Membership ladder

[Steve]

This is getting crazy.

Thinking about it rationally, logically, unemotionally and objectively - where in the club's list of priorities should Victorian-based supporters be?

Maximising the likelihood of on-field success is obvious. Recruitment.
Medical and conditioning issues.
Financial management/performance.
Maintaining and expanding sponsorship.
Player welfare/retention.
What I would call 'AFL due diligence - managing player payments (ie. the salary cap), satisfying other requirements which Brisbane for example haven't recently.

To be honest I find it easier to follow Collingwood supporters' logic - ie. they want to keep in place everything that advantages them and then have everything else that doesn't changed. Naive and selfish but nevertheless logical and consistent.

The argument as I've interpreted it seems to be: give back advantages we have (ie. home (state) games against the Bulldogs and North) in order to marginally improve the satisfaction of a minority within the overall supporter base.

For ****s sake - it's been conceded that 6 games in Melbourne was on the clubs wish list submitted to the AFL, but the problem now is the ranking of it.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Steve


The argument as I've interpreted it seems to be: give back advantages we have (ie. home (state) games against the Bulldogs and North) in order to marginally improve the satisfaction of a minority within the overall supporter base.

The North game is not an advantage. We have won one from two there. North have a 70% winning rate. We still have to travel. How is it an advantageous game?

If you're talking about my argument wrt the Bulldogs game, you are incorrect. I've provided numbers that show we can quite legitimately expect 6-7 games each year whilst retaining the Bulldogs game in Sydney.

With regards to priorities, you're trying to equate fixturing priorities with football department ones. I would put seven games in Melbourne second behind getting Essendon and Collingwood games at Stadium Australia. The reason for this is relatively simple. Western Sydney represents our largest potential for membership growth. Therefore, it should be our highest priority.

After that, the already existing supporter base in Melbourne is, in my opinion, the second largest area for potential membership growth. Therefore, it should be second.

To be perfectly honest, I can't see how making sure we play at home in round 2 helps us attract members. Is there any recognisable on-field advantage to playing away from home in the first round?

As for sponsorship, where is a sponsor going to want exposure? Canberra, with it's 300,000 people, or Melbourne with it's 3,000,000?

[Steve]

Originally posted by Charlie
The North game ... How is it an advantageous game?

1. As I said earlier in this thread the home team travels further than we do - that can't be a disadvantage.

2. Crowd support.

The Kangaroos' record in Canberra is seriously misleading - they've played sides travelling from Adelaide and Perth or average (at the time) sides such as St Kilda, Collingwood, Geelong etc.

Not that it is our decision, but even if it was, playing an away game in Canberra is a no-brainer. If somehow we had the power to refuse we'd only play North once per year and it would be in Sydney.

I would put seven games in Melbourne second behind getting Essendon and Collingwood games at Stadium Australia.

Ahead of both should be gaining any advantage that could traslate to on-field success (ie. wins). If some fall in our lap such as the Bulldogs and Canberra games then I would actually suggest one of our fixturing priorities should be to ensure they don't slip through our fingers.

I can't see how making sure we play at home in round 2 helps us attract members..

A Rd 1 game at home would most likely mean playing it at TS. Playing in Rd 1 at TS is/was seen as 'waste' of a TS game in that historically Sydney crowds don't really pick up until a month or so into the season. Hence playing away in Rd 1 removes those issues.

As for sponsorship, where is a sponsor going to want exposure? Canberra, with it's 300,000 people, or Melbourne with it's 3,000,000?

You're assuming it is a nation-wide business, but even if so, sponsoring a side that plays in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Canberra is still more attractive than just in the first 5.

Sydney can 'sell' the Canberra game to sponsors as another in which they get live TV coverage into (at least) Sydney and Melbourne - whereas if it were played in Melbourne that wouldn't happen.

I would have thought playing a game in Canberra opens up the opportunity to create a number of smaller relationships with local organisations - listening to the radio whilst driving in Canberra on Sunday the news reports were still talking of the game as "the Swans taking on the Kangaroos today at Manuka". Perhaps a minor point but from everything I've seen the Swans are still 'Canberra's team' in terms of overall (albeit perhaps casual/passing) support.

If you can convince the powers that be to give us 7 games in Melbourne (on top of 13 in NSW/ACT) then I'd be as happy as you - good luck.

[Rob-bloods]

"PS:- The question has to be asked though. If we had a guaranteed 6-7 matches in Melbourne, how many more new members would we attract?"

This is true, however I suppose we will not attract new supporters, unless like the Lions we snag the trophy or three, with just five games!

