Nightmare for Colless

[penga]

WOAH! great way to start here

[swan_song]

When I heard this stuff on the news this morning I thought "here we go again". It was bad enough in the late 80s going into work and putting up with the rugby league supporters taunts..."ahh your ping pong pooftahs will be out of Sydney soon, the club's folding, going broke." Week in week out I had to put up with that...now it's happening again.
Yes, I'm sure the rugby world cup has taken some sponsorship dollars away...but it's not as though it's been a secret that's snuck up on the swans...like finding a fullback when Dunks was coming up for retirement, these things should have been thought through years ago, and contingencies made.
I hope it's a beat up to gain concessions from the AFL, cos if there's no swannies after november, I might as well hang myself now...

[neored]

As an Essendon supporter I'm devastated by the news. No really I am.....

[NMWBloods]

Yes, I'm sure the rugby world cup has taken some sponsorship dollars away...but it's not as though it's been a secret that's snuck up on the swans...

However, what probably has surprised the club and messed with its forecasts is the difficulty corporate Australia is having. This is the main difference relative to the 2000 Olympics which people keep referring to. In 2000 the economy and companies were still going gangbusters. That's not the case now, and entertainment, sponsorship and the like are the first things cut back.

[Johnny Roberts]

Let's take a few deep breaths and examine the facts first before setting off on witchunts.

We knew this was coming as early as March - the fact that the media chooses now to beat it up, doesn't mean the circumstances have changed.

I have listed below the issues that IMO relate to the swans cashflow problems.

Stadium Australia Agreement:

The agreement was based on 6 games with a break even point of 30000- as we only play 3 games in 02 and 03 it means 60000 is the break even point- a difficult task for even a club like Collingwood or Essendon.
This burden will be reduced in 04 with the swans now signed to play 6 games at Stad. Aus.

Promotion of Stadium Australia games:

This accounts for approx. $800K of the swans $1M loss in 02.
The AFL has agreed to meet these costs from 03 and beyond as these costs relate more to AFL promotion in NSW than purely the swans.

Reduced sponsorship, attendances and membership due to onfield performace:

Due to the cyclical nature of the AFL's draft and salary cap systems it is impossible to remain at the top every year- after success in 96-98 it was alwasy going to be difficult to maintain our ladder position. Whether we like it or not, team success (or lack thereof) has the most effect on fluctuations in membership , attendance and sponsorship.


Reduced sponsorship due to Rugby World Cup

With Sydney hosting all the "big" games in the RWC it was always going to impact most on the swans. The AFL with the support of Club Presidents has already indicated that they will "assist" in meeting any sponsorhip shortfalls due to the RWC.

Reduced attendances due to more TV vs gate games in 2003:

This relates to the increase in the TV agreement- ie. the Networks now want more for their dollar and a live game will always "outrate" a delayed telecast or replay. To me the answer is pretty simple- if the TV revenue to the AFL has gone up at the expense of attendances and therefore club revenue then the AFL is bound to meet this shortfall- for all clubs that are effected not just the swans.


Debt repayment on the new Basil Sellers centre/ training facilities:

IMO this was a neccessity for the swans to keep up with the facilities of other clubs- to recruit and keep players at the swans.
I wonder whether we would have lost the likes of the Grants and Gaspars if we'd had the Education, Welfare and Training facilities in place earlier.
Also worth noting that while the debt on these facilities will be a financial burden on the club in the short term, these facilities will improve the assets and net-worth of the swans franchise in the long term.


Blown out football department/ player payments relative to team performance in 2002.

Certainly not on our "Pat Malone" here - all clubs were caught in the "whirlwind" increases in player and coaching contracts. The difference is that the clubs that have maintained their success have been able to wear it, the clubs that haven't are now paying for it - St Kilda, Bulldogs and Carlton to name a few.
The club has now addressed this situation by slashing $3-4m from the football department this year.


So after all that - my point is simply that it is not one single issue that has effected the swans cashflow, but a series of issues that have also coincided with poor performance on the field.

Don't get me wrong - I don't totally excuse Colless and the powers that be from responsibility. My gripe is the unrealsitic expectations they had for onfield success and therefore off-field revenue and for not seeing the "warning" signs earlier. At least they are now addressing these issues- or seem to be.

If I could ask one thing of my fellow swans supporters it would be that we don't get carried away with media headlines, but instead sit back and examine what is really happening at the club.

Colless is only playing by the "AFL media rules" as set down by his fellow presidents such as Smorgon, McGuire etc. That is, you go to the media first, before you meet with the AFL to strengthen your case. If he doesn't make it public it gets leaked any way, at least this way the quotes are his and not a "club source".


