Melbourne Based Members/Supporters

[Steve]

I can see the opposition supporters' argument - 'you've (basically) got 13 home games ... you want 6+ in Melbourne ... you get another 1 in Brisbane ... that's asking for a bit much'.

But I guess when you look at what the AFL prioritise when doing the fixture (and their justification for giving Collingwood an armchair ride):

1. marquee games which attract big TV audiences
2. maximising attendances

... you have to wonder why we don't play more games in Melbourne against the big Vic clubs, particularly in preference to other non-Vic sides.

If we're only going to get 5 then at least lock 2 of them in against Collingwood and Essendon at Tel$tra Dome - piss off the games at poxy grounds like SS and OO.

Although it's always funny sitting in the stands at OO and being beaten to the punch by Carlton fans having a go at their own players.

[swansrock4eva]

Charlie, do you think the Swans sold out the SCG in their first game up here? NO. By your logic they should have just packed up and buggered off because it took them 5 years to become a viable entity (and a privately owned one at that!). If they had given up after one season we wouldn't be having this argument. These things don't happen instantly, they take a lot of time, a lot of hard work and quite often a lot of assistance from people OUTSIDE the "inner sanctum" of a particular football club.

And by your logic, what is supposedly best for the Swans would actually cost the club and the AFL more than one Swans away game outside of Victoria ever will. Remember it's MONEY governing this league and that's what they are thinking about.

[CureTheSane]

The word poxy isn't used nearly enough

[DST]

Originally posted by Charlie
Now, WHAT good will that do? After that e-mail, that will be the end of it, and the matter will be forgotten. Gem, we tried all the "nice and constructive methods" last year. LOOK WHERE THAT GOT US!

You say solutions, TELL ME, what is the solution? The OBVIOUS solution is to ditch Canberra. But you even reject that. Do you have another one? Or do we just need to "deal with it". Tell me what we should do that will actually get something done. Because sending off a PC e-mail that is answered by someone's secretary doesn't sound all that promising... in fact, I reckon I'm more likely to be noticed here on RWO.

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie read carefully what I am about to type:

The game in Canberra is a Kangaroos home game, they have every right to ask for the game between what ever club they want, to help them establish a place in Canberra and make some money. The AFL also has everyright to grant them their wish and play that game against us as they too want the venture to succeed as well.

This is just the same as we have requested and been granted a game against the Pies on the bye weekend at Stad De Oz which will make us a squillion extra dollars and ultimately help us to prosper.

If you want to complain about one game in particular then the Western Bulldogs home away game where we underwrite it is the one to campaign on. This game if it is not fixtured in Sydney would be returned to Melbourne.

The Melbourne office is fully aware of this and i can gaurantee you will be listing that as the number 1 scheduling request for next year when they meet with the team in Sydney.

DST

[BAM_BAM]

Originally posted by Charlie

Ok, now explain to me why it has to be the Swans going down there to do it? If the Kangaroos can't sell out a 12,000 seat ground without having several thousand blow-ins from Sydney, then the project isn't viable, and they need to look elsewhere. Quite simply, having the Swans game there is merely papering over cracks in the plan - ie, it isn't viable to run a club in Canberra.

[/B]

I feel for you Charlie,

But it makes sense for the AFL to include a Swans game at Manuka being that Canberra is surrounded by NSW. Sydney is NSW's team (territorially speaking).

Yes they have car, bus, and train loads of current Swans members attending games, but they also may get someone who is interested to due the Swans involvement in the game but who isn't a member due to living in Canberra and are not devoted to travelling like some up to Sydney to watch them. They come to watch Sydney play and then stay on for the Kangas long term.

That's a new bum on a seat they may never have gotten had Sydney not been a draw card. That's how I see it.

[Charlie]

Ok... I'm going to include three replies in one post here.