The exercise in Melbourne is to attract those hordes who wear red and white at our few matches, but obviously never join. Tony Morwood's job is to get that mob to sign up.But is that simply a "number of games thing"?

I will say on a personal note, after following the Swans for 18 years in Sydney then relocating to Melbourne it is purgatory having just five games!

[Gunn]

Originally posted by Damien
Brisbane never promised it - they had it contracted!!! It was done when the AFL was desperate to a)get rid of Fitzroy and b) give QLD's AFL team a better nickname than the Bears lol.

The AFL would never sign a deal with the swans like that!! Unfortuatnly it seems all the original promises were done when South become the first 'interstate club' (when I was 5 years old!) and are impossible to keep now. Who would have thought to make these things 'law' when we were the only club playing games outside Vic.

Even though, I can't see why 6 games isn't easily achievable as discussed in this thread!!! and I think will happen next year when as rumoured the bulldogs game returns to Melbourne.

Why will the game return to Melbourne? Some here think it will be played in Darwin....or maybe Melville Island if it is not played in Sydney. Those people (and I will not bother to reply to their individual posts as it is useless) are living in cloud cuckoo land.

If we don't buy that game the dogs will sell another if they want to and are allowed to. Maybe the West Coast or Fremantle in Darwin.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Gunn
Those people (and I will not bother to reply to their individual posts as it is useless) are living in cloud cuckoo land.

And its a great place to live too. The Swans play there 12 times a year. Going to see them there tonight in fact.

Gunn. If the game went to Perth of course it would be aginst aPerth team. But if it went to Cairns, darwin, Tassie, canberra, it would probably against us. Why do you automatically think we would get an extra game in Melbourne if the Bulldogs don't play their home game in Sydney.

Flawed logic.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bart
And its a great place to live too. The Swans play there 12 times a year. Going to see them there tonight in fact.

Gunn. If the game went to Perth of course it would be aginst aPerth team. But if it went to Cairns, darwin, Tassie, canberra, it would probably against us. Why do you automatically think we would get an extra game in Melbourne if the Bulldogs don't play their home game in Sydney.

Flawed logic.

Why do you automatically assume that after several years of away games against the Bulldogs, we'll have another one in 2005?

Flawed logic.

[anne]

Reading this whole thread is very frustrating. As a supporter based in Sydney for many years I must admit that when we got the Bulldogs and Kangaroos games I was overjoyed - more games to attend as well as perceived home ground advantage. I never once thought about supporters based in Melbourne. It was only after moving down here three years ago that I began to see it from a different point of view. That is the trouble - Sydney based supporters take 12 or 13 games for granted. In fact they often don't even bother to turn up for some games. They have no idea how frustrating it is to get so few games and then have an extra one taken away(6 down to 5). No wonder we feel that the club doesn't give a stuff about us. The Swans need the support down here, especially on game day as it really helps the team when they have a lot of crowd support. A membership is lousy value this year as it is in effect 4 games as lots of people won't go to the Geelong game due to distance and the $25 we have to pay for a seat. I think all Sydney supporters should pressure the club into making their request for 6 games a top priority - high enough in order to be granted. bottom line is that if they lose support down here they may in turn lose games!

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by Mark
"If the Swans cared for their Melbourne membership they would NOT buy the Bulldogs game. If the AFL wants the Bulldogs to play another home game in Sydney let the AFL pay the Swans to take it or let them have it for nothing and get the gate takings. The reality is that game is being played in Sydney because the Swans want it. Otherwise the Swans could leverage the situation by insisting to the AFL that if the AFL wants that game played in Sydney then the Swans get an extra game (from somewhere) in Melbourne"

This is the biggest peice of pooh of the whole argument

how many times; IT IS A BULLDOGS HOME GAME.

If/when the Swans refuse the current agreement, there is a very very strong chance the game will end up in Darwin/Cairns as an AFL/Bulldogs joint initiative. I suppose that will be the Swans fault as well ?

I understand/sympathise with the emotional "want more games", "kids will support other team" arguments. However, if you want people to listen try and base your argument on more than emotion,and preferably on fact not what is currently being thrown around in spoilt tantrums !

I'm begining to get the feeling that it is actually u who is throwing the tanties.

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by Bart
The match would likely be played against the Swans at a neutral venue. Canberra possibly.

Oh and this coming from the oracle who sprouted the BS about the Melbourne Memberships. Once again factual omnipotent one

[NMWBloods]

This is great - an argumentative thread and I'm not involved!! It's good to see some other people (and lots of them) do it!!

Also, this might push it over to 160 posts and 15 pages!!

[Ganjaman]

how many posts?

Anyway, from where i am, as long as they are on the telly!!!

