Expansion Expansion Clubs - 4 year health check

[medusala]

We're happy to take one for the good of the game.

That's the question though, isn't it? Is the existence of GWS good for the game? That's very debatable and I think there is a pretty decent argument to say the cost/benefit was never going to stack up. Vlad no doubt paid some consultancy firm top $ to come up with great power point presentation with the word deomographics in bold and silly little font like euphemia and he swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Not of course that a bonus linked to tv rights would have entered Vlad's mind.

NFL/Boston Consulting and the Geelong President argument, he was the former managing partner of BC Australia, Colin Carter... just send them to Tabliabeau and the NFL hq and get it done

Posted before I read that. BCG. No surprise. They would have charged like a wounded bull.

Vlad wouldn't have been up to it, lucky to beat Wayne Swan at connect 3.

 

[Gigantor]

Hawthorn had also existed for thirty years prior to entering the VFL in a completely different era that is in no way comparable to the league that GWS entered. Nor are the conditions of entry or the concessions granted to GWS anything like what Hawthorn received. Its a rubbish comparison.

Many people believe they can learn nothing from history.

They are usually wrong.

Of course times are different, contexts are different, but one thing remains unchanged - don't judge at the end of the first 3 years. That is a rubbish thing to do.

By the way, how well do you know your pre-VFL Hawthorn history? I trust you're aware that they have a completely different history to either of North or Footscray (which actually makes them more comparable to GWS than you might first believe).

 

[medusala]

Many people believe they can learn nothing from history.

They are usually wrong.

Yes, we can learn from history. Putting a new franchise in a territory where that sport isn't played (or to a very small extent) usually ends in disaster/ very large losses. Naturally there will be exceptions but in this case one would think it will come down to how much the AFL is prepared to lose in order to claim success.

 

[Gigantor]

That's the question though, isn't it? Is the existence of GWS good for the game? That's very debatable and I think there is a pretty decent argument to say the cost/benefit was never going to stack up. Vlad no doubt paid some consultancy firm top $ to come up with great power point presentation with the word deomographics in bold and silly little font like euphemia and he swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Not of course that a bonus linked to tv rights would have entered Vlad's mind.



Posted before I read that. BCG. No surprise. They would have charged like a wounded bull.

Vlad wouldn't have been up to it, lucky to beat Wayne Swan at connect 3.

The modern Australian sporting landscape is such that it's very dangerous to judge solely on pure growth.

The landscape is such that just maintaining your market share can be viewed as a massive win.

 

[The_Wookie]

Many people believe they can learn nothing from history.

They are usually wrong.

People who think they can ignore history are generally wrong too.

Of course times are different, contexts are different, but one thing remains unchanged - don't judge at the end of the first 3 years. That is a rubbish thing to do.

When did dont judge at the end of three years become a rule? Its been four years since the club entered its first AFL season.

People can judge whatever they like. Lots of people are critical of the amount of money and resources that are being put into a club that a lot of people dont feel should exist in the first place. Those criticisms arent entirely without foundation, since when compared to the Suns, the amount of AFL expenditure is increasing, not decreasing. You might not like it, but hey we dont always get what we want in life.

By the way, how well do you know your pre-VFL Hawthorn history? I trust you're aware that they have a completely different history to either of North or Footscray (which actually makes them more comparable to GWS than you might first believe).

There is no comparison with Hawthorns formation and history you can make with GWS. None.

 

[Gigantor]

Yes, we can learn from history. Putting a new franchise in a territory where that sport isn't played (or to a very small extent) usually ends in disaster/ very large losses. Naturally there will be exceptions but in this case one would think it will come down to how much the AFL is prepared to lose in order to claim success.

Is that the experience in the AFL?

The Sydney Swans took about 15 years to come good, but they eventually did (and many would argue that the bulk of their support remains in the Eastern and Northern suburbs).

Brisbane took a couple of goes, but eventually forged a permanent presence.

The Suns and Giants may never reach the same level - but do they need to to be deemed a good decision?