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
Charlie, do you think the Swans sold out the SCG in their first game up here? NO. By your logic they should have just packed up and buggered off because it took them 5 years to become a viable entity (and a privately owned one at that!). If they had given up after one season we wouldn't be having this argument. These things don't happen instantly, they take a lot of time, a lot of hard work and quite often a lot of assistance from people OUTSIDE the "inner sanctum" of a particular football club.

And by your logic, what is supposedly best for the Swans would actually cost the club and the AFL more than one Swans away game outside of Victoria ever will. Remember it's MONEY governing this league and that's what they are thinking about.

No, we didn't sell out the SCG in the early years. But let's consider the differences. Manuka Oval is in a city not foreign to Aussie Rules, and in a time in which people can watch the game at some point over the weekend in every single corner of the country. Manuka has a capacity crowd of 12,000, the SCG over 40,000. Do you see the difference there?

Further, what does it actually prove if the Kangaroos can sell out a small ground with blow-ins supporting the opposite team from another city? That's not development. It doesn't nothing for Canberra except what the ACT Government is aiming for - bringing people to the city for the day and having them spend money there. It doesn't matter whether the Kangas sell out the ground or not, they still make the same profit because the game is underwritten by the ACT Government. What exactly are we giving them? NOTHING.

What good does it do to development in Canberra? As far as I can see it, the curious people are only likely to go if they can get tickets. Someone quoted 8,000 Sydney fans travelled to the game this year. That's 2/3 of the capacity. Only 4,000 tickets for a) Kangaroos fans that may travel, b) Kangaroos and Sydney fans who live in the Canberra region, c) Fans from other clubs who are starved of footy and will go to any game, d) Miscellaneous allocations such as Auskick, the clubs, corporates and government representatives and finally e) curious Canberrans who want to check it out. Doesn't leave much for development, does it? You might be lucky enough to have a little over 1,000 tickets for the people that the Roos are apparently trying to recruit as supporters.

However, apparently this is our "duty". Apparently, this is more important than protecting our OWN supporters in Melbourne, the ones who CONTRIBUTE to our coffers. Can you explain to me why it is better for the Swans to play in Canberra than in Melbourne, given these facts?

Originally posted by DST
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie read carefully what I am about to type:

The game in Canberra is a Kangaroos home game, they have every right to ask for the game between what ever club they want, to help them establish a place in Canberra and make some money. The AFL also has everyright to grant them their wish and play that game against us as they too want the venture to succeed as well.

This is just the same as we have requested and been granted a game against the Pies on the bye weekend at Stad De Oz which will make us a squillion extra dollars and ultimately help us to prosper.

If you want to complain about one game in particular then the Western Bulldogs home away game where we underwrite it is the one to campaign on. This game if it is not fixtured in Sydney would be returned to Melbourne.

The Melbourne office is fully aware of this and i can gaurantee you will be listing that as the number 1 scheduling request for next year when they meet with the team in Sydney.

DST

I KNOW that this is the Kangaroos home game and that they have every right to request it to be in Canberra, and the AFL has every right to put it there. But WHY is this more important than Sydney's request for another game in Melbourne? WHY? What gives them precedence? What gives the couple of thousand Canberra people who go to this game so much more importance than the 10,000+ Sydney supporters in Melbourne? Why should we continually miss out for them? WHY???

Originally posted by Bam_Bam
feel for you Charlie,

But it makes sense for the AFL to include a Swans game at Manuka being that Canberra is surrounded by NSW. Sydney is NSW's team (territorially speaking).

Yes they have car, bus, and train loads of current Swans members attending games, but they also may get someone who is interested to due the Swans involvement in the game but who isn't a member due to living in Canberra and are not devoted to travelling like some up to Sydney to watch them. They come to watch Sydney play and then stay on for the Kangas long term.

That's a new bum on a seat they may never have gotten had Sydney not been a draw card. That's how I see it.

Riiiigggghhhhttttt.... let's just consider this, shall we?

