Membership ladder

[Tooth Fairy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hammo

Originally posted by Charlie
I don't see why anybody can argue that it is in the interests of the Swans - and in turn AFL - to play a game in a city with the sole purpose of portraying that city as viable for AFL, when it clearly isn't.

That is a naive comment.

Canberra is an AFL heartland, producing players like James Hird and Aaron Hamill. Sure having their own AFL club may never be viable, but why should the AFL turn its back on Canberra just because its not in the interests of the Swans?

I think you will find most of the crowd last weekend were locals.

Sydney is the most supported club in Canberra, so it makes sense for the AFL to schedule us their once a year, plus it a good gesture to the Canberra AFL supporters.

We shouldn't lose sight of the big picture and that's promoting the game to all parts of the country.

It isn't naive at all. 14000 may be deemed a good turnout for a RL match but for an AFL match it is looked upon as disappointing. I think this is what charlie may be geting at.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
It isn't naive at all. 14000 may be deemed a good turnout for a RL match but for an AFL match it is looked upon as disappointing. I think this is what charlie may be geting at.

Yeah.

14,000 wouldn't be covering costs without the AFL and ACT Government underwriting the project.

People call Stadium Australia a black hole... the competition is pouring money into Canberra without there even being the infrastructure to grow to a sustainable level...

In the interests of Sydney? Pfft. We all KNOW what the Manuka game is. The 'Roos aren't viable in Melbourne. So they go to Canberra, where their games are underwritten. We go there and bring the crowds so the game is a sellout. In Victoria, with the 56,000 seat Docklands and 97,000 seat MCG, the word 'sellout' means massive profit.

In Canberra, it means nothing. The game is underwritten, so the Roos make the same amount of money whether 14 or 14,000 turnup.

They can not go there as a viable entity, so the game isn't being scheduled to develop the market, unless the AFL is fundamentally incompetent.

So what do the Roos get out of us going to Manuka? Publicity. The ability to point at a 'sellout' and say 'this is working'.

The ability to lie.

And this is more important than members for Sydney?

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by Charlie

And this is more important than members for Sydney?

You know Charlie... Not that I'm trying to bring you down or anything.. But WE KNOW. We are actually on your side, believe it or not.

"More games in Melbourne" is down as one of the club's priorities. What the hell can we do if the AFL doesn't see fit to grant those wishes?

The AFL will set the fixture roughly depending on what will benefit the AFL.

The Roos game in Canberra:

AFL - Gets to promote the game in a new market
North - Play Manuka well. Their costs are underwritten
Swans - Don't have to travel as far, same with the Sydney-based fans

As far as the AFL is concerned, that means win-win to all parties.

Same thing for the Bulldogs game:

AFL - extra game in the sydney market featuring the swans
Bulldogs - Money
Swans - Another home game

I would LOVE more games in Melbourne, especially at the MCG, but you need to look at why the parties involved WOULDN'T want to change the current situation.

The AFL doesn't care about the Swans' Melbourne members. To them, increased exposure in NSW/ACT is their incentive.

The bulldogs/roos don't care about the Swans' Melbourne members. They are getting extra money over and above what they would be getting if the game was played in Melbourne. Why would they voluntarily move their home games back?

The Swans DO care about their Melbourne members, one suspects. On the other hand, what the AFL, Roos and Bulldogs are offering is also very attractive. They can't do anything about the Roos game, they're not involved in the deal at all. The Bulldogs game, they could stop buying it from the Dogs - but then what if the Bulldogs do a deal with the AFL? and directly with the stadium(s)?

Please understand that I'm not against the notion of more Melbourne games. I'm just trying to articulate why I think the situation is as it is.

What the club could do for a start is to make sure the Melbournites are getting value for their membership dollars......

As I said before.. I think we have a good case for 6, but it's hard to see where the 7th will come from, barring cutting out trips to Adelaide/Brisbane/Perth.

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by Charlie
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?