Don't judge now - judge in 35 years.

Furthermore, haven't they both already paid their way with a $2.5 billion deal for the next six years based on 9 games per round?

With interest even.

 

[blackcat]

Is that the experience in the AFL?

The Sydney Swans took about 15 years to come good, but they eventually did (and many would argue that the bulk of their support remains in the Eastern and Northern suburbs).

Brisbane took a couple of goes, but eventually forged a permanent presence.

The Suns and Giants may never reach the same level - but do they need to to be deemed a good decision?

Don't judge now - judge in 35 years.

Furthermore, haven't they both already paid their way with a $2.5 billion deal for the next six years based on 9 games per round?

With interest even.

the fairfax economist <meds will sfellow> put it in real terms... the growth was basically plateau, normalised for CPI...

 

[jatz14]

Yes, we can learn from history. Putting a new franchise in a territory where that sport isn't played (or to a very small extent) usually ends in disaster/ very large losses. Naturally there will be exceptions but in this case one would think it will come down to how much the AFL is prepared to lose in order to claim success.

If that was the case, no sport would grow beyond its heartland.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Gigantor]

There is no comparison with Hawthorns formation and history you can make with GWS. None.

There is.

As I said, Hawthorn was a completely different situation to North and Footscray, who had both dominated the VFA following the creation of the VFL.

In fact, Hawthorn had only played a handful of seasons in the VFA when it was accepted into the VFL. It had even missed out on the VFA finals in 1924 (the year before it entered the VFL).

It was not accepted into the VFL because of its history as a successful club.

Why was it accepted?

Think about why the AFL placed its 18th team in Western Sydney - and you will have your answer.

The lessons of history are not always obvious - sometimes you need to scratch the surface a little to appreciate the learning.

Sometimes you need to open your eyes a little - be prepared to learn.

History is a great teacher.

 

[medusala]

If that was the case, no sport would grow beyond its heartland.

Many don't. See Rugby league in the UK. How did league expansion go in Oz?

Furthermore, haven't they both already paid their way with a $2.5 billion deal for the next six years based on 9 games per round?

With interest even.

How much of that deal was due to them? How many additional viewers did GWS bring? On what basis would a third Perth team or a Tas team not produced a similar or even better tv deal?

the fairfax economist <meds will sfellow> put it in real terms... the growth was basically plateau, normalised for CPI...

Remember Tooheys trying to expand in Melbourne? No growth in beer market so aggressively expand in Melbourne via buying pubs and sponsorship etc. Didn't go so well.

Bet consulting mob came out with that cunning plan too.

 

[The_Wookie]

There is.

As I said, Hawthorn was a completely different situation to North and Footscray, who had both dominated the VFA following the creation of the VFL.

In fact, Hawthorn had only played a handful of seasons in the VFA when it was accepted into the VFL. It had even missed out on the VFA finals in 1924 (the year before it entered the VFL).

10 years in the VFA v GWS none at all, and Hawthorn had existed in one form or another since 1902.

It was not accepted into the VFL because of its history as a successful club.

Success was not - and has never been - a requirement for entry in the VFL/AFL.

Why was it accepted?

Think about why the AFL placed its 18th team in Western Sydney - and you will have your answer.

The lessons of history are not always obvious - sometimes you need to scratch the surface a little to appreciate the learning.

Sometimes you need to open your eyes a little - be prepared to learn.

History is a great teacher.

Thanks for the History lesson, because I never read numerous histories of the game or anything.

Reasons for admission notwithstanding, the comparison with GWS is utter crap.

Hawthorn was not an artificial creation of the league in a market that neither wanted, needed or asked for it. Hawthorn was not created with League money and did not require millions in league funds (or 1920's comparitive amounts) to get off the ground. Neither were Hawthorn granted concessions, academies, expanded lists and league staff, and the Hawks did not benefit from the League providing it with sponsorship partners. Neither was the league required to spend tens of millions laying the ground work in the state for Hawthorn prior to being setup, as opposed to GWS for whom planning and development began 14 years before it played its first game in the AFL.

