so called experts

[chammond]

I read where we never paid our full licence fee. I saw somewhere on the net in a Melbourne paper that we are asking for hand-outs and it wasn't Smith in the Australian.

The licence fee issue used to be trotted out by the Melb media, but not any more. The AFL owns the Sydney licence - to whom should they pay the licence fee? However, if Sydney becomes a member-owned club, it may well be that the licence fee becomes due and payable once again.

Smith's article is 'syndicated' across the Murdoch media, including the Herald-Sun, Foxsports, Sydney Telegraph, Adelaide Advertiser etc etc - same article just different headline.

If you know of any other journo spruiking the handout line, I would be very interested to read the article (basically to see if it has any real facts).

[Donners]

I've just done a search in a newspaper database covering Australian papers, but this is all I could find for articles over the last 12 months:

...May we take the liberty of giving young Ed a history lesson here.

The Magpie board had decided not to approve the AFL's proposal to hand back some of the Swans licence fee to keep them afloat. Collingwood despatched their representative, Errol Hutchesson, to vote accordingly.

But as was his wont when big issues were being discussed (and we might add much to the chagrin of the AFL administration at the time) another high-profile Collingwood president, Allan McAlister, decided to tag along.

In a pretty good impersonation of Big Brother, Big Al, sat on a window sill behind Hutchesson.

The Swans were well and truly on their way to the gallows until AFL chairman Ross Oakley mentioned the fact Collingwood's arch foe, Carlton, were likely to be asked to fill the void by playing away games in Sydney. Why, there was even talk of Carlton becoming the Tooheys Blues and reaping a handsome sponsorship dollar out of the harbour city.

The colour went out of Big Al's cheeks and his jaw hit the ground. It was anathema to McAlister, or anyone with black and white blood coursing through their veins, to hand Carlton such a huge commercial advantage.

Big Al did a backflip. An indignant Hutchesson left the meeting in a huff. And the Swans survived on Collingwood's casting vote.

Not quite as Eddie remembered it. But hey, who's counting?

[The Weekend Australian, 13/4/02]

...
Development funding

John Elliott

Carlton president

April 8, 2002

Barb: Stated on ABC current affairs program Four Corners that it was well-known the Swans diverted money that was earmarked for development into their own coffers.

Truth: The Swans have sought legal advice about the comments, which AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson admits also reflect poorly on his organisation.

"John Elliott is absolutely inaccurate," Jackson says.

"It's a very easy thing for a high-profile president to say to galvanise the support of his members and cover their club's own deficiencies.

"Naturally most people and clubs know that's not the case -- it's a reflection of his lack of understanding."

In reality the Swans spend $300,000-$400,000 above their allocated budget on development each year.

Last month's Colin Carter Report revealed the average Swan spent three times as much time at junior development clinics as was recommended in the Players Association collective bargaining agreement. The average player in Melbourne did one-third of what they were directed. So the Swans do about 10 times more than their Melbourne counterparts.

Salary cap loadings

Rod Butterss

St Kilda president

April 2002

Barb: Speaking on Foxtel's White Line Fever program, claimed the Swans were only able to poach Barry Hall by offering extra money because of a 15 per cent loading Sydney has on its salary cap.

Truth: The 15 per cent loading has existed for four years to address the higher cost of housing in Sydney and the fact nearly all Swans have to be relocated. All clubs know about it and agreed to its inception.

It is also well documented Hall wanted to leave St Kilda.

Butterss was in charge when St Kilda paid a wildly inflated rate for Aaron Hamill (and more than the Swans paid a year later for Hall) when the Carlton forward looked headed for Sydney.

St Kilda was the only club able to afford expensive imports Fraser Gehrig and Heath Black. It was also a well-known player agent acting on St Kilda's behalf who walked into the Swans last year offering $400,000 for a young Sydney defender, who was still on contract -- a pay increase of about 60 per cent.

For Melbourne observers who still believe it is sinister that the Swans could afford Tony Lockett and Paul Roos in the same season, they should remember Lockett came to Sydney by default. Collingwood and Richmond both blew chances to sign the star forward and Roos arrived through the draft.

Tribunal bias

Tim Lane

ABC Radio commentator

April 2002

Barb: Told Swans president Richard Colless there is a perceived tribunal bias towards the Swans.

Truth: Four of the past five Swans to appear at the tribunal have been suspended: key players Andrew Dunkley (in last year's finals series), Daryn Cresswell, Paul Kelly and Wayne Schwass. (Schwass's two-week suspension after an investigation and inconclusive video report from March 16 contrasted with West Coast's Phil Matera's escape after Tarkyn Lockyer was knocked unconscious on April 6).

The other reported Swan, Tony Lockett, was found not guilty.

When Colless pointed these facts out to Lane, the commentator responded: "What about before the Grand Final in 1996?"

Does this mean between 1996 and now there was no bias, though Lane still wants his listeners to share his six-year-old outrage?

Lane was referring to Andrew Dunkley playing in the Grand Final after the Swans sought a Supreme Court injunction, claiming his late summoning to the tribunal robbed him of a fair defence. Lane must have been objecting to the Swans' tactics, as the tribunal suspended Dunkley for three weeks. Lane's assumptions also implicate the credibility of the AFL and the independence of the tribunal.

Since Lane's comments, Jude Bolton was suspended for two weeks as a first offender for striking in last Saturday night's St Kilda match.

Chief executive Wayne Jackson takes exception to Lane's comments.

"It's just mind-boggling to suggest that the AFL could have exerted that sort of pressure on perhaps 30 past and present members of the tribunal and that nothing has been said by any of those members," he says.

Financial support

Melbourne club officials

Repeatedly

Barb: Melbourne club officials and media reports have generated and reinforced a public belief that the Swans have been a constant drain on VFL/AFL finances.

