Stadium Australia as home ground?

[Damien]

NOTE: I hate Telstra Stadium, but I am trying to look at this from a 'best for the Swans' perspective lol.

Homebush will never work as a full time ground IMO. For some reason, Sydneysiders are very anti going out there for anything but an event.

The perfect scenario would be for the SCG Trust to lift the SCG capacity to mid 50's. Then I believe we could get rid of Telstra all together.

I think the current system of 3 'blockbuster' (Chokes at Melbourne being one them in 2004 lol) out there is fine long term.

S.C.G IS HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[liz]

Originally posted by Bear
i think the SCG actually disadvantages us in that it does not suit our open, running game.

On the contrary, I think a short ground suits the style of running the ball with numbers and allows us to get away with a lighter, faster backline because the midfield is able to get back to support. On a longer ground you have to kick the ball long more often, frequently to contests, and contested marking isn't an area of particular strength to the current line-up.

But regardless of the strengths of the squad at any particular time, the fact that they can get used to the dimensions and learn how to play it must be an advantage over other teams, who get to play it only once a year, or so.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Mike_B


The big difference for me is atmosphere. A packed SCG can't be beaten for atmosphere, even compared to Collingwood/PF in 2003 which was pretty good. But the fact is that we aren't going to fill either ground very often, and a half empty Homebush is just so big that the atmosphere is totally lost, a half empty SCG does a little better. Having said that, Sunday arvo games at the SCG often seem to be quite flat in terms of atmosphere.

A fair call Mike, as always. You are dead right about Sunday crowds at the SCG, they more often than not are as dead as dodos. And unlike other codes, the bigger crowd the worse it gets, because the theatre-goers and bandwagoners don't know what is going on. Would Homebush be any better of a Sunday, well that is a rhetorical question that will probably not be answered, as all SA games are on a Saturday night against big opponents.

The thing has to be asked, as Miss Storm once did on BigFooty. If we can get 72000 to Homebush, why do we not get crowds anywhere near that at the SCG? Is it because getting into the city on clogged Cleveland/South Dowling St before a match is the pits? Is it the SCG Staff? Is it the Members taking up 1/3 of the northern end of the ground?

Is the amount of season-ticketholders who do not turn up prohibitive to attending? I mean, even against big expat-drawers such as West Coast we did not draw over 30000. I think in 1998 we were getting sell-outs with as little as 29000 in attendance. This scenario is probably my biggest beef with the SCG. In a way we seem to be alienating people then and there from attending, hence a marketing programme orchestrated by Shane Harmon to tell everyone that you CAN rock up on the day.

I also like the fact that at Homebush people have to make a genuine effort to actually allow enough time to get to the ground. Hence you simply do not have the problems we have at the SCG where you get people turning up 20 minutes into the match. But conversely there is no after-match facility. And basically one over-crowded pub and nowhere to eat after a match. And dn't forget that you have to be a Cinderella. If not, you are stuck in a cab like we were after the Richmond match in 2002.

I'm in two minds myself, even if my attitude has swung the full 180 degrees since they opened the rooves over the goals. And I can bring my drum to the Stadium as well. Which helps getting everyone fired up.

JF

[barry]

Experience from other teams in the comp, point to moving permanently to the bigger ground, in this case the Stade de Oz.

But I think we will end up a bit like Carlton a few years ago, where we play smaller games at the SCG, and bigger ones at
homebush.

The beauty of our situation over Carlton, is that we dont have a lot invested in either ground, and both seem keen to us to play, so we should be able to horse trade better deals.

One day there will be another AFL team in Sydney, and I imagine the AFL will be keen to differentiate the swans from the new team, meaning the SCG will be kept as the Swans home ground, and the other team having Stade de Oz, with the swans still playing blockbusters out there. So they will never abandon the SCG.

[Mark]

Julian,

How do the two following statements fit together ?