So, because Canberra is geographically surrounded by regional NSW, and because Sydney is only a few hours away, they're going to be attracted to the game? Sorry, but I find that a bit of a stretch in the first place.

But THEN, of the little over a thousand tickets that are going to these people, according to my estimate above, SOME are expected to then switch their tentative allegiance from the Swans to the Kangaroos, like magic! So... the fact that the Kangaroos are taking an interest in the ACT is not enough to sway them from NSW loyalties, but PLAYING AGAINST the Swans will? Sorry, but it sounds like the problem has been altered to fit the theory, rather than vice versa, and it's all a bit wishy-washy to allocate one of our scarce away matches to it. I would be staggered if your theory resulted in any more than, say, a hundred new Kangaroos members a year. Kangaroos members who, remember, would be paying for just 2 matches per year. Now, does this justify the diverting of away matches from Melbourne, where the Swans lost 2,000 members last year? I think not.

Come back to me when you have something more... believable to justify the Melbourne members watching Sydney play the Kangas on TV next year.

[Rob-bloods]

I think we are getting a bit confused here. The Kangaroos are clutching at straws, they tried the Sydney experiment, they now have a Canberra experiment because Sydney didn't want them and the AFL are bankrolling these 'experiments'.

When they were the leading club in the nineties their membership was always small, and Hawthorn now has Tassie, Saints are muscling in there, Doggies are off to top end so why are we bickering about the Manuka game. The AFL are trying to spread the word everywhere..why are we getting hung up on ACT?

[Bear]

Originally posted by Charlie
Ok... I'm going to include three replies in one post here.



No, we didn't sell out the SCG in the early years. But let's consider the differences. Manuka Oval is in a city not foreign to Aussie Rules, and in a time in which people can watch the game at some point over the weekend in every single corner of the country. Manuka has a capacity crowd of 12,000, the SCG over 40,000. Do you see the difference there?

Further, what does it actually prove if the Kangaroos can sell out a small ground with blow-ins supporting the opposite team from another city? That's not development. It doesn't nothing for Canberra except what the ACT Government is aiming for - bringing people to the city for the day and having them spend money there. It doesn't matter whether the Kangas sell out the ground or not, they still make the same profit because the game is underwritten by the ACT Government. What exactly are we giving them? NOTHING.

What good does it do to development in Canberra? As far as I can see it, the curious people are only likely to go if they can get tickets. Someone quoted 8,000 Sydney fans travelled to the game this year. That's 2/3 of the capacity. Only 4,000 tickets for a) Kangaroos fans that may travel, b) Kangaroos and Sydney fans who live in the Canberra region, c) Fans from other clubs who are starved of footy and will go to any game, d) Miscellaneous allocations such as Auskick, the clubs, corporates and government representatives and finally e) curious Canberrans who want to check it out. Doesn't leave much for development, does it? You might be lucky enough to have a little over 1,000 tickets for the people that the Roos are apparently trying to recruit as supporters.

However, apparently this is our "duty". Apparently, this is more important than protecting our OWN supporters in Melbourne, the ones who CONTRIBUTE to our coffers. Can you explain to me why it is better for the Swans to play in Canberra than in Melbourne, given these facts?



I KNOW that this is the Kangaroos home game and that they have every right to request it to be in Canberra, and the AFL has every right to put it there. But WHY is this more important than Sydney's request for another game in Melbourne? WHY? What gives them precedence? What gives the couple of thousand Canberra people who go to this game so much more importance than the 10,000+ Sydney supporters in Melbourne? Why should we continually miss out for them? WHY???



Riiiigggghhhhttttt.... let's just consider this, shall we?

So, because Canberra is geographically surrounded by regional NSW, and because Sydney is only a few hours away, they're going to be attracted to the game? Sorry, but I find that a bit of a stretch in the first place.