 

[jatz14]

Many don't. See Rugby league in the UK. How did league expansion go in Oz?



How much of that deal was due to them? How many additional viewers did GWS bring? On what basis would a third Perth team or a Tas team not produced a similar or even better tv deal?



Remember Tooheys trying to expand in Melbourne? No growth in beer market so aggressively expand in Melbourne via buying pubs and sponsorship etc. Didn't go so well.

Bet consulting mob came out with that cunning plan too.

I would see that as an argument for expansion. All the strongest sports expanded to new markets. To see the possibility of failure as a reason to not try is crazy. Your example of league as a sport that failed to expand is just odd, considering it started in the Midlands of England, but today the strongest league is in Australia. I would suggest that if it truly hadn't expanded to new regions it may well have died, or been relegated to an obscure novelty sport.

Using Tooheys as an example also is odd. That what they tried failed does not justify an argument that they should not have tried. Maybe they just should have tried harder.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[blackcat]

Remember Tooheys trying to expand in Melbourne? No growth in beer market so aggressively expand in Melbourne via buying pubs and sponsorship etc. Didn't go so well.

Bet consulting mob came out with that cunning plan too.

I think it was those accountants who did Ansett Korda Mentha, or Ernst Young conculting division.... think Korda and Mentha were still at EY then, previously they were Andersens beancounters, they evidently like failed businesses

 

[Blueyboy74]

Is that the experience in the AFL?

The Sydney Swans took about 15 years to come good, but they eventually did (and many would argue that the bulk of their support remains in the Eastern and Northern suburbs).

Come good? The AFL has been funding them from day dot.

Brisbane took a couple of goes, but eventually forged a permanent presence.

And are now broke and being propped up by the AFL despite winning 3 flags only this century.

The Suns and Giants may never reach the same level - but do they need to to be deemed a good decision?

Don't judge now - judge in 35 years.

35 years ... surely you jest?

Furthermore, haven't they both already paid their way with a $2.5 billion deal for the next six years based on 9 games per round?

With interest even.

That's garbage. Even without GWS the rights would have been significantly north of $2billion.

Yes it would be nice to crack the Western Sydney market but at what cost?? All the money currently being spent on the GWS is money that could be directed elsewhere, be that to other clubs in traditional areas, or junior development, schools, country leagues, a Tasmanian side etc, noneof which wouldn't disenfranchise the Victorian heartland like it is now - at a cost far greater than you can imagine.

It's such a massive risk that we didn't need to take except to satisfy Vlad's massive ego. Soccer will always be no.1 west of Sydney and taking 10% of that market will mean squat if it costs the AFL a fortune to keep them afloat each year and means losing 20% of Victorian supporters.

 

[Colonial]

Why was my positive post deleted?

So the negative nancies have invaded the mods to?

How sad.

 

[Colonial]

So vics not going to a game is the Giants fault?

Bahahahahaha

 

[Gigantor]

Hawthorn was not an artificial creation of the league in a market that neither wanted, needed or asked for it. Hawthorn was not created with League money and did not require millions in league funds (or 1920's comparitive amounts) to get off the ground. Neither were Hawthorn granted concessions, academies, expanded lists and league staff, and the Hawks did not benefit from the League providing it with sponsorship partners. Neither was the league required to spend tens of millions laying the ground work in the state for Hawthorn prior to being setup, as opposed to GWS for whom planning and development began 14 years before it played its first game in the AFL.

When the VFL expanded from 9 to 12 clubs, North and Footscray were obvious choices because they had been strong VFA clubs.

Hawthorn was not chosen for that reason, they were anything but a strong club (at that time). They had had no success in the VFA, may have made finals once. They were hopeless in the VFL for the first 30 or so years.

The VFL could have chosen any number of clubs, and indeed a stack of stronger VFA clubs were considered.

