Roos warns of Sydney "catastrophe"

[Bear]

How many people from Sydney's western suburbs do you believe will join the new franchise in it's first year of existence?

You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking this needs to be a massive success in year 1. You need to start thinking outside the square - if that is at all possible, mate.

That's not the strategy of the AFL nor should it be. It is about having a meaningful presence in the largest population base in Australia. Something for the young kids to follow and grow up with. It is medium/long term planning.

It is not about converting leaguies, but there will be some who will take an interest.

FWIW, a membership in Western Sydney of 10,000 in year 1 would be very good and very achievable... growing to 25,000 over a decade. Plus Canberra and you have a very sustainable franchise, but it will require solid promotional and grass roots support in its infancy. The AFL has learnt the lessons from the disgraceful treatment and neglect of the Swans in the first 15 years and will not make the same mistakes.

[Bear]

How many people from Sydney's western suburbs do you believe will join the new franchise in it's first year of existence?

Not only will the WSFC have 10,000 members in year 1, but the Swans membership will also go up due to the new rivalry and doubling of promotion and grass roots involvement around AFL football right across Sydney.

We will all win.

[Cheer Squad]

FWIW, a membership in Western Sydney of 10,000 in year 1 would be very good and very achievable... growing to 25,000 over a decade.

And all this time I thought you were serious!

[Bear]

You're easily amused!

[Cheer Squad]

You're easily amused!

[Bear]

A new club is the only way to double TV ratings in Sydney

Sydney viewer lapse no block to AFL club

I know some will see this as a reason not to go ahead with the new club... but I see this as one of the major reasons to go ahead ASAP. The Swans and therefore the AFL have plateaud in terms of interest and we are doing it VERY tough on our own in this city in the face of so many other code franchises.

Does anyone agree with me that this new franchise is the only realistic way to get significantly broader interest across Sydney for AFL football? Especially whilst we are never bottoming out then topping up with exciting players like Nic Natanui. Not to mention our less-than-exciting style.

I believe it is the only way to get more people interested across Sydney, leading to a doubling of TV ratings and other KPIs in 5 years.

[Vonsteinman]

Mate, I agree that a viable, well-supported club will benefit the Swans and - obviously - the code in the long run.

I really hope you have a much better, more accurate idea than I of how the team will go, if as it seems the AFL is to forge ahead.

I have serious doubts that it will garner the levels of support that you predicted in another thread however.

10,000 members in the first year and a further 15,000 a decade on seems completely off the wall as a prediction.

Without delving too far into the debate over last year's Homebush final again, if I was part of the group pushing for the west Sydney team, I'd have been slashing my wrists over the lack of interest in that game.

Now, I'll qualify that by saying I don't live in NSW and never have so perhaps I don't have a feeling of what it's like "on the ground" in the west of Sydney.

Maybe there is an underground sect of AFL diehards, who can't stand the Swans, just waiting for the rise of a cross-town rival for whom they will pledge hard-earned $$ in the first year of operation, then convince their mates to get on board in the years following...

As far as the TV rating go.... perhaps, if there's that kamikaze cooking show (or whatever it is that supposedly outrates the Swans broadcasts over there) running in the top corner of the screen...... maybe then you will see double the ratings.

[floppinab]

Very interesting to see the honchos sidling up to the ACT in recent weeks. Giving a distinct feel that the AFL now thinking including the ACT into the new clubs picture being seen as a requirement to increase the chances of it's viability.

What's the chance of them being called the Pollies!!!! A real danger of them creating a team trying to be all things to all people........... and end up being nothing to no one.

[Cardinal]

Very interesting to see the honchos sidling up to the ACT in recent weeks. Giving a distinct feel that the AFL now thinking including the ACT into the new clubs picture being seen as a requirement to increase the chances of it's viability.

What's the chance of them being called the Pollies!!!! A real danger of them creating a team trying to be all things to all people........... and end up being nothing to no one.

If we call them the politicians the AFL could be setting up a team as (almost) hated asCollingwood. That would do wonders for ratings. Unfortunately the mascot wouldn't be as applicable for Western Sydney.

[pinkemu]

Very interesting to see the honchos sidling up to the ACT in recent weeks. Giving a distinct feel that the AFL now thinking including the ACT into the new clubs picture being seen as a requirement to increase the chances of it's viability.

What's the chance of them being called the Pollies!!!! A real danger of them creating a team trying to be all things to all people........... and end up being nothing to no one.

Or maybe the ACT "Porn & Crackers" or ACT "Junkets"

That would make us envious.