Well Charlie, fair enough to ask, IMO whilst Leigh in the past battled hard I don't think she got appropriate support, nor had the sway to achieve much. In fairness Tony hasn't had long yet. Probably Southern Swans were not so highly thought of hence the drift of games away etc etc. I take it as a positive that we now have an ex- player, Swans through and through, with connections through football down here with a (presumably) stronger mandate to make things happen.

I may be proved wrong, but I am looking to the positive, and believe me having followed the Swans since 1982 when they first moved to Sydney, as we would all know, you just have to be positive right?

[Charlie]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
You know Charlie... Not that I'm trying to bring you down or anything.. But WE KNOW. We are actually on your side, believe it or not.

Do you think that I can shut up about this while the farce remains in place?

If I don't keep bringing this to attention here, in the hope that someone who reads this forum has a bit of power and notices, I WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE.

I'm not restricting my action to this site. I've written to the Herald-Sun's "Write to Mike" page as well - specifically about the AFL's role. If anyone in Melbourne is interested in another plan I've got, PM me and I'll explain my idea. I'll be attempting to contact Tony Morwood next week, requesting an interview to be published on this site. They can outline everything they are able to do, and I'll be able to ask the questions I want to ask... assuming he agrees. I'll be putting my argument on the line... and everyone else's. One way or the other, we'll get the entire situation out in the open.

It's not that I want to complain. It's just that I want to go to the footy. Once in ten months is not bloody good enough. Two practice matches and a cap are not good enough.

[Mark]

If you want be taken seriously,try and make it a thought out debate, not a whinging tantrum !

At the risk of being told to piss off again, your case, which you have stated over and over and over again is WEAK.

Try looking at other peoples veiws and actually considering what they say (Des's most recent, best summary). You seem incapable of accepting the very sound reasons why most of us sympathise, yet realise that it is not the Swans fault. Further, with the current (and correct) competition focus (national) extremely unlikely to happen.

The constant whinging and complaining about every initiative the club tries is just plain boring.

[Gunn]

Originally posted by Mark
If you want be taken seriously,try and make it a thought out debate, not a whinging tantrum !

At the risk of being told to piss off again, your case, which you have stated over and over and over again is WEAK.

Try looking at other peoples veiws and actually considering what they say (Des's most recent, best summary). You seem incapable of accepting the very sound reasons why most of us sympathise, yet realise that it is not the Swans fault. Further, with the current (and correct) competition focus (national) extremely unlikely to happen.

The constant whinging and complaining about every initiative the club tries is just plain boring.

It is easy to call someone a whinger when the thing they want is what you already have. If you really believe they have a justified grievance with the AFL of the Swans and you REALLY care then support the complaint as best you can. Don't pontificate.

I don't believe Des's reasons are sound at all. Just the opposite.

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.

With regard to the Canberra match the Swans have no obvious leverage. I do suspect that if they felt strongly enough about it the AFL might at least make the Swans play there every second year.

The Swans mouth platitudes about wanting to play more games in Melbourne but they really are just words. It is a bit like you and those that follow your line who say we really care about you but the fact is you don't really give a stuff. Correct?

The club is wasting its time and money paying Tony Morewood and mouthing platitudes. The bull**** meter is off the scale I am afraid. I know many Swans followers in Melbourne and I can tell you they are not happy. When their kids start following another team they will be lost forever.

[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 !

[Gunn]

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 !

It is a BULLLDOGS HOME GAME that we BUY. If we don't buy it then it will be played in Melbourne. If it is sold to another state then we won't be playing them in that other state. We will be playing them in Melbourne. Is that too difficult to understand??

You really are coming accross as a child who wants all the lollies. The crap about us baling the swans if the dogs sell their game to Darwin is really childish. You pay lip service to being sympathetic. Football is an emotional game. If the club turns the fans off they are off....permanently. BTW it is NOT the Melbourne fans that are being spoilt. Quite the contrary. Are you referring to your own side of the argument?

[Bart]

Originally posted by Gunn
It is easy to call someone a whinger when the thing they want is what you already have. If you really believe they have a justified grievance with the AFL of the Swans and you REALLY care then support the complaint as best you can. Don't pontificate.