They went with Hawthorn, and if you place yourself in Melbourne in 1924, place yourself in the then structure of the VFL in 1924, consider what they were considering in 1924, then I say to you that the reason they chose Hawthorn is the exact same reason that the AFL of 2010 would choose to place a club in Western Sydney.

The reason is identical.

Do not view the 1924 decision in 2010 eyes.

You must put yourself in their shoes at that time to see the analogy as clearly as I am able to do.

 

[Gigantor]

I'm not sure if anyone can argue that the Swans have not been successful in penetrating the Sydney market.

Brisbane has struggled for 8 years or so, but in one sense, the support they receive in poor years should be viewed as mark of permanency, not a reason for concern.

Likewise, both the Suns and Giants have never made finals.

The level of Suns' support is fantastic under those circumstances, especially in what is normally a difficult market for sports teams.

The Giants can replicate the Suns' support, which is a more than acceptable result.

$2.5 billion says it's all worth it.

Let us all reconvene in 35 years time and ask the question then.

Vision people, it's about vision, it's about the next century - not this one.

 

[The_Wookie]

When the VFL expanded from 9 to 12 clubs, North and Footscray were obvious choices because they had been strong VFA clubs.

Hawthorn was not chosen for that reason, they were anything but a strong club (at that time). They had had no success in the VFA, may have made finals once. They were hopeless in the VFL for the first 30 or so years.

The VFL could have chosen any number of clubs, and indeed a stack of stronger VFA clubs were considered.

They went with Hawthorn, and if you place yourself in Melbourne in 1924, place yourself in the then structure of the VFL in 1924, consider what they were considering in 1924, then I say to you that the reason they chose Hawthorn is the exact same reason that the AFL of 2010 would choose to place a club in Western Sydney.

The reason is identical.

Do not view the 1924 decision in 2010 eyes.

You must put yourself in their shoes at that time to see the analogy as clearly as I am able to do.

And without any bias right Mr. GWS supporter?

Im not judging the reason for the teams existence - you're the one who trudged that into this argument for some reason. I couldnt give a hoot about 1924 in the context of this utterly irrelevant discussion on Hawthorns entry into the VFL compared to how GWS are doing. The reasons might be the same, but the HOW is so different that it makes the comparison ludicrous and nothing more than a red herring - you do this a lot in your hyper defensive mode when it comes to GWS.

Im judging the methodology behind the setup of the team and the results as they come in. Ive never disagreed with the reason, although Im not so sure that GWS will exist in 20 years. And presently, using more AFL funding annually than ANY team before it with no sign of it decreasing any time soon. GWS is going to be a financial burden on the league for a very long time.

The Giants can replicate the Suns' support, which is a more than acceptable result.

Im far from convinced thats going to be the case. At the moment the actual figures arent even close, regardless of what the membership numbers are being reported as, revenues are FAR from close.

Let us all reconvene in 35 years time and ask the question then.

No. I think Ill ask the questions now. And every year until they actually get down to the same level of funding as other AFL sides.

Vision people, it's about vision, it's about the next century - not this one.

Its about not being blind to the pitfalls of expansion and afl expenditure too.

 

[Colonial]

Yeah, there's never any bias or outlandish statements about the Northern Clubs from traditional club supporters are there Wookie....

I think waiting 35 years is a bit much. But from the beginning the AFL has said it was a 20 year plan. They havent been caught unawares, despite the scaremongers thoughts
The club is growing every year and is growing the game in the biggest region in the country.

But hey let the clubs who have been at the bottom for decades blame a 4 year old club for their woes. Makes em look foolish.

 

[Gigantor]

Just a reminder that Hawthorn was a basket case in the VFL for its first 30+ years in the comp - but who would argue now that it wasn't a good idea letting Hawthorn into the comp back in 1924?

Can the Giants do a little better in its first 30 years?

I think it can.

I'm looking at our current memberships numbers: 7,500 compared to just under 6,000 this time last year, from a club which has never played finals, in a new market - we can't do much more than to continue showing growth.

I also make a prediction that the three Manuka games this year will push 40,000 in total.

