Membership ladder

[Bart]

Originally posted by lizz
The Bulldogs game is not irrelevant because it involves the Swans making a payment to the Dogs. They are therefore able to influence this fixture. This is the one that needs to change to give you what you want, and indications are that you will get your wish next year.

Fine concept. But are 20,000 odd Sydney members going to get 1/12th reduction in their membership or will they be happy to cop the extra so their Melbourne brethren can get an extra game. And would the Bulldogs then approach NT, ACT, TAS, cairns and move the game there. Quite probably. Their membership numbers are very very low at 16,000. Moving this game to Melbourne would result in a crowd that would not even breakeven. They would take it elsewhere.

The 1/12th of our membership fee covers the costs of the Bulldogs fee. The casual tickets and hospitality is profit for our club.

Financially the Swans will be worse off if this game moves back, and if I'm correct Melbourne membership $ will go straight to the Bulldogs, not the club

[sharpie]

Taking another angle, wouldn't the Swans prefer to play the game against the dogs in Sydney, and the game against the Roos in Canberra than both/either in Melbourne due to the home ground/crowd advantage. This may lead to more wins during the regular season, which may lead to better ladder position, which in turn may remotely help achieve a GF appearance.

After all, the best way the club could increase members (and hence raise money) is by being ultimately successful.

[liz]

Originally posted by Bart
Fine concept. But are 20,000 odd Sydney members going to get 1/12th reduction in their membership or will they be happy to cop the extra so their Melbourne brethren can get an extra game. And would the Bulldogs then approach NT, ACT, TAS, cairns and move the game there. Quite probably. Their membership numbers are very very low at 16,000. Moving this game to Melbourne would result in a crowd that would not even breakeven. They would take it elsewhere.

I'm not trying to argue for or against - I think a case can be made for either. However, the noises coming from the club seem to indicate that they will at least review the Bulldogs arrangement at the end of this year.

The point about the Dogs taking the game elsewhere is a valid one but I'm sure this possibility will be taken into account. If they do this, it negates the Melbourne fans argument that there are sufficient Swans fans there to warrant it. If the Swans can get close to their 10,000 Melbourne member base this season they would be able to demonstrate that our club can contribute to a decent crowd. Even if they don't hit that mark, logically Sydney would still be one of the more attractive 'interstate' clubs to play from the Dogs' perspective..

[robbieando]

Lets look at this another way. Lets say that the game in Canberra against the Roos and the Bulldogs game in Sydney, stay as they are. What is stopping a 6th game being played in Melbourne??? In 2000, 2001 and 2002, when both the Dogs and Roos played home matches against the Swans in Sydney, the Swans still played 6 times in Melbourne in each of those 3 seasons. My question is what has changed, that we must play 5 times in Melbourne????

[Rob-bloods]

Respect (Ali G 2002)

I do not think this should descend into north vs south OR old south vs new south. Let?s be grateful that we have people impassioned enough to care, cos? we certainly didn?t have many between 1982 and 1993 in Sydney (barring a small flurry under Dr Geoff). The bickering is not discussion and not constructive. The two simple points surely are :-

1/ Melbne should get at least 6 games
2/ Sydney should get at least 11 games

Melbourne South fans do not want to ?assist in the development of the AFL? they just want to watch their team!

Surely the Sydney fans would not begrudge us six down here.

North would probably count on drawing fans to ACT playing Sydney, does anyone know crowd figures for their other fixtures down there?

My bugbear on top of this is the fact this year we have to go to both Optus and Kardinia out of only five games. That means we just get one or two at the G where we might well have to play the biggest game of all.

[Charlie]

Excellent points from both Rob's.

If it is so crucial to the Swans to develop the game in regional NSW, why isn't a home game being played in Canberra?

Or doesn't it sound so important when that suggestion is made?

I've tried diluting my argument, but not anymore. I've suggested 7 games, I've suggested 7 games twice every three years, I've suggested 7 games every second year. Remember that 7 is how many we'd get if they were allocated proportionally.

If I started asking for 6, people would still oppose me. We've already had people in this thread suggesting that '5 is a good deal'... are we supposed to sit down, shut up and take what we're given, without complaining? Is that what people want us to do? Lay down and keep getting ****ing kicked around?

[sharp9]

Originally posted by swan_song
[BI'll shut up now on this subject and await your howls of derision. [/B]

You've got me howling. To say that you see Melbourne Swans the same as Melbourne Eagles is just ignorant, quite frankly.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie

If it is so crucial to the Swans to develop the game in regional NSW, why isn't a home game being played in Canberra?