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by Steve
This is getting crazy.

Thinking about it rationally, logically, unemotionally and objectively - where in the club's list of priorities should Victorian-based supporters be?

Maximising the likelihood of on-field success is obvious. Recruitment.
Medical and conditioning issues.
Financial management/performance.
Maintaining and expanding sponsorship.
Player welfare/retention.
What I would call 'AFL due diligence - managing player payments (ie. the salary cap), satisfying other requirements which Brisbane for example haven't recently.

To be honest I find it easier to follow Collingwood supporters' logic - ie. they want to keep in place everything that advantages them and then have everything else that doesn't changed. Naive and selfish but nevertheless logical and consistent.

The argument as I've interpreted it seems to be: give back advantages we have (ie. home (state) games against the Bulldogs and North) in order to marginally improve the satisfaction of a minority within the overall supporter base.

For ****s sake - it's been conceded that 6 games in Melbourne was on the clubs wish list submitted to the AFL, but the problem now is the ranking of it.

Biggest piece of BS ever from steve's mouth. I'm amazed! You are comparing apples with oranges on your club's list of priorities.

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by Steve
1. As I said earlier in this thread the home team travels further than we do - that can't be a disadvantage.

2. Crowd support.

The Kangaroos' record in Canberra is seriously misleading - they've played sides travelling from Adelaide and Perth or average (at the time) sides such as St Kilda, Collingwood, Geelong etc.

Not that it is our decision, but even if it was, playing an away game in Canberra is a no-brainer. If somehow we had the power to refuse we'd only play North once per year and it would be in Sydney.

Ahead of both should be gaining any advantage that could traslate to on-field success (ie. wins). If some fall in our lap such as the Bulldogs and Canberra games then I would actually suggest one of our fixturing priorities should be to ensure they don't slip through our fingers.

A Rd 1 game at home would most likely mean playing it at TS. Playing in Rd 1 at TS is/was seen as 'waste' of a TS game in that historically Sydney crowds don't really pick up until a month or so into the season. Hence playing away in Rd 1 removes those issues.

You're assuming it is a nation-wide business, but even if so, sponsoring a side that plays in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Canberra is still more attractive than just in the first 5.

Sydney can 'sell' the Canberra game to sponsors as another in which they get live TV coverage into (at least) Sydney and Melbourne - whereas if it were played in Melbourne that wouldn't happen.

I would have thought playing a game in Canberra opens up the opportunity to create a number of smaller relationships with local organisations - listening to the radio whilst driving in Canberra on Sunday the news reports were still talking of the game as "the Swans taking on the Kangaroos today at Manuka". Perhaps a minor point but from everything I've seen the Swans are still 'Canberra's team' in terms of overall (albeit perhaps casual/passing) support.

If you can convince the powers that be to give us 7 games in Melbourne (on top of 13 in NSW/ACT) then I'd be as happy as you - good luck.

You are so full of **** steve. Everything you just said is crap. Who's the biased one now? Jesus, attitudes like yours is why people like Charlie are so upset.

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by anne
Reading this whole thread is very frustrating. As a supporter based in Sydney for many years I must admit that when we got the Bulldogs and Kangaroos games I was overjoyed - more games to attend as well as perceived home ground advantage. I never once thought about supporters based in Melbourne. It was only after moving down here three years ago that I began to see it from a different point of view. That is the trouble - Sydney based supporters take 12 or 13 games for granted. In fact they often don't even bother to turn up for some games. They have no idea how frustrating it is to get so few games and then have an extra one taken away(6 down to 5). No wonder we feel that the club doesn't give a stuff about us. The Swans need the support down here, especially on game day as it really helps the team when they have a lot of crowd support. A membership is lousy value this year as it is in effect 4 games as lots of people won't go to the Geelong game due to distance and the $25 we have to pay for a seat. I think all Sydney supporters should pressure the club into making their request for 6 games a top priority - high enough in order to be granted. bottom line is that if they lose support down here they may in turn lose games!

Anne. Thank you for that. I'm serious in saying it is an inciteful post. Unlike the BS hypothesis coming out of the keyboards of most in this thread particularly from Bart who just happens to think he knows everything - Including what happens in Melbourne.

It's just pathetic when sydneysiders say they understand what Melbourne people are going through. How can they? They don't experience it. And, if they did at one time, they are now blinded by the luxuries afforded to them now (12-13 games). But in my eyes, that is fair enough.

I don't expect those people to "get it". Particularly those who did not adopt the club when they first moved to Sydney and only jumped aboard when the team was successful.

And Anne, your post just reinforced my thoughts on the majority of the sydney based members.