues they've been trying to stir up trouble with.

Good luck to them if they can pull it off - surely though they couldn't then keep a straight face when going on about a level playing field etc etc.

[liz]

Yes and no - I think the club can do something, particularly in the light of this proposed Collingwood move.

The Lions apparently have a firm agreement with the AFL that they get a minimum of 5 Melbourne games in recognition of their link with Fitzroy. The Bulldogs playing their home game up here was, as I understand, a joint decision between the two clubs and was seen to be financially beneficial for both.

The circumstances surrounding the Collingwood situation are different. The Pies aren't doing it because they need to raise more money. In fact, they would probably make more money playing it in Melbourne. Rather, their motiviations seem to be twofold:

1 Gain some marketing advantage by being seen to be a "more national" club; and

2 Reduce their chances of having to go to Brisbane and Perth. Note that part of the deal seems to be that they still want to be guaranteed 18 games in Melbourne - so in effect they are swapping a trip to Perth or Brisbane for an easier one to Sydney. THEY ARE GIVING UP NOTHING!

Surely the Swans are entitled to be lukewarm about the idea - and say, sure, if Collingwood want to play a game up here, that's fine by us, but its not our choice and we too want a guaranteed minimum number of games in Melbourne. If the Pies can sneak their way out of a Perth trip, why can't the Swans?

[Steve]

Assuming that we played:

Home - 11
'Away Home' (Bulldogs, Collingwood) - 2
Canberra - 1

the only concern for Sydney would be whether part of the overall deal was a guaranteed minimum of 3 trips to Adelaide/Perth, just to try and even things up.

With Collingwood moving in seemingly the Bulldogs might move out which might change things, but 14 games within NSW/ACT would be a sweet deal for Sydney.

That's ignoring the Melbourne supporters issue which is tricky.

It just makes things so complicated/compromised with the AFL administrating over so many 'deals':

Melbourne in Brisbane
Bulldogs in Sydney
Collingwood in Sydney
Kangaroos in Canberra
Hawthorn in Tasmania
St Kilda in Tasmania
West Coast-Fremantle derbies X 2
Adelaide-Port Adelaide showdowns X 2
Victorian Blockbusters
Brisbane 5 games in Melbourne (whatever it is)
Essendon/Collingwood/Carlton/Richmond in Stad Aus games

etc etc

[Charlie]

That's ignoring the Melbourne supporters issue which is tricky.

Which better not happen if they want us to stick around.

Of course there can be 7 games in Melbourne. It's simple, TELL THE ROOS WE WON'T PLAY IN CANBERRA! Let 'em play there by all means, just make them do it against West Coast or Adelaide or someone. Why us?

By freeing up that game, that leaves 10 games outside NSW. Now, considering that two thirds of the opposition clubs are in Victoria, wouldn't it be fair to give us two thirds of our away games against Vic clubs? That's 7 games.

There's no tampering about it. We can still play plenty of matches in Adelaide and Perth and Brisbane, 3 really is fair. 3 trips is one third of the trips, for one third of the opposition.

Oh yeah, and either the Bulldogs or Collingwood can go and get stuffed. ONLY 12 GAMES IN SYDNEY! Think about us for a change!

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by Charlie
Of course there can be 7 games in Melbourne. It's simple, TELL THE ROOS WE WON'T PLAY IN CANBERRA! Let 'em play there by all means, just make them do it against West Coast or Adelaide or someone. Why us?

Charlie, how are we going to "make them"? It's their home game, they can play it anywhere they want. And if they play in Canberra, they will want to play the side that will draw the biggest crowd in Canberra. Take a guess who that might be? The AFL probably already has it inked into the fixture without even thinking about it.

The only way we will have more than about 6 games in Melbourne is if the club moves a home game there themselves. The numbers (especially in the "profit" column) DO NOT support that!

Who knows though, I think the club is in a pretty good position to at least ASK for 6, maybe 7. This will involve them cutting our other interstate trips. Fingers crossed eh? My point is that when you look at how it's structured you can understand why the AFL have made the decisions they have. The problem is to satisfy both parties.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Charlie
Either they look after us Melbourne based fans, or I'm finished with them. Simple.

No you won't be, Charlie.

The club's in your blood. You know it and we know it. Red and White forever, mate.

Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt when family treats you like unwanted chewing gum, though