Disenfranchised Balmain and Magpies supporters

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #1
With the talk of club rationalisation starting up again n the AFL, I was wondering how much of the support of the old Balmain and Western Suburbs have the Wests Tigers actually been able to keep?

I presume that some Balmain or WS supporters have just lost interest, but about what proportion do you think it was?


P.S. I'm presuming no St George supporters have walked away.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BuffaloRules

All Australian
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Posts
857
Likes
7
Location
S
AFL Club
Adelaide
#2
There used to be a lot of moaning and whinging and general disharmony beween the two sgroups of supporters until last year...

Its amazing what a premiership can do...

I'd say that only the real die-hards have walked away and stayed away.... less than 10% in my opinion..probably much less..

They will average close to 20,000 crowds this year - This is roughly what balmain and wests got combined in 1999 ( last year prior to the merger).

AFL have to look at mergers between Melbourne clubs, rather than relocation interstate... It will be tough at first, but most of the fans will get used to the idea and support the merged team....
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #3
Cheers, Buffalo. (I suppose the Northern Eagles were a counter example. But they were a textbook example of how not to conduct a merger.)

I think the Melbourne Hawks would have lost a lot of Hawthorn supporters, but that’s because there wasn't going to be much Hawthorn in them.

With the success of the Wests Tigers, I think it's strange that the AFL seems to have decided that mergers aren't as good as relocations (or quasi-relocations like the Brisbane Lions).
 

BuffaloRules

All Australian
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Posts
857
Likes
7
Location
S
AFL Club
Adelaide
#4
Good point about the Northern Eagles.

Although they were neighbours, they were also arch enemies, and a merge was really never going to work...( also this was not a proper joint venture with each of the parties having a 50% stake in the team..)

It's hard enough merging anyway, without having to partner up with a team you have loathed for decades...

For this reason, St George/Cronulla, and Roosters/Souths could never work either...

I don't know enough about the AFL rivalries to suggest which Melbourne teams might be bad mergers...

Being an old Balmain Tigers supporter, I appreciated the fact that the "Tigers" name was retained, rather than the suburb name... this is probably because I am not from the area though... You have any thoughts on this??
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #6
BuffaloRules said:
It's hard enough merging anyway, without having to partner up with a team you have loathed for decades...

For this reason, St George/Cronulla, and Roosters/Souths could never work either...
I think that depends on the nature of the rivalry. Some rivalries are actually respectful (in a way). I don't think Hawthorn and North Melbourne's rivalry would sully a merger (I am NOT proposing one by the way).

I think the most important thing is that the clubs should be culturally similar (or at least compatible) and that the merged club should resemble both of them as much as possible.

Case in point: Why couldn't the Northern Eagles have been called the North Sydney Sea-eagles?
BuffaloRules said:
Being an old Balmain Tigers supporter, I appreciated the fact that the "Tigers" name was retained, rather than the suburb name... this is probably because I am not from the area though... You have any thoughts on this??
copa said:
If two teams merge.... be the team that keeps the mascot name... ie "dragons" and "tigers"...
I think that a couple of decades ago, everyone would have said that the place names was far more important than the mascot. Nowadays, not so much, but I do think AFL clubs place primary importance on their place names still (more so than NRL clubs perhaps).

Hawthorn was seen has getting a bad deal by just retaining their mascot (and also because of the jumper, colours and song).
 

Big Al

Senior List
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Posts
247
Likes
0
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Swans and Wests Tigers
#7
BuffaloRules said:
Being an old Balmain Tigers supporter, I appreciated the fact that the "Tigers" name was retained, rather than the suburb name... this is probably because I am not from the area though... You have any thoughts on this??
I'm an old Wests supporter who was happy with the merger because culturally we were a good fit with Balmain.(They were my second team). I know I was adament that I would walk away from Rugby League if we were "taken over" by the Bulldogs which was spoken about before the Balmain deal. As for the name I look at this way its better to have half of something then to have nothing at all. Go the Tigers
 

Big Al

Senior List
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Posts
247
Likes
0
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Swans and Wests Tigers
#8
MightyFighting said:
With the talk of club rationalisation starting up again n the AFL, I was wondering how much of the support of the old Balmain and Western Suburbs have the Wests Tigers actually been able to keep?

