Melbourne Based Members/Supporters

[CureTheSane]

And what exactly has SSI achieved so far that would in any way encourage me to want them down here? Give me a good reason to join them, and I will. Perhaps you guys could prove that you represent ALL Swans fans, by campaigning for the Dogs game to be moved yourselves!!!

yay for Charlie

Their goals are pretty much the same as the goals the Swans board already has.
They just want it done faster, and with them involved in some way.

The Swans have said for a while that they want member electer board members, and it's not done in the time frame that the club originally stated and SSI come out to force the issue.

Well guess what, Einsteins, perhaps there are REASONS why it didn't happen at the end of last season.
Perhaps the AFL said "don't waste your time Swans board, you'll be wasting money, leave it for a few years"

I give you my personal gaurentee taht as soon as it happens, they will be claiming that without SSI it would never have happened (even though the Swans put the idea forward before SSI existed)

And now we have the first hint of devisiveness with SSI.

Knew THAT would happen....

Suddenly there sould be a Sydney SSI and a Melbourne SSI?

And where ARE SSI?
You would think that they would be here defending themselves.
RWO is a board for Swans fans, who they claim to represent.
Yet they have made a couple of pissy posts months ago.

[Ryan Bomford]

I luv yuz all, but I love my Swans ahead of other SWANS fans. To suggest that we should be rallying behind our Melbourne mates to get the Bulldogs game relocated to Melbourne is utterly ridiculous.

[DST]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
I luv yuz all, but I love my Swans ahead of other SWANS fans. To suggest that we should be rallying behind our Melbourne mates to get the Bulldogs game relocated to Melbourne is utterly ridiculous.

Ryan you miss the point, we are not rallying to have the Bulldogs game relocated. You can only relocate something that belongs there in the first place, which clearly the Bulldogs home game does not.

At the time this deal was done it was perfect for the Swans, we got another home game and some extra cash, the Bulldogs got what they were after in a guaranteed $250,000 in the bank. Win/Win

But the landscape has changed now and the club now knows it. In order for that deal to be a Win/Win then the Swans needed 6 games in Melbourne.

Evidence suggests there is another 2,000 + members in Melbourne for the Swans if 6 games are played which at current membership rates is around $175,000 to the bottom line.

The club now has a decision to make as to whether they continue to underwrite the game and maybe make some money on it, or cease the underwriting and send the Bulldogs back to Melbourne and look to take back the 2,000 members that dropped off when the 6 games dropped back to 5.

It is a very interesting decision to be made by the club in the coming year. MBH seems to be gearing up for an assualt on the Melbourne membership market with the appointment of Tony Moorwood so one would suggest stopping the underwriting of the Bulldogs game is on the cards.

DST

[Mark]

Can i just point out that there is absolutely no garantee this game will ever end up in Melbourne again. The mooted extra 2,000 Swans fans will not make a jot of difference to the profitability of the Dogs.

Thus, there is every liklihood if the Swans refuse to underwrite the game, the dogs first preference to the AFL will be the game is moved to an "emerging market", presumably Darwin, possibly Tassie

Fancy that trip anyone ?

[DST]

Originally posted by Mark
Can i just point out that there is absolutely no garantee this game will ever end up in Melbourne again. The mooted extra 2,000 Swans fans will not make a jot of difference to the profitability of the Dogs.

Thus, there is every liklihood if the Swans refuse to underwrite the game, the dogs first preference to the AFL will be the game is moved to an "emerging market", presumably Darwin, possibly Tassie

Fancy that trip anyone ?

Yes that would be the case the dogs would probably request that the game to be in played in Darwin, but it would not be against us but one of the SA teams, WA teams or Brisbane, which would guarantee them maximum potential to make money. That would then leave the AFL to play our other away game against one of the other Melbourne teams in Victoria.

We only play the Bulldogs every year becuase a) they ask for it and b) we agreed to underwrite it to make it worthwhile for them.

The extra 2,000 Swans members have nothing to do with the Bulldogs, it is a decison our clubs need to make whether we underwrite a home away game or let the AFL schedule 6 games in Melbourne and chase the memberships in Melbourne.

DST

[Bart]

Originally posted by DST
At the time this deal was done it was perfect for the Swans, we got another home game and some extra cash, the Bulldogs got what they were after in a guaranteed $250,000 in the bank. Win/Win

But the landscape has changed now and the club now knows it. In order for that deal to be a Win/Win then the Swans needed 6 games in Melbourne.

Evidence suggests there is another 2,000 + members in Melbourne for the Swans if 6 games are played which at current membership rates is around $175,000 to the bottom line.

The club now has a decision to make as to whether they continue to underwrite the game and maybe make some money on it, or cease the underwriting and send the Bulldogs back to Melbourne and look to take back the 2,000 members that dropped off when the 6 games dropped back to 5.

As a Sydney based supporter I have some thoughts on this

1. When the Dogs game moved here first, we were given the option of paying extra to take up the extra game. About $25. This amount more than covered the $250k, plus then we had the added gate revenue

2. This match is now a compulsory part of our package.

3. I as a Sydney based member would seek a reduction in the cost of my membership if we lost this game. I am not willing to subsidise an extra game in Melbourne.

4. If the club refunds us this difference, 2000 new members isn't going to make up the difference

5. I like having 12 games here

[Mark]

I agree that in the current circumstances your scenario is probably the most likely, i was just pointing out the stupidity of the original nonsense.

Also, whilst a Victorian team as the alternative (for us) is by weight of numbers most likely, again there is no gaurantee ! we could end up with any number of possibilties !

