One less SCG game in 2007

[iigrover]

The AFL announce today that the Buldogs home game at the SCG will no longer occur in 2007. Instead they will play a home game in Canberra (and perhaps not against the swans). Melbourne are also playng a game in Canberra.
Link
One of the reasons the Buldogs cited for the move was to eliminate the home ground advantage they gave away by playing at the SCG.
Therefore, this move can only be bad for the Swans, as:
- the Swans lose the benefit of a home ground game; and
- Sydney AFL fans see one less AFL game per year (what a great way to promote AFL in Sydney!!)
I realise the AFL is committed to promoting footy in Canberra, but doing so at the expense of promoting footy in Sydney is a bit questionable IMO. Surely it would have been better to shift a Victorian game rather than a Sydney based game if they were serious about promoting football outside of Victoria. After all, Melbourne based supporters have abgreater opportunity to watch AFL games live by being able to see most of their home AND away games every week. Sydney supporters will now only get to see home games locally.
Also, I wonder whether Swans season ticket prices will be adjusted downwards next year to take account of one less game, or whether the AFL/Swans will use tihs as a way of implementing a defacto ticket price rise?

[hammo]

Most of these issues were canvassed in a previous thread however to recap:

I agree that games should not be taken out of Sydney. It's very hard to promote AFL in Sydney with only one game a fortnight. There will now be fewer AFL games in Sydney than there were 10 years ago.

There would be far greater benefit to AFL in general and financially for the Bulldogs or Kangaroos to play a 'home' game at Telstra Stadium, which would attract about 40,000 instead of the 15,000 in Canberra. Western Sydney offers far greater market potential than Canberra.

Canberra as an AFL venue / market is a waste of time and money. 300k live there compared to a million in western Sydney where growth of the game should be promoted.

[SimonH]

The bad part of this announcement is that the AFL is only committing to 'at least one' of the 2 games involving the Swans.

Do the math: if we don't get both Canberra games, and we don't bid for and get given an increase to 7 games in Victoria (and with the focus on regional development, will the AFL really want to program more games in Victoria?), we will have to go to SA/WA 3 times in the H&A. Which is the nightmare scenario.

[desredandwhite]

Can't say I'm particularly surprised. It's the Bulldogs' home game, they can do whatever they like with it. I guess that brings us back to our "entitled" 11.

There's more than a fair chance that we will be drawn to play one or both of the dogs or Demons in Canberra. Makes perfect sense from the point of view of maximising crowd and revenue for them.

Would be nice to get more games back in Melbourne if we can't have them in Sydney, but the fact is, opposition clubs can do whatever they like with their home games.

[wheels27]

Just interested - have either the Bulldogs or Melbourne played any games before now in Canberra? They may have been attracted to the offer without a full understanding of the shortcomings of playing games at that venue, I am already thinking that surely a large organisation like an AFL club would do thorough research into decisions, but stranger things have happened.

All games in Canberra in recent times not involving Sydney seem to have been flops, and those involving Sydney highlight the inability of Manuka to cope with decent crowds (given the reports from posters here).

Canberra is an area that has always accepted Aussie Rules, and as such the locals have allegiances and will not support an existing club in an apparent cash grab hit and run type scenario. Only if a club makes a significant undertaking to embrace the area as a base will they have any hope of getting a strong foothold. (I have a feeling the Gold Coast may see the same results too BTW)

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by SimonH
we will have to go to SA/WA 3 times in the H&A. Which is the nightmare scenario.

I agree. Having to brave those feral fans one more time each year would be a nightmare.

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by SimonH
The bad part of this announcement is that the AFL is only committing to 'at least one' of the 2 games involving the Swans.

Do the math: if we don't get both Canberra games, and we don't bid for and get given an increase to 7 games in Victoria (and with the focus on regional development, will the AFL really want to program more games in Victoria?), we will have to go to SA/WA 3 times in the H&A. Which is the nightmare scenario.