Truth: During the privately-owned eras of Geoffrey Edelsten and then the Mike Willesee-Basil Sellers-John Geraty consortium, the Swans lost money but it was the owners who paid.

By contrast, the club's licence fee was sold twice and both times the other clubs got a dividend. Indeed, if the distribution from the $3 million fee in 1985 had not been made, only three Victorian clubs would have recorded a surplus that year.

From 1994-98 the Swans received total AFL funds of $3m. In that time their membership increased tenfold, their revenue and crowds mushroomed and since then the Swans have been a profitable entity.

That compares to the $2m support the Kangaroos received for their failed experiment in Sydney that has returned precious little to the code.

The Bulldogs have also received $900,000 as part of a rescue package and other clubs may follow. The AFL has earmarked $3m annually to help clubs survive, on condition they add value to the competition.

In terms of facilities, the most enduring complaint of the SCG Trust is that the AFL has put no money into the SCG since 1995. But building projects, bordering between significant and massive, have been AFL-subsidised in every other state -- Subiaco (Perth), Football Park (Adelaide), Gabba (Brisbane) and Colonial Stadium (Melbourne). Renovations are also planned for the MCG.

Melbourne clubs will benefit from the money and exposure when Stadium Australia hosts AFL games from May 25 (Swans v Essendon). One leading southern club has already made inquiries about staging home games there.

The success of the Swans has provided financial gains for other clubs. Essendon's chief sponsor, Orange, signed because the company founder's (Barry Roberts-Thomson) son (now a Swan) played for North Shore, which has an affiliation with Essendon.

Also, the fact the Kangaroos would play televised games in Sydney that would be broadcast to Melbourne helped that club gain a sponsorship with Mazda.

Draft zone

Eddie McGuire

Collingwood president

September 2001; April 2002

Barb: Twice threatened to seek the intervention of the Supreme Court if the AFL gives Sydney a local-zone draft concession, recommended by an AFL review last year. McGuire even suggested approaching the United Nations.

Graeme McMahon

Essendon president

April 2002

Barb: Asked why the Swans should get any concession when the Bombers had also made a "significant contribution" to developing the game in NSW.

Truths: Television ratings prove AFL has limited presence in Sydney beyond the Swans. Not many people in Sydney could name five Swans, let alone that many players from Essendon, Collingwood or any other club.

The area the proposed draft concession covers (Wollongong to Newcastle) is one of the least-productive in the country -- providing, on average, one player every two seasons and no champions. The Swans would have to use a third round draft pick to secure a local player, as opposed to the current second round pick from within 50km of the CBD.

Having a Sydney-bred player in the Swans is the greatest role model to convert talented teenage rugby league and union players. If the area becomes productive, change the draft rule.

The Collingwood stance became more entrenched two weeks ago when it was suggested Nick Davis, with no urging from the Swans, might not re-sign with the Magpies but return to his Sydney family. This ignored Collingwood's active two-year campaign to have Anthony Rocca leave the Swans and join his brother Saverio.

[The Daily Telegraph, 3/3/02]

[liz]

On the subject of wooden spoon projections, I don't have a problem with "experts" picking Sydney. There are probably half a dozen or so clubs that one could make a case for winning the spoon and Sydney are one of them. In reality, unless one club suffers internal combustion, the wooden-spooner will probably be the weaker club that suffers most injuries, and doesn't have the depth to cover for them. If we lose Hall, Ball and Goodes (say) for extended periods, it is entirely possible that we'll win the wooden spoon.

Fortunately, premiership points are determined by on-field performances rather than punters projections and that's all that really counts. It's up to the boys to prove all these naysayers wrong.

[chammond]

I've just done a search in a newspaper database covering Australian papers

Thanks Donners, that's excellent info.

I've taken a copy for future reference (read: 'future arguments').

[swan_song]

For my book, there's no question that on paper this year's team looks less potent than last year's (loss of PK, WS, AD), but then again I though last year's team to be a step up from the 2001 side (inclusion of BBBH). Just shows that nothing is set in concrete in a sporting environment. I was heartened by the last half of last year under roosey, saddened by the failure against carlton in the trial match and brissie in the cup (failing to score in 3 of 8 quartres), but lifted again by the richmond effort. I would not be surprised if we finish at about the same as last year or a place or two lower...12th to 14th. BUT if we play like we did in the last few matches of last season, a final 8 spot is definitely possible. 12 wins will get that.
And its not fair to say melbourne clubs haven't received financial assistance. I think both Kangas and Bullies have had their hands up for dosh.

[Johnny Roberts]

These so called experts have such short memories.

At the start of 2002 West Coast and Geelong were favourites for the spoon and Hawthorn were "dead certs" to finish Top 4.

Having said that- I have always preferred the swannies being underdogs- so let them write us off.

In 2002 with the "messiah" (plugger) returning the swans were talking finals and premierships, at least our expectations are a lot more realistic in 2003

Go Swannies

[Glenn]

Well one way to prove these so called "experts" wrong, is results on the field, starting with Carlton this weekend, hopefully the team can get off on the right foot with 4 points and a comprehensive victory

[NMWBloods]

Kevin Bartlett made a comment on all the 'experts' predicting the Swans would finish on the bottom. He said obviously they hadn't watched any of the last half dozen games of last season under Roos.

[Swansinger]

What about the clairvoyant Dipper ?
Tipped the Blues by 10 !
I don' mind an objective assessment , but I'm sure this bloke really hates the Swans.

[Ajn]

Well they are intitled to an opinion, however rarely is anyone right. It's on the field that we look to, and as under dogs, we are probably less likely to make those costly turnovers we were famous for. However there are 21 rounds to play still.

[penga]

a majority of these experts picked carlton to win... mike sheahan was the only fella on league teams to pick us to win...