We cannot do much more than to continue showing growth.

Let us all be patient - let us all reconvene in 35 years time.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yeah, there's never any bias or outlandish statements about the Northern Clubs from traditional club supporters are there Wookie....

its called whataboutism, and the GWS guys here are very good at it. No matter how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand. Ive defended your right to defend your club on any number of occasions, it doesnt mean people dont have legitimate concerns about the financial state of GWS.

I think waiting 35 years is a bit much. But from the beginning the AFL has said it was a 20 year plan. They havent been caught unawares, despite the scaremongers thoughts. The club is growing every year and is growing the game in the biggest region in the country.

The club isnt actually growing every year. Membership and merchandise revenues dropped 22% from 2013-2014 (300k), Sponsorship dropped 15% (1.3 million) to 7.8 million. Memberships may have grown by 2.83% in 2014, but the corresponding revenue dropped. Crowds were up at Spotless, but down at Manuka and down overall.

But hey let the clubs who have been at the bottom for decades blame a 4 year old club for their woes. Makes em look foolish.

the clubs arent complaining in this thread, and no one in this thread is blaming GWS for their clubs financial troubles.

 

[Colonial]

its called whataboutism, and the GWS guys here are very good at it. No matter how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand. Ive defended your right to defend your club on any number of occasions, it doesnt mean people dont have legitimate concerns about the financial state of GWS.



The club isnt actually growing every year. Membership and merchandise revenues dropped 22% from 2013-2014 (300k), Sponsorship dropped 15% (1.3 million) to 7.8 million. Memberships may have grown by 2.83% in 2014, but the corresponding revenue dropped. Crowds were up at Spotless, but down at Manuka and down overall.



the clubs arent complaining in this thread, and no one in this thread is blaming GWS for their clubs financial troubles.

Whataboutism? Yeah true we can be defensive, its a bit hard when whats allowed on the main board for tradional clubs is completely different to us and the suns.
Its basically untraditionalist not to wish death on my club. Where as do it for any other and the hounds of hell are called down on you.

Our memberships have been going up. We had larger crowds in 2015 and the juniors playing aussie rules in western sydney are all up. The fact we have all young familues at our club show the reasoning behind a 20 year club proposition.


Yeah umm am not going back through the entire thread but theres been many a post about the money & draft picks going to the Giants and Suns would better for the poor vic clubs or even tassie.

 

[Gigantor]

Whataboutism? Yeah true we can be defensive, its a bit hard when whats allowed on the main board for tradional clubs is completely different to us and the suns.
Its basically untraditionalist not to wish death on my club. Where as do it for any other and the hounds of hell are called down on you.

Our memberships have been going up. We had larger crowds in 2015 and the juniors playing aussie rules in western sydney are all up. The fact we have all young familues at our club show the reasoning behind a 20 year club proposition.


Yeah umm am not going back through the entire thread but theres been many a post about the money & draft picks going to the Giants and Suns would better for the poor vic clubs or even tassie.

All very good points, and serves as a good contrast against the short-termism and narrow-mindedness often displayed in these sorts of threads.

I mean fairdinkum, there's a Hawthorn supporter worried about hand-outs while they bleed the Tasmanian treasury dry of money they don't have.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, we can learn from history. Putting a new franchise in a territory where that sport isn't played (or to a very small extent) usually ends in disaster/ very large losses. Naturally there will be exceptions but in this case one would think it will come down to how much the AFL is prepared to lose in order to claim success.

Did the AFL have a choice?
Would the NRL have moved past them with 3 of the top 4 TV markets in their pockets?

One mistake was not stripping two of the Melbourne clubs of their licences in one way or another. Stem the losses at these clubs that haven't been rescued by pokies, direct that money into Q & NSW where our game does not have the rusted on support of our traditional markets - the game needs to be attractive enough to attract new followers, the path followed by both the Suns & Giants (loading up with kids in the hope of success in years 5-10) has failed so far.

We'd have stronger playing lists that's a reality.