Sydney deserves better

[Country Member]

Bart - outstanding, factual comments.

footyhead - you apparently are a ****head. The City of Brisbane had nothing to do with the 3 Lions' premierships: Andrew Ireland, an experienced coach, zone concessions, 6 ready made (and tradable) players from the Fitzroy merger, and a totally unjustified 10% salary cap "retention" allowance, were also relevant
The Swans are less than two years into a list restructuring period driven by Ireland and Paul Roos. I guess they stuffed up last year by making the preliminary final.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by BAM_BAM
just a little request then Sharpie. Can you abandon us. Just fall on your sword, take one for the team. I'd be forever grateful.

Haha, never worked for souths, and norths dont exist anymore, so i think i'll stay.

Otherwise what am i going to do on a weekend? Play golf? Watch motor sport on tv? Start a stamp collection?

Sorry, BAM_BAM, I am here for the long haul, just a little disillusioned right now.

(However, it doesnt take me much to switch allegiences for the rugby this weekend, but then who wants to see the New Zealanders win anything, anyway!)

[footyhead]

Well thereis partial trueth in just about every post on this thread. The guts of what i feel is that the Swans over a period of almost 25 years have pretty much let its supporters down. I don't think we have one of the elite administrations, and considering how much nurturing has been shown the Swans i really am very dissapointed.

[Alec]

Originally posted by footyhead
Well thereis partial trueth in just about every post on this thread. The guts of what i feel is that the Swans over a period of almost 25 years have pretty much let its supporters down. I don't think we have one of the elite administrations, and considering how much nurturing has been shown the Swans i really am very dissapointed.

Yeah...I know what you're saying...it is pretty frustrating.

But I reckon a lot of the culture problems with the Swans are still a hangover from the structural issues of having to build a club from scratch. Not to disrespect the South Melbourne history, but it has been very hard to simply transplant that grassroots thing from Melbourne to Sydney.

At Hawthorn, or Essendon, there is a fear of failure, and a history to uphold. In Sydney nothing has been expected...and even those South Melbourne fans that followed the team north needed to consult history books to read of a time when their team was a power in the game.

We talk of 5 year plans, and forget sometimes the low we're actually building off. Collingwood moaned about their Premiership drought from 1991-2002(and counting). And they were building up from a Premiership victory, with an organisation passionately supported by generations of fans.

In the same period we've been building from a $2 shell company verging on utter oblivion, in a city that hadn't even heard of the club!

The change is coming (sometimes in fits and spurts such as 96, and 2003), but it takes a long time for families to grow up following teams.

We're only now getting close to having a full generation of fans who've watched a competitive club making a name for itself. And already we have some young players that grew up watching the Sydney Swans. In another 5-10 years perhaps we'll have JUST started to make an impact on Sydney's consciousness in a way that rivals the sort of following that the "traditional" clubs have enjoyed for so many decades.

bring it on, I say!

[footyhead]

Good points.
I have often thought that as long as we win a premeirship soon, it will be better than winning one too soon. Look at what happend to the storm in Melbourne. If a new club wins one too early the significants of the win does not get down into he roots of the club culture. What the Lions have done is extraordinary. I wonder if the fans in Brissie really understand how very very privelaged they are ??
We need a premeirship NOW !!!

[Charlie]

Everyone here is ignoring the fact that we had 3 very different periods before our current one, and that we are really only 10 years into our development.

1/ Sent to Sydney with nothing. No support from the VFL, little from the city of Sydney. By 1985, the club was once again in financial difficulties.

2/ Rather than do what they should have done, the VFL shoveled the problem onto someone else by selling us. They got several million dollars in the deal, which was used to stabilise operations in Victoria and expand further. It wasn't invested in Sydney. As an aside, in the biggest rort that Eddie won't mention, the 11 Victorian clubs were contractually entitled to 5% each of Sydney's profits during the Edelsten era. Yes, you read that right.

3/ Edelsten crashes. A group of men who don't get enough recognition for what they did - including Sellars, Willessee, Weinert and Kimberley - step in and take over the operation. In the late '80s and early '90s, they collectively lose millions of dollars of their own money keeping us afloat. Meanwhile, the lack of facilities and stability drives away a large number of stars, along with the natural attrition of retirements. The Swans crash to the bottom, and the crowds disappear on cue.