But THEN, of the little over a thousand tickets that are going to these people, according to my estimate above, SOME are expected to then switch their tentative allegiance from the Swans to the Kangaroos, like magic! So... the fact that the Kangaroos are taking an interest in the ACT is not enough to sway them from NSW loyalties, but PLAYING AGAINST the Swans will? Sorry, but it sounds like the problem has been altered to fit the theory, rather than vice versa, and it's all a bit wishy-washy to allocate one of our scarce away matches to it. I would be staggered if your theory resulted in any more than, say, a hundred new Kangaroos members a year. Kangaroos members who, remember, would be paying for just 2 matches per year. Now, does this justify the diverting of away matches from Melbourne, where the Swans lost 2,000 members last year? I think not.

Come back to me when you have something more... believable to justify the Melbourne members watching Sydney play the Kangas on TV next year.

Charlie

Why are you not focusing on the Bulldogs game in Sydney, a far more logical game to play in Melbourne?

This game gives us nothing in Sydney and tears the heart out of our Melbourne supporters.

The ACT game is good for our club in that it promotes us in a strongly supported area, and these fans around Canberra get no other game throughout the year.

I would be focusing on the Bulldogs game mate.

[BAM_BAM]

Charlie the thing is you have a bug up your butt about it and no matter how many arguments or theories as to why it would be of benefit to the ACT or the kangaroos, are put to you, you're not going to accept them.

It's done. It was done by the AFL.

Go to the games don't go to the games, write to the club don't write to the club.

I'm really too tired of it all to care anymore. I get 12 games and a nice little road trip to the ACT to boot.

BTW a theory is an individual view or notion according to the dictionary. This one's mine, you don't have to agree with it, but I don't have to justify it either.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bear
Charlie

Why are you not focusing on the Bulldogs game in Sydney, a far more logical game to play in Melbourne?

This game gives us nothing in Sydney and tears the heart out of our Melbourne supporters.

The ACT game is good for our club in that it promotes us in a strongly supported area, and these fans around Canberra get no other game throughout the year.

I would be focusing on the Bulldogs game mate.

I've decided I will write to Myles Baron-Hay about this particular game, as this is one which the Swans can control. Give him a chance (or his secretary, depends who ends up reading it) to prove that he cares about the fans. Here's my little suggestion.

Now, the Bulldogs literally sell this home game to the Swans. So... if, as people in this thread have claimed, clubs can request to play a home game wherever they want... what's to stop Sydney putting their money where their mouth is and "requesting" that this game be moved to the MCG next year? The year after, I'm not fussed whether this one returns to the SCG, or we get a guarantee that we play 3 games in Qld/SA/WA in 2005. If Myles cares about the fans, he'll do it.

However, I will also continue to target the Kangaroos game. I find it completely unacceptable that the Swans are losing members hand over foot in Victoria, to support an extremely dubious "development programme" in a market such as Canberra. I will also include that in my little letter, and we'll see where MBH's priorities lie... if he cares so much about the fans, I wonder whether it will appear in our request list next year that the club doesn't play in Canberra? We'll see, but after two years of this farce, the argument that the club is doing its best for Melbourne will be well and truly dead if it doesn't.

Originally posted by Bam_Bam
Charlie the thing is you have a bug up your butt about it and no matter how many arguments or theories as to why it would be of benefit to the ACT or the kangaroos, are put to you, you're not going to accept them.

It's done. It was done by the AFL.

Go to the games don't go to the games, write to the club don't write to the club.

I'm really too tired of it all to care anymore. I get 12 games and a nice little road trip to the ACT to boot.

BTW a theory is an individual view or notion according to the dictionary. This one's mine, you don't have to agree with it, but I don't have to justify it either.

Absolutely correct on all counts.