Or doesn't it sound so important when that suggestion is made?

I commented to my companions on the way to Sunday's game that it would be good if the Swans played a home game down in Canberra. With their links to the city via the reserves team it would be great and marketed well I'm sure they could sell out the ground.

Unfortunately I suspect the AFL would block this because it might be seen to be intruding on the Kangaroos' patch.

[Old Royboy]

These so called development games are played because they lose money in Melbourne. They should only be between Melbourne clubs and SA, WA teams and not at the expense of old bloods and roys. The NM home games in Canberra are the latest effort by a club desperate to stay alive.

In 92, we were sick, but curable. Fortunately we survived. In 96 Roys were incurable and put down. NM and Dogs have same incurable disease called lack of sufficient home support. If the comp is progress as the major code in this country it cannot afford these two as they are holding the whole back.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Old Royboy

In 92, we were sick, but curable. Fortunately we survived. In 96 Roys were incurable and put down. NM and Dogs have same incurable disease called lack of sufficient home support. If the comp is progress as the major code in this country it cannot afford these two as they are holding the whole back.

Whilst the league can support them the 2 teams will be kept until they can be relocated. I would love to see what the 10 year plan the AFL has on this is.

[Old Royboy]

Originally posted by stellation
Whilst the league can support them the 2 teams will be kept until they can be relocated. I would love to see what the 10 year plan the AFL has on this is.

So would I. IF NM are to relocate they should bite the bullet and do it properly. Might as well lose money in Canberra as in Melbourne, but at least then they would make inroads into the Brumbies and Raiders. Hit and run missions are doomed to failure. Sydney won't be ready for another team (WB) inside 10 years. Does the AFL prop them up that long? And what about the dees - in trouble too. The AFL must realise that there are two too many teams in Melbourne, the population is simply not big enough to support the current number.

Perhaps Melb, NM and Dogs could merge - the West Melbourne dogderoos.

[Gunn]

Originally posted by Bart
Charlie, I am 99% sure that the revenue from Melbourne memberships goes to the clubs we play in Melbourne. I lived in Melbourne a few years ago and asked about this, and was told by the office that the club pays the Melb based team the GA price for each members who turns up. I think this revenue thing is a myth.

I decided then I was just better off buying through T7 and getting a better seat

Pity you weren't 100% sure because you are wrong.

Why do you think the Swans are putting in the effort to sell more Melbourne memberships if they get nothing. They have appointed Tony Morewood who I would guess in on 100K a year. He has said that his brief is to get Melbourne membership up. Why? To sell more caps and beanies??

All home teams get a small percentage from away members attendance at their home games. The more visiting members that attend the more the home team gets gets.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Gunn
Pity you weren't 100% sure because you are wrong.

Why do you think the Swans are putting in the effort to sell more Melbourne memberships if they get nothing. They have appointed Tony Morewood who I would guess in on 100K a year. He has said that his brief is to get Melbourne membership up. Why? To sell more caps and beanies??

All home teams get a small percentage from away members attendance at their home games. The more visiting members that attend the more the home team gets gets.

just relaying what I was told. I have sent an email to the club asking that question. I will post the reponse when I get it

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by Gunn
Pity you weren't 100% sure because you are wrong.

Why do you think the Swans are putting in the effort to sell more Melbourne memberships if they get nothing. They have appointed Tony Morewood who I would guess in on 100K a year. He has said that his brief is to get Melbourne membership up. Why? To sell more caps and beanies??

All home teams get a small percentage from away members attendance at their home games. The more visiting members that attend the more the home team gets gets.

Agree entirely

Certainly Tony Morwood is there to get the membership up first second third and fourmost (sic)! I daresay Tony would like us to play ten games in Melbne!! (he probably has a bonus based on membership) but I really think we at last have someone working for us down here with at least some influence.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Rob-bloods
Agree entirely

Certainly Tony Morwood is there to get the membership up first second third and fourmost (sic)! I daresay Tony would like us to play ten games in Melbne!! (he probably has a bonus based on membership) but I really think we at last have someone working for us down here with at least some influence.

Whilst I hope you're correct, why exactly do you say that?

What has Morwood achieved yet (this is not supposed to a criticism but a legitimate question) that indicates that he is any more powerful than his predecessor?