The travel is the big killer. We'll end up being the most travelled team in the comp, and research is starting to show that the travel affects players' short-term performance AND longevity. Even though one game doesn't sound much, it might prove crucial at the wrong moment :S

[sfan]

The basic premise is that each team gets 11 home games. Teams can at the AFL discretion sell several interstate to raise dollars. Having 12 was a bonus for us not a right. In any case we do well in Canberra and it is like a home ground advantage.

Also as a member who lives in Canberra like many others who drives to all home games, I am happy to see more games here.

[liz]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
The travel is the big killer. We'll end up being the most travelled team in the comp, and research is starting to show that the travel affects players' short-term performance AND longevity. Even though one game doesn't sound much, it might prove crucial at the wrong moment :S

To be fair, most of that research is surely based around the impact on the Perth teams having to fly 4+ hours every other week. You would think that the travel to Melbourne or Canberra for one extra game a season is unlikely to have any significant impact on players' longevity.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by liz
To be fair, most of that research is surely based around the impact on the Perth teams having to fly 4+ hours every other week. You would think that the travel to Melbourne or Canberra for one extra game a season is unlikely to have any significant impact on players' longevity.

Closer to 8 hours (since they are return flights) and worse when you have to fly to Launceston (as Freo did twice this year).

[adnar]

I never thought of it from a WA club perspective, but it's amazing that more non WA born players don't return to the east coast, bugger doing Sydney->melbourne/brisbane/sydney/launceston every week or 2.

[bricon]

Originally posted by Dr Diabolical
On the flipside, we are the closest team to Canberra

So marginally it's not worth worrying about.

Flying times (QF direct) at this time of year:
SYD-CAN 50 minutes
MEL-CAN 55 minutes
ADL-CAN 75 minutes

Originally posted by Dr Diabolical
and the closest interstate team to Melbourne, so our travel schedule is better than other interstaters

No we're not - but again the figures are so marginal as to be meaningless'

SYD-MEL 90 minutes
ADL-MEL 75 minutes

Players from Adelaide. Melbourne and Sydney would typically spend more time on ground transit and waiting around at airports than they would flying between each of those cities (and Canberra).

The toughest regular travel assignments in the AFL are for the Eagles, Freo and (to a lesser extent) Brisbane.

[hammo]

The travel is put in perspective when you consider Collingwood spend 18 out of 22 weeks in Melbourne.

[nomae]

i reckon we're being a bit selfish in this thread- everyone else only gets 11 home matches so why should we get more? anyway it was more like 13 home matches for this year and the last few years considering the canberra game against the kangas. now you might say the melbourne teams get heaps of games on their own turf but we have a greater advantage because we are the only ones in sydney- it is harder to win up here than a victoria team beating another victoria team in victoria. we'll get one game in canberra next year probably so it will like 12 home games anyway. and i highly, highly doubt we will play 3 games in WA/SA next year.

and that comment on collingwood getting 18 games in victoria im sure so did the kangaroos, melbourne, essendon, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, richmond, st kilda and the doggies.

[hammo]

Originally posted by nomae
we'll get one game in canberra next year probably so it will like 12 home games anyway.

Since when is Canberra a home game? It's like saying Richmond playing in Geelong is a home game.

and i highly, highly doubt we will play 3 games in WA/SA next year.

What do you base this on?? In 2004 we played 2 matches at Subiaco and 1 at AAMI. In 2003 it was 2 at AAMI and 1 at Subi.

and that comment on collingwood getting 18 games in victoria im sure so did the kangaroos, melbourne, essendon, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, richmond, st kilda and the doggies.

You are very wrong on this one. The Kangaroos for example have played 2 matches in Perth, 2 in Adelaide and 3 in Canberra; Melbourne play AAMI once, Subi twice, Gabba and SCG; St kIlda and Hawthorn play games in Tasmania.

Collingwood and Essendon are the LEAST travelled teams in the AFL.