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Bart

3. I as a Sydney based member would seek a reduction in the cost of my membership if we lost this game. I am not willing to subsidise an extra game in Melbourne.

OK then, if Melbourne gets an extra match at the expense of a game in Sydney I agree that your membership price should fall. But the fall has to be simular to the fall that Melbourne fans got when we lost a game to subsidise an extra game in Sydney.

So enjoy your $3 then

[Mark]

"1. When the Dogs game moved here first, we were given the option of paying extra to take up the extra game. About $25. This amount more than covered the $250k, plus then we had the added gate revenue

2. This match is now a compulsory part of our package.

3. I as a Sydney based member would seek a reduction in the cost of my membership if we lost this game. I am not willing to subsidise an extra game in Melbourne.

4. If the club refunds us this difference, 2000 new members isn't going to make up the difference"

It is no good bringing what is best for the club into the argument, that only clouds the "I WANT MORE GAMES " issue !!!!!

The club only gets an onfield (home gound) and offield (financial) advantage, surely this is not enough !!!!!!

[Bart]

Originally posted by Mark
[BIt is no good bringing what is best for the club into the argument, that only clouds the "I WANT MORE GAMES " issue !!!!!

The club only gets an onfield (home gound) and offield (financial) advantage, surely this is not enough !!!!!! [/B]

[DST]

Originally posted by Bart
As a Sydney based supporter I have some thoughts on this

1. When the Dogs game moved here first, we were given the option of paying extra to take up the extra game. About $25. This amount more than covered the $250k, plus then we had the added gate revenue

2. This match is now a compulsory part of our package.

3. I as a Sydney based member would seek a reduction in the cost of my membership if we lost this game. I am not willing to subsidise an extra game in Melbourne.

4. If the club refunds us this difference, 2000 new members isn't going to make up the difference

5. I like having 12 games here

Bart all good points, and there is no doubt that the membership cost would drop in Sydney if the game was played elsewhere and you only get 11 games.

But I don't understand your point about #4. The game against the dogs was never meant to be a revenue raiser for the club, it was always a case of getting an extra week of no travel. In the end to get that we had to underwrite the game.

But just for arguments sake:

If you took 22,000 @ $25.00 that is $550,000 they would be giving up.

Now if they attracted an extra 2,000 Melbourne members at $102.00 ($87,00 this year + $15 for the extra game), then that would be $204,000.

That is a difference of $346,000.

Now take out the $250,000 we pay the dogs to underwrite the game, SCG ground hire, security staff costs etc and you would probably get a break even on the deal at best.

The reference to increased members in Melbourne is not meant to show that this could make more money for the club than the dogs game, just that the game up in Sydney represents an opportunity cost in the number of members the club can get in Melbourne. But on the rough figures it would not cause them to much grief at all,

DST

[Bear]

Some of you are trying to calculate the financial side of it when you don't know how it is actually calculated.

Why bother?

Lets look at the moral side of the argument for a minute. We are a unique club that has an incredible advantage over other teams in that we have tremendous support in both Melbourne and Sydney. Why would we not be trying to create a situation (which we are capable of acheiving by not agreeing to a WB game in Syd) where all of our fans are relatively content with the draw?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[DST]

Originally posted by Bear
Some of you are trying to calculate the financial side of it when you don't know how it is actually calculated.

Why bother?

Lets look at the moral side of the argument for a minute. We are a unique club that has an incredible advantage over other teams in that we have tremendous support in both Melbourne and Sydney. Why would we not be trying to create a situation (which we are capable of acheiving by not agreeing to a WB game in Syd) where all of our fans are relatively content with the draw?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Bear, I agree with you completely.

It is not a financial decison to be made by the club but a moral one. The club is capable of statisfying almost everyone by agreeing to stop underwriting the Bulldogs game.

If it ends up costing the club a small amount of money, then it will be money well spent.

DST

[Bron]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
And where ARE SSI?
You would think that they would be here defending themselves.
RWO is a board for Swans fans, who they claim to represent.
Yet they have made a couple of pissy posts months ago.

Frankly, as can be seen in this thread, too many people are interested in flaming others without listening to a discussion. You will not find SSI pushing its cause here, only answering questions where it can do so relatively inoccuously.

Those involved in SSI are aware of the impact of their efforts, and that is sufficient.

Numerous people from RWO have stepped out of, or reduced, their contributions to this site (totally irrelevant from SSI) because of the personal flaming from others here. Debate is fine. Personal attacks are not. Ultimately, this is degrading to RWO.

Chill out and have a sense of humour. Too many people here get upset about too many things that don't matter.

The bottom line here is that most of us are passionate Swans supporters. Enjoy that and be happy. I'd like to be able to post my BSMBH posts, I thought they were amusing, but too many of you were in straight jackets and couldn't chill out.

The essence of a footy club is the emotion it brings you, and the emotion you give it. Otherwise, we might as all pick a stock and go to the stock exchange and barrack for that, fat lot of good that it will do us all.

[Mark]

"Those involved in SSI are aware of the impact of their efforts, and that is sufficient"

A little pompous Bron dont you think ?

This is my problem with the group really. I have been a member for many years and personally do not want SSI professing to speak on my behalf.

None of this is a personal attack, and i think before asking others to "chill out" perhaps we should look at ourselves. If a group puts itself up as representatives of Swans supporters (correct me if i am wrong ?) then that group should be willing to answer questions and even listen to criticism !

Especially when that groups main stated aim is democracy !!!!!!