[10Totti10]

I think the lack of viewers is because not enough live games r being shown. Only 1 or 2 night games have been played live, and no one is going to watch it when its not live. Plus in the afternoon, some people are at work so its tough. If Demetriou wants to get it up he has to get more live games over here. Also the promotion of games has been rubbish. Can't remember the last time I saw an ad promoting a swans game.

[giant]

Does anyone have stats on what the Swans or Lions member numbers looked like in their early days? Might be an interesting perspective.

I applaud the AFL's bravery but this all looks like a very big ask to me.

[SwansFan1972]

Demetriou wrong-footed as ACT plays hard ball - RFNews - realfooty.com.au

The funniest thing about this article is the ACT chesting up to the AFL and telling it how to suck eggs.

Would love to have been in the room to see Vlad's reaction.

Assuming the AFL were to bend over, so to speak, to these demands (which is highly unlikely, based on the personalities involved) one of the most interesting elements was that the ACT is expecting up to six "home games" from the new franchise.

"The Government also wants a separate playing jumper for use at Canberra home games, of which there could be up to half a dozen each year."

If that happens, the "AFL in Sydney every week" raison d'etre is on shaky ground already. The ACT govt aren't talking about taking some of "the new franchise's" (since the story implies even the name WS is a potential bargaining chip) away games.

So we have "the new franchise" with a foot in each place, splitting games, and wearing different jumpers depending on where the "home game" is. So much for giving the good people of the west a team of their own.

These stories show just how malleable the AFL might ultimately be when determining the final make up of how "the new franchise" might run. Basically, anything and everything is possible - but if some of the ideas wanted by the ACT get up, then the risk is it will satisfy no-one.

The reason arrangements such as the Hawks in Tassie and Dogs in Darwin work is that there are enough readily accessible away games in their home town for fans to get to. I'm not sure, but I think Melbourne based members of the Hawks can go to some away games in Melbourne for free to compensate for the lost home games. Not sure what the Dogs do for the Darwin game.
But even if their members don't get compensated, it is only $20 for a walk up ticket at the G, tickets for which would be readily available for all bar the biggest blockbuster games.

If "the new franchise" gives up three, four, five (or in the ACT's wildest dreams, six home games), then the new AFL product on offer in Sydney is already compromised.

If nothing else, it is interesting to see stories such as this cause arguments to swing around wildly. Not too long ago, WS residents couldn't be bothered to go cross town to watch the game at the SCG. According to some, those same immovables are now going to be happy to travel 3 hours to Manuka to watch games.

Harking back to a former successful AFL promo, "I'd like to see that!"

[Bear]

Without delving too far into the debate over last year's Homebush final again, if I was part of the group pushing for the west Sydney team, I'd have been slashing my wrists over the lack of interest in that game.

Why would you slash your wrists over one game that was a clear abboration?

It was perfect storm based on shocking weather all week, low drawing opponent, high ticket prices, large stadium many Swans fans do not like to travel to, grinding style of football not bringing in the theatre-goers...

Even Ricky Pointing who is NM's 1# ticketholder was in town and didn't go, and his excuse to Glenn Archer was "the weather"!!!

Some perspective is required.

[Bear]

Demetriou wrong-footed as ACT plays hard ball - RFNews - realfooty.com.au

The funniest thing about this article is the ACT chesting up to the AFL and telling it how to suck eggs.

Assuming the AFL were to bend over, so to speak, to these demands (which is highly unlikely, based on the personalities involved) one of the most interesting elements was that the ACT is expecting up to six "home games" from the new franchise.

If that happens, the "AFL in Sydney every week" raison d'etre is on shaky ground already. The ACT govt aren't talking about taking some of "the new franchise's" (since the story implies even the name WS is a potential bargaining chip) away games.

So we have "the new franchise" with a foot in each place, splitting games, and wearing different jumpers depending on where the "home game" is. So much for giving the good people of the west a team of their own.

The ACT Government didn't tell AD to "suck eggs". They told him they want to come in with a bigger bang and to give meaningless pre-season games a miss in the short term. AD would be very happy - they have demonstrated a long term support for AFL football with (say) 2 home and 2 away RAMS games - but good try.

On the one hand you say the AFL won't accept the "6 home games" demands and on the other hand you're all doom and gloom based on the fact that they will!

Trying to have it both ways means you're the one on shakey ground.

In any case, just wait for the facts rather than beleiving everything you read.

Not sure what the Dogs do for the Darwin game.

There's quite a few things you're not sure about...