4/ 1993, the now-AFL finally begins to recognise and respond to its obligations to the disaster that was largely of its own making. Alan Schwab was sent up to Sydney as a temporary administrator. The two Ronnies - Barassi and Joseph - set about re-establishing the side on the field. The Colless regime takes over in 1994. Regardless of what you think of him now, he is part of the team that has saved this club.

The effect of all these false starts is that the Swans really only started to imprint themselves on Sydney 1993. It didn't start showing results until 1996. So saying '23 years of mediocrity' isn't really fair.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Charlie
Everyone here is ignoring the fact that we had 3 very different periods before our current one, and that we are really only 10 years into our development.

1/ Sent to Sydney with nothing. No support from the VFL, little from the city of Sydney. By 1985, the club was once again in financial difficulties.

2/ Rather than do what they should have done, the VFL shoveled the problem onto someone else by selling us. They got several million dollars in the deal, which was used to stabilise operations in Victoria and expand further. It wasn't invested in Sydney. As an aside, in the biggest rort that Eddie won't mention, the 11 Victorian clubs were contractually entitled to 5% each of Sydney's profits during the Edelsten era. Yes, you read that right.

3/ Edelsten crashes. A group of men who don't get enough recognition for what they did - including Sellars, Willessee, Weinert and Kimberley - step in and take over the operation. In the late '80s and early '90s, they collectively lose millions of dollars of their own money keeping us afloat. Meanwhile, the lack of facilities and stability drives away a large number of stars, along with the natural attrition of retirements. The Swans crash to the bottom, and the crowds disappear on cue.

4/ 1993, the now-AFL finally begins to recognise and respond to its obligations to the disaster that was largely of its own making. Alan Schwab was sent up to Sydney as a temporary administrator. The two Ronnies - Barassi and Joseph - set about re-establishing the side on the field. The Colless regime takes over in 1994. Regardless of what you think of him now, he is part of the team that has saved this club.

The effect of all these false starts is that the Swans really only started to imprint themselves on Sydney 1993. It didn't start showing results until 1996. So saying '23 years of mediocrity' isn't really fair.

Spot on Charlie.

[Alec]

Originally posted by Charlie

The effect of all these false starts is that the Swans really only started to imprint themselves on Sydney 1993. It didn't start showing results until 1996. So saying '23 years of mediocrity' isn't really fair. [/B]

Couldn't agree with Charlie's post more. And I think this line is crucial to understanding where we're truly at as a club. We're a century behind some of our rivals here in latent support.

Winning a Premiership (or even going close) might be seen by some as the "magic bullet" for the problems. And we've seen that horrid "bandwagon" term bandied about as an almost Swans-specific expression ever since we started to slide in 99. But it's more about sustained success.

We've had that in varying degrees since 96 - and i think the spread of support for the code in NSW has been phenomenal (whatever the critics who expected it to happen overnight might think).

I really felt last year that we had matured enough as a club to accept some lows as we rebuilt. That was something new in my experience as a Swans supporter. 15 years ago Sydneysiders just switched off when things went bad. This time many are watching on anxiously...and that has to be good of our viability longterm.

Roos just needs the faith he was promised to get the job done for us.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Alec
And we've seen that horrid "bandwagon" term bandied about as an almost Swans-specific expression ever since we started to slide in 99. But it's more about sustained success.

True only to some extent. Yes crowds and membership have come down. But we will have roughly 25000 members this year up from low 20s last year which was the lowest in recent years. This compares to about 3000 in 1994 before the Swans took off.

So yes, lack of sustained success has meant we haven't been able to see increases every year, but 1996 has resulted in a new 'core' many of whom post on this board regularly.

Every club has bandwagons. Watch the lemmings jump of Collingwood's next year.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Charlie


2/ Rather than do what they should have done, the VFL shoveled the problem onto someone else by selling us. They got several million dollars in the deal, which was used to stabilise operations in Victoria and expand further. It wasn't invested in Sydney. As an aside, in the biggest rort that Eddie won't mention, the 11 Victorian clubs were contractually entitled to 5% each of Sydney's profits during the Edelsten era. Yes, you read that right.