I don't believe Des's reasons are sound at all. Just the opposite.

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.

With regard to the Canberra match the Swans have no obvious leverage. I do suspect that if they felt strongly enough about it the AFL might at least make the Swans play there every second year.

The Swans mouth platitudes about wanting to play more games in Melbourne but they really are just words. It is a bit like you and those that follow your line who say we really care about you but the fact is you don't really give a stuff. Correct?

The club is wasting its time and money paying Tony Morewood and mouthing platitudes. The bull**** meter is off the scale I am afraid. I know many Swans followers in Melbourne and I can tell you they are not happy. When their kids start following another team they will be lost forever.

So you believe that if the Swans were to play hardball with the AFL they could say we'll only pay the Dogs to play their home match in Sydney if we get a,b,c. You don't think the AFL or the Dogs would actually seriously consider this ?

Would Adelaide Oval, or the WACA step up ? Would Cairns, Darwin or Hobart be happy to fork out for a match ? Would Brisbane take another one ? What about the Adelaide or Perth teams ? Maybe even Eddie would take it, as he would easily make a $ on it because of the Pies support.

The Bulldogs make a $200,000 profit from this match. They would lose $50-$100k if they played it in Melbourne. The club has 16,000 members and are in dire straits. You would happily bury them so you get get another game.

Sydney recoups this cost by charging Sydney members a levy on their membership. The Swans make a profit on the match through tickets and hospitality PLUS the team doesn't have to travel. Much better chance at securing 4 pts at the SCG.

Now what part of this do you not get ? The histrionics and paranoia in this thread are unbelieveable.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Gunn
You really are coming accross as a child who wants all the lollies. The crap about us baling the swans if the dogs sell their game to Darwin is really childish. You pay lip service to being sympathetic. Football is an emotional game. If the club turns the fans off they are off....permanently. BTW it is NOT the Melbourne fans that are being spoilt. Quite the contrary. Are you referring to your own side of the argument?

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

[undy]

Originally posted by Gunn
It is a BULLLDOGS HOME GAME that we BUY. If we don't buy it then it will be played in Melbourne. If it is sold to another state then we won't be playing them in that other state. We will be playing them in Melbourne. Is that too difficult to understand??

Yep, I don't understand your logic here. If the NT govt pays money for this game to go to Darwin, or Tas Govt to get it to Tassie, then why would we be playing the game in Melbourne ?

[Mark]

Please try and read this post;

"It is a BULLLDOGS HOME GAME that we BUY. If we don't buy it then it will be played in Melbourne. If it is sold to another state then we won't be playing them in that other state. We will be playing them in Melbourne. Is that too difficult to understand??"

Explain why the Bulldogs home game against the Swans will not end up interstate ?

The only reason it is in Sydney currently is that it was a loss maker in Melbourne ! and you think the doggies will take it back there ?

Bulldogs are pressuring AFL to underwrite games in NT as part of "National" program/initiative

So Swans reject current deal, which do you think is more likely;

Dogs move game back to Melb and lose money

or

Dogs ask for this game to be underwritten by AFL in Darwin.

There are of course other permutations with the draw which may see SA or WA team go north but either way the Swans have no impact on the decision !

[Bart]

And this thread has just moved into Number 4 in the all time reply hitlist.

1 and 2: Brownlow Count and National Draft don't really count IMHO

[Gunn]

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 !

It is a BULLLDOGS HOME GAME that we BUY. If we don't buy it then it will be played in Melbourne. If it is sold to another state then we won't be playing them in that other state. We will be playing them in Melbourne. Is that too difficult to understand??

You really are coming accross as a child who wants all the lollies. The crap about us baling the swans if the dogs sell their game to Darwin is really childish. You pay lip service to being sympathetic. Football is an emotional game. If the club turns the fans off they are off....permanently. BTW it is NOT the Melbourne fans that are being spoilt. Quite the contrary. Are you referring to your own side of the argument?