I presume that some Balmain or WS supporters have just lost interest, but about what proportion do you think it was?


P.S. I'm presuming no St George supporters have walked away.
Mergers work if they are genuine 50:50 splits and the 2 entities have similiar cultures. I am guessing from the record crowds the Wests Tigers are getting the old Wests and Balmain supporters back on board. Campbelltown after the Grand Final was going off like I've never seen it. The suburb has fully embraced the Tigers. I
 

BuffaloRules

All Australian
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Posts
857
Likes
7
Location
S
AFL Club
Adelaide
#9
MightyFighting said:
I think that a couple of decades ago, everyone would have said that the place names was far more important than the mascot. Nowadays, not so much, but I do think AFL clubs place primary importance on their place names still (more so than NRL clubs perhaps).
Maybe some AFL clubs ( Carlton for one), would rather hang onto the place name??
 

BuffaloRules

All Australian
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Posts
857
Likes
7
Location
S
AFL Club
Adelaide
#10
Big Al said:
I'm an old Wests supporter who was happy with the merger because culturally we were a good fit with Balmain.(They were my second team). I know I was adament that I would walk away from Rugby League if we were "taken over" by the Bulldogs which was spoken about before the Balmain deal. As for the name I look at this way its better to have half of something then to have nothing at all. Go the Tigers
I had a soft spot for Wests as well, and they were my "preferred" merger partner.

There were talks that Balmain were going to merge with Parramatta about the same time as Wests/Canterbury talks were going on.

If the Tigers had of merged with Parra, I still would have supported them, provided it was a genuine joint venture. Still, I am glad they hoooked up with Wests instead...:thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tigger Please!

Koo Koo Ka-Choo
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Posts
1,168
Likes
124
Location
Bourgeois Bohemia
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Wests Tigers
#12
parramatta and canterbury wanted to take over balmain and wests, which is the reason they ended up merging with eachother instead.
a balmain-wests merge would've **********ed the nrl off too, who would've prefered a parramatta-balmain merge and a canterbury-wests merge, so that would've been another incentive for balmain and wests to merge with eachother - to ********** off the nrl, lol.
most magpies fans (i would say over 95%) reluctantly embraced the merge, as we knew we were struggling both on and off the field and it was either merge or die. balmain supporters were a bit different. i would say only about 60% initially embraced the merge, and probably another 30% have embraced the wests tigers since, due to their recent success.
the wests tigers have managed to draw in the support from the macarthur region (campbelltown) that the magpies needed, and that's where their future is: campbelltown.
 

cos789

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
10,500
Likes
451
Location
Sunset Coast
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Subiaco
#13
Big Al said:
Mergers work if they are genuine 50:50 splits and the 2 entities have similiar cultures. . I
..........And win a premiership ................... Actually winning a premiership does wonders anywhere , anytime .

Like most people I thought the merger was a poor choice , but the Eels merger would've just resulted in a bigger Eels outfit , like the merger of Fitzroy and the Brisbane Lions .
Is it just me or does the Westren Tigers sound better than the stilted Wests Tigers ?
As for Melbourne and the AFL I think you will find mergers are out and relocations are in . Mergers result in at best the sum of the two followings , but decrease the number of teams and thus games per round .
Where as relocations create a new following and (at best) retain the home following resulting in a boost to overall numbers .As evidenced by the Sydney swans large Melbourne following .
As for the Melbourne AFC , the club will always have Melbourne in the title because as we all know , there's marketing money in the name Melbourne but not Hawthorn .Note WCE tried to change to Perth Eagles and the Western Reds went to Perth Reds .(OK so they probably had change anyway )


.
 
Top Bottom