I guess you could say that "I have a bug up your butt"... depends how you wish to put the expression "pissed off" I suppose. And while the theories presented in this thread may well be the reasons the AFL is selling out on Melbourne Swans fans, it doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Enjoy your road trip, and if I'm lucky enough next year, I'll enjoy my plane trip to whatever game. Just don't complain about how much your membership costs, because as I said above I (and probably other Melbourne fans) would gladly pay double if it meant I could go to 12 games just one year. Just once.

[BAM_BAM]

Originally posted by Charlie
And while the theories presented in this thread may well be the reasons the AFL is selling out on Melbourne Swans fans, it doesn't mean it makes any sense.


Enjoy your road trip, and if I'm lucky enough next year, I'll enjoy my plane trip to whatever game. Just don't complain about how much your membership costs, because as I said above I (and probably other Melbourne fans) would gladly pay double if it meant I could go to 12 games just one year. Just once.

I never said it did make sense, I just voiced them as the reasons behind it.


I never have complained about the cost. I not only pay for myself as a full member, but Hubby is a full member too and I also pay for my nephews to go to every game, and then some.

Like I said Charlie in my original post. I feel for you. I love the fact I get 13 games (inc the ACT one) and more if I travel interstate, I know how I would feel if that was taken away from me. I've got a good friend who also follows the Swans and did well before I did who is in the same boat as you. I hope the club does listen to your and her requests and give you more games.

The Melbourne fans are a HUGE part of our club. I don't want them leaving it or being disillusioned anymore than you do.

Lets hope MBH is true to his word and strives to make it better for all Swans fans.

incidentally I like the pre season games at Manuka better, it a lot bloody warmer and I'm still getting maximum games, even if they're not part of the H&A fixture.

[Benevolent Ert]

I'm disappointed but I won't be jumping up and down about it (like I did last year - look where it got us!)
I'll cop it sweet and hope like hell we don't get the Hawks and the Saints in Tassie next year

[DST]

Originally posted by Charlie


I KNOW that this is the Kangaroos home game and that they have every right to request it to be in Canberra, and the AFL has every right to put it there. But WHY is this more important than Sydney's request for another game in Melbourne? WHY? What gives them precedence? What gives the couple of thousand Canberra people who go to this game so much more importance than the 10,000+ Sydney supporters in Melbourne? Why should we continually miss out for them? WHY???

Becuase Charlie at the moment the Roos number 1 request is for the three games in Canberra with one being against us. The AFL will always (it is not too far out) grant all first requests from the clubs.

As for why it is more important why our request is not granted for one more Melbourne game that is easy. It is our third or fourth request and as such is not guaranteed to be granted.

The first two requests are non negiotable and are not going anywhere at present:

1) That we do not play more than once a year with two away games in a row. This is critically important for the on field succes of the team

2) That we be granted 3 blockbuster games at Stad De Oz of our choosing. This year we got the SnDon, Collingwood and Melbourne on ANZAC day as requested

After that it is a request and hope routine.

DST

[swan_song]

This is an extremely emotive topic, but I think u need to step back from it a little and look at it with clear eyes...
To me, I feel hard done by because as a Swans supporter living in Sydney I ONLY get to see them live 12 times a year, whereas if I were a Richmond supporter living in Melbourne this year I would see my team 19 times a year live. I know that the history of South/Swans will not be untwined, but I look on the current situation, with regards to the division of matches, kind of like it being akin to the predicament of an Adelaide supporter in Sydney, or a Docker supporter in Brisbane, who may not get to see their team live at all! Things, unfortunately, can not be equal for everyone...The Swans are a Sydney-based team, for better or worse, and until they move lock, stock and barrel back to Albert Oval, and I get to see them ONLY on tele, that's the way it is!

[stellation]

Originally posted by swan_song
The Swans are a Sydney-based team, for better or worse, and until they move lock, stock and barrel back to Albert Oval, and I get to see them ONLY on tele, that's the way it is!

Damn patootin'!

And would it have been that hard for the old south guys to have sung "while our loyal sons" instead of "while south's loyal sons" at the TOTC dinner?