Charlie,

I'd never heard that. Do you know if there was a similar deal for the Brisbane Bears/Lions? I presume there wasn't for Port or Freo when they started up? What was the rationale - paying back a "loan"?

[Country Member]

The rationale was that the Victorian clubs were paranoid about any money being invested in Sydney and did not want it to become too successful. There were no comparable arrangements with the SA and WA new chums. They were just given access to all their local players and thus guaranteed success/premierships. The Vics never argued with this (or the fact that the salary cap should be discounted in these big country towns), but when Sydney asked for access to a local zone (from which hardly any players had previously been drafted), world war 3 breaks out.

We have never really recovered from becoming the first non-Victorian club and they political weakness of the VFL administrators of the time. You cannot establish any business without capital, and the VFL was too scared to invest up front. A $2 company would have been a good start given the bankrupt shell that was, unfortunately, SMFC. The Victorian clubs tolerated minimal spending but only because of to the TV rights money that flowed and keep the competition viable.

The fact that clubs had rights to any profits the Swans could generate sums up the mentality and is an absolute acknowledgement that we were dumped here for the benefit of other clubs: the club is here for game/competition development, and are not considered real in terms of ever winning a premiership. The majority of Sydneysiders think this way as well: you are doing a great job for the AFL but nobody really expects you to win the flag.

Whilst this absolutely craps me off, it is the reality and to a certain extent has pervaded the culture of the club at all levels: the AFL wont let you fold because you are needed for the national competition. When the bandwaggon does occassionally start to roll, up pops Eddie McGuire to claim he saved us because of the Collingwood crowd last year, and he wants to do it again! He is on the record as saying we only exist for game development purposes.

Sydney might deserve better but won't get it unless we stick with the Club whilst demanding continuous improvements in all areas.

[Go Swannies]

I like the way this thread has evolved (thanks Charlie). Sydney lifestyle - and wanting a whole better team - is indulgent. But looking at how we fit within the AFL structure is relevant. I have no problem with coach or team (though a win'd be nice) but think it'd be nice if the club because more of a club and less just a team and its fans. Is this when we raise the issue of voting rights, again? A clubhouse?

[Country Member]

Voting rights?

Are you going to vote for a premiership?

This Club belongs to all supporters, not just the few lucky enough to extract the benefits of a discounted season-ticket.

Shareholders get a vote in companies because they have contributed equity. The only true equity footy clubs have (apart from cash reserves of which we have none) is the emotional commitment of all supporters and stakeholders, not just season-ticket holders. If season-ticket holders want to pay full-tote odds, maybe there is a case (by the way, I am a season-ticket holder).

The club's governance, whilst not overly transparent, is in accordance with the constitution, which I understand from Swans News, is being reviewed at the end of the season.

I agree re a Clubhouse, however, can you advise on a source of funding ($20-50 million) for the necessary investment by a financially challenged AFL club into an industry about to be ripped apart by the Carr/Egan poker machine tax changes?

In a non-traditional market, which will remain the case for another generation or so, we have bigger issues than voting rights for one class of supporter. We need commitment from all supporters.

[Bear]

This is a complex matter.

I would like to see all members get a vote becaues it would give many a better understanding of the club. Although I have deep reservations about populist decision-making such as coaching appointments, overall I see voting rights as a must for our club to develop a better football culture in Sydney.

For example, if I see most, YES MOST (!!!!!), of the fans around me in the Brewongle area clap the team off after a pathetic loss like the Richmond game again..... I think I'll spew up.

Blaming this culture of mediocrity, that's embedded in MOST of our Sydney members, on the pre-1982 days shows a real lack of understanding of the issue. Many of the people around me are relatively new to Australian football, and hence just want to support the boys - win, lose or draw. Whilst this is admirable and politically correct, it can have the opposite effect to that which is desired. Deep down, the players know they can get away with losing due to this culture. They have stated this on many occasions.

I don't boo the team after a loss like that, but I certainly don't clap them off. I think walking off to silence gets the message accross, and would improve our club's culture.

[Country Member]

Bear - I agree with your comments, but how does getting a vote stop supporters cheering mediocrity?