On larger crowds at the SCG:

"And unlike other codes, the bigger crowd the worse it gets, because the theatre-goers and bandwagoners don't know what is going on"

On why we dont get larger crowds at SCG:

"In a way we seem to be alienating people then and there from attending"

Make your mind up, you either want new supporters, regardless of who they are, or you dont !

Also, dont you think the following is a little pompous ?

"I also like the fact that at Homebush people have to make a genuine effort to actually allow enough time to get to the ground. Hence you simply do not have the problems we have at the SCG where you get people turning up 20 minutes into the match"

Not everyone is as committed as you but they pay their membership and for that reason alone they are most welcome. I am sure if you asked the club they would agree. Surely, it is not a test of what you are willing to do to get to a game ? It should be about making it as convenient as possible.

Not trying to pick a fight, just suprised you would make such statements ?

My biggest beef with Stad Aus is and always will be the prohibitive cost of staging games there. No-one has mentioned that despite the Collingwood attendance we still lost money on the games played there this year. Remembering we did not get a cent from the PF game. Until we can gaurantee a profit from all games there why go ?

SO FAR IT HAS COST THE CLUB OVER $1,000,000 WE CANT AFFORD IT !!!!!

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Mark
My biggest beef with Stad Aus is and always will be the prohibitive cost of staging games there. No-one has mentioned that despite the Collingwood attendance we still lost money on the games played there this year. Remembering we did not get a cent from the PF game. Until we can gaurantee a profit from all games there why go ?

SO FAR IT HAS COST THE CLUB OVER $1,000,000 WE CANT AFFORD IT !!!!!

Though the best way to solve that problem is to play more games at the venue, because the Swans are left to foot the bill for the AFL's stupid act in agreeing to play 3 North games there a year as well. When North pulled out we were left to fill in the rent gap thus the reason we need crowds of over 40-50,000 to make a profit on the match, not the 25,000 we were promised.

Also the reason costs were so high in playing these games in year 1 one was the amount of spending the club made in promoting the games out West, a figure that was cut in half by the AFL agreeing to foot half the bill in year 2 and beyond. So in fact we either broke even on the Telstra Stadium games or posted a slight loss.

[Mark]

The deal struck by the AFL with Stad Aus was to include games played by both North and the Dogs, but thoroughly agree it was a cr@p deal which the Swans got stuck with.

We still lost money last year, despite a record crowd and two other reasonable ones. This was all despite (as you pointed out) limited marketing, prematch and closing of half the food and drink outlets for two of the games, to save costs. And the AFL contributing half the "development" costs.

We simply cannot afford this massive loss making exercise, in (my opinion) an ill fated effort to increase "core support". Yes we will get big crowds for games when we are riding high and it is approaching the finals, against another top team (ala Collingwood) or for novelty value (ala Essendon). What we need is consistant crowds of ovor 55,000, regardless of timing or recent results to make it worthwhile. Sadly, in Sydney, it will not happen. Great dream but not reality.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by lizz
The SCG has the added advantage that the surrounding precinct is far more amenable to a day or night at the footy - the cafes and pubs within an easy walking distance of the ground mean there are lots of places to meet friends before or after games.

But I can also see this as a negative to the atmosphere at SCG matches. Because people are still sitting at the Fox & Lion up until 1 minute before the match starts. Not only is this highly irritating to somebody who watches them shuffling behind me when I should be supporting my team, but it looks terrible on the TV.

JF

[Bart]

Originally posted by Mark
The deal struck by the AFL with Stad Aus was to include games played by both North and the Dogs, but thoroughly agree it was a cr@p deal which the Swans got stuck with.

We still lost money last year, despite a record crowd and two other reasonable ones. This was all despite (as you pointed out) limited marketing, prematch and closing of half the food and drink outlets for two of the games, to save costs. And the AFL contributing half the "development" costs.