Now is not the time for "scapegoats" or forming factions such as this SSI group- all this does is divide the club at a time when we most need to act as "one". If you want to make a real difference then drag friends and family to games or even try to convince them to buy memberships. The swans need more loyal supporters and members not "wannabe" Board members with no Football experience.

I have followed the swans all my life so can quite confidently say that the swans have faced and met bigger challenges along the way than they are currently experiencing - we will be around for many years to come.

[SWANSBEST]

I heard an interview with Wayne Jackson today and while he chose his words very carefully, I was left with the opinion that a certain amount of mismanagement was involved with the losses incurred by the Swans. He also stressed that the club has not yet approached the AFL for assistance. and the case will be looked at on its merits.

We will not receive any help from the NSW Government. See below .




Carr rules out funding for Swans


NSW Premier Bob Carr ruled out funding the financially-embattled Sydney Swans.

The team had applied for emergency assistance of up to $2 million from the AFL to keep the club afloat, The Australian reported.

Without the money the club could not trade past October, Swans chairman Richard Colless told the newspaper.

Mr Carr today said his government would not come to the aid of NSW's only AFL side.

"No, it's not our role (to provide money)," Mr Carr told reporters in Jindabyne, where the NSW cabinet is meeting.




Mr Carr also said the AFL grand final should be played outside Melbourne if it featured two non-Victorian teams.

He said he met AFL boss Wayne Jackson last week to discuss having more matches played outside Victoria.

A contract exists to stage the grand final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

"If the Swans win the right to host the final then it shouldn't be taken away from them," Mr Carr said.

The premier said in letter to Mr Jackson last week that it was ridiculous for two non-Victorian clubs being forced to play a semi or preliminary final in Melbourne.

He added today that having more games in Sydney was good for the state's economy.

"You get a lot of dedicated fans coming into Sydney so it's very good for domestic tourism but it's also good for the level of activity around the game," he said.



?AAP 2003

[penga]

Originally posted by SWANSBEST
Mr Carr also said the AFL grand final should be played outside Melbourne if it featured two non-Victorian teams.

carr is an idiot! <--- stand alone statement

carr is an idiot for even suggesting that the GF should be played outside of melbourne, IMO it should ALWAYS be played at the MCG!!!

[Newbie]

Carr is trying to score some political points. That is all. But it is good that Carr and Wayne have a conversation. BTW could people remain calm, the probability that the club will fold anytime soon would be close to zilch. Colless is simply trying to send a message, probably similar to some criticisms on the team going on here.

[Charlie]

Mr Carr today said his government would not come to the aid of NSW's only AFL side.

"No, it's not our role (to provide money)," Mr Carr told reporters in Jindabyne, where the NSW cabinet is meeting.

He added today that having more games in Sydney was good for the state's economy.

So let me get this straight. He's happy to reap the benefits from having the Swans, and get on the bandwagon when we're winning... but not willing to help us out? I'd be surprised if the NSW Government did not get $2m back twice over from the flow-on effects of having the Swans in town.

Put up or shut up, Carr!!! I'm willing to help, and I don't get the big bikkies from the Swans. You do. SO HELP US YOU OPPORTUNISTIC, SELFISH DOG!

[NMWBloods]

Ha - I was about to do similar things with Carr's ridiculous contradictory comments!!

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by robbieando
In his 10 years at the club nothing has changed off the field - we are still in debt. We can't rely on a 1996 like season to bring crowds and money back into the club.

I think there is more to the story as well, but we are unlikely to find out what it is.

We got out of debt for a long period of time, now we're back in it.

I agree with your second statement though, our chances of finding out would be very minimal.

[Newbie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Ha - I was about to do similar things with Carr's ridiculous contradictory comments!!

Carr is not going to put up some hard cash for the club but It does not rule out some other kinds of assistance, though. It does not sound contradictory at all.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Newbie
Carr is not going to put up some hard cash for the club but It does not rule out some other kinds of assistance, though. It does not sound contradictory at all.

And you've attributed to Carr this move for non-funding assistance for the Swans based on which comments...?

[Newbie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
And you've attributed to Carr this move for non-funding assistance for the Swans based on which comments...?

How about, let us wait and see .

[Damien]

Let's not stress

I am not going to stress. I would like to know the full story of course and am dissapointed, but withstanding the bitchiness of the Melbourne clubs and certain media types - the AFL needs Sydney and the Swans are the only option. We are safe.

It also wouldn't suprise me if the Swans get some money from the RTA or another government authority like the Blues in the Cricket or South Sydney in the NRL does.

Also in relation to 2000 v 2004. Rugby Union and AFL have a very VERY similiar supporter base in NSW, both sports attract the affluent part of town and therefore the same type of sponsors , with the Olympics most sponsorships had been locked in from 94 - the Union signed most sponsors late last year when the Swans were after renewals and new sponsorships.