We simply cannot afford this massive loss making exercise, in (my opinion) an ill fated effort to increase "core support". Yes we will get big crowds for games when we are riding high and it is approaching the finals, against another top team (ala Collingwood) or for novelty value (ala Essendon). What we need is consistant crowds of ovor 55,000, regardless of timing or recent results to make it worthwhile. Sadly, in Sydney, it will not happen. Great dream but not reality.

Where do people get this information from ? Show me a site or document where I can see the financial deal that is Telstra Stadium and breakeven crowd figures.

Initially the Swans were too play 5 games there as were the Roos. Tell me how the Swans playing 3 home and away games there is a crap deal and how it compensates for the orginal Roos games (also where on earth did the Dogs games come from)

The Sydney Swans would be looking for an AFL handout this year were it not for the Collingwood match. Yes we didn't make a profit, but it played a large part in turning around a possible $m+ loss into a few hundred thousand.

I never dreamed that I would ever see the Swans playing in front of 2 x 70000 home crowds in one year.

Even though we packed em in there, the crowds at the SCG were still pretty crap.

Can't agree with you logic at all.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Mark
The deal struck by the AFL with Stad Aus was to include games played by both North and the Dogs, but thoroughly agree it was a cr@p deal which the Swans got stuck with.

We still lost money last year, despite a record crowd and two other reasonable ones. This was all despite (as you pointed out) limited marketing, prematch and closing of half the food and drink outlets for two of the games, to save costs. And the AFL contributing half the "development" costs.

We simply cannot afford this massive loss making exercise, in (my opinion) an ill fated effort to increase "core support". Yes we will get big crowds for games when we are riding high and it is approaching the finals, against another top team (ala Collingwood) or for novelty value (ala Essendon). What we need is consistant crowds of ovor 55,000, regardless of timing or recent results to make it worthwhile. Sadly, in Sydney, it will not happen. Great dream but not reality.

as a disclaimer, I can't be bothered checking the facts behind any of this but....

I thought that whilst the Swans had not broken even this year on the money they owe to telstra stadium, but given another year of good crowds they were going to be close to being in the green- the afl for it's share of the investment is already in the green and will be printing money for the next x years of the lease... remember, we had two big crowds but one of those was a prelim where the money goes to the afl for distribution instead of straight to the club so whilst it was good for Sydney footy it wasn't a financial bonus for the Swans

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Mark
Julian,

How do the two following statements fit together ?

On larger crowds at the SCG:

"And unlike other codes, the bigger crowd the worse it gets, because the theatre-goers and bandwagoners don't know what is going on"

On why we dont get larger crowds at SCG:

"In a way we seem to be alienating people then and there from attending"

Make your mind up, you either want new supporters, regardless of who they are, or you dont !

Well, of course I want the biggest crowds we can get. But as somebody responsible for trying to get them all going, it helps me NOT to have Swans supporters in my midst turn up in full Swans regalia but sit there like stunned mullets, as they did at the Collingwood match. I'm not the only person who has said that the atmosphere that night was awful.

SCG, or the Stadium my argument is specific on just one thing-ATMOSPHERE! I want it wherever we play. Yet get frustrated at people only wanting to cheer and get loud when we are successful/winning.

Also, dont you think the following is a little pompous ?

"I also like the fact that at Homebush people have to make a genuine effort to actually allow enough time to get to the ground. Hence you simply do not have the problems we have at the SCG where you get people turning up 20 minutes into the match"

Not everyone is as committed as you but they pay their membership and for that reason alone they are most welcome. I am sure if you asked the club they would agree. Surely, it is not a test of what you are willing to do to get to a game ? It should be about making it as convenient as possible.

Fair call. What I'm trying to say is that people who know they want to attend a match at Stadium Australia know full well that they have to allow a full 40 minutes etc to get out there on the train. Hence the huge bottlenecks of people in the Moore Park area are avoided. And people are inside the ground and ready to go well before the opening bounce. When the weather has been nice (ie Eagles & Dockers matches last year) there seemed to be even more late-comers than normal.

Not wanting to come across as pompous at all Mark. Just that again I get frustrated trying to start chants and create atmosphere when 20-30% of the ground are still walking in. I guess the 1pm starts (and the majority of the ground having set-seats) are mainly to blame for this.

Sure, they can do what they like; they've bought their memberships.But it sure makes my job a near impossibility. And that has me tearing my hair out.

JF

[Mark]

Fair enough Julian, take your points and understand your frustration but it is easy to confuse what is best for us individually (or as a cheer squad), and what is best for the club/overall membership.

Like it or not Sydney is a unique AFL market and whether we like or not will always be so. Oh and bye the way, good on you for not spitting the dummy and actually reading what i said, it is nice to have some genuine debate ! Not always the case on here !

Stellation and Bart, been over this a hundred times on this site before. At the time the deal was struck between the AFL and stad Aus both the Dogs and North were looking to play additional games in Sydney, hence the deal. It was heavily reported at the time (and No, four years on i dont have the links !)

The club have on numerous occassions in the press highlighted the need for 45,000-50,000 (depending on outlets open, merketing and premetch expenses) paying customers, just to break even on these games.

The move west is a financial nightmare for the Swans and a big dividend for the AFL. They get all the BIG money earners THE FINALS. We get Carlton, Melbourne, Richmond or the Pies during the home and away season !!!!

I REPEAT, SO FAR IT HAS COST THE CLUB OVER $1,000,000 WE CANT AFFORD IT !!!!!

[Bear]

Originally posted by lizz
On the contrary, I think a short ground suits the style of running the ball with numbers and allows us to get away with a lighter, faster backline because the midfield is able to get back to support. On a longer ground you have to kick the ball long more often, frequently to contests, and contested marking isn't an area of particular strength to the current line-up.

But regardless of the strengths of the squad at any particular time, the fact that they can get used to the dimensions and learn how to play it must be an advantage over other teams, who get to play it only once a year, or so.

Sorry, doesn't make sense to me...

On a bigger ground you have a more open style of game, suiting the running team, and with LESS contested marks.

Although you generally kick longer on a bigger ground, it is definately LESS often to a contested contest as the players have more ground to cover. Not sure how you could argue to the contrary.

[cos789]

from a playing perspective ,the teams that are home to a large ground tend to have the edge in fitness and don't find it that difficult to adapt to the smaller grounds when playing away .
the swans haven't been that flash in the finals and I wonder whether this is in some part due to the lack of big ground participation .

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by cos789
from a playing perspective ,the teams that are home to a large ground tend to have the edge in fitness and don't find it that difficult to adapt to the smaller grounds when playing away .
the swans haven't been that flash in the finals and I wonder whether this is in some part due to the lack of big ground participation .

Interesting comments mate. But bear in mind that the MCG is only 4 metres longer than the SCG. The thing that can murder some sides is the width of the ground. Teams like the Eagles & Port get ost on the wings stuffing around with it. And rarely recover.

We have never had a decent CHF in the time we have been in Sydney. Conversely we have nearly always had high calibre target men in the FF line. Having a short ground like the SCG basicaly means you can hoof it straight from the centre square into the full forward zone, bypassing CHF completely.

I'd assume that the SCG would be a flooder's paradise for the same reason. Hence Eade applied it with such success, as the opposition forward lines could be crowded with players so as to stop marking opportunities.

Conversely teams often ick it out on the full at Homebush. To us who likes to play a runjning game, I guess it is a much of a muchness (the lack of a decent CHF aside) But interestingly we do not necessarily have a excellent record at SA, especially against top class teams. Hmmm, food for thought there. Should we select a different side for SA match than at the SCG? (Thoughts peoples.....)

It would be nice if the AFL could one day adopt an exact length for the playing field. If that means the SCG does not qualify then it is one more reason to tell the SCG Trust muppets to go heave. Having a set playing size would nullify the argument of bigger vs smaller ground once and for all.

JF