GWS AFL Basketcase

Remove this Banner Ad

tassielions

tassielions

Debutant
Nov 12, 2009
122
35
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
What do we think about the crowd GWS got today at Blacktown. I remember we got critisized for having low crowds in our final year at the Western Oval.
 
6,875. Pathetic.

And the AFL are currently ploughing such obscene resources into those two absurd franchises - GW$ and G€, but won't bring themselves to find a tiny fraction of that sort of money to restore Fitzroy to our rightful place in the league.

IMO, in a hypothetical scenario where we were back in the league and were playing at a redeveloped Junction Oval, our home crowds would be at least 3 times that, or more.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Wonaeamirri33 said:
6,875. Pathetic.

And the AFL are currently ploughing such obscene resources into those two absurd franchises - GW$ and G€, but won't bring themselves to find a tiny fraction of that sort of money to restore Fitzroy to our rightful place in the league.

IMO, in a hypothetical scenario where we were back in the league and were playing at a redeveloped Junction Oval, our home crowds would be at least 3 times that, or more.
Click to expand...

In such a situation, you wouldnt be playing at the Junction Oval - you'd be playing at Docklands, just like everyone else.

25k would also probably be your ceiling, and you'd be going after the same pool of sponsors and fans as North, Footscray, St Kilda and so on.

While I think the league should have gutsed it out and kept the Bears and Fitzroy, I understand why they didnt.
 
7,000 for their first home game against someone other than Sydney - it is not exactly unexpected but it makes you think how are things going to go towards the end of the year when they have been thrashed almost every week?

- Round 19 vs. Port is one to pencil in for perhaps the record low AFL crowd

Add to that they have only 8,400 members - the majority of which are apparently from Canberra where they will play 3 home games. Again it is not that bad, all things considering. But it is nowhere near what is necessary to sustain an AFL team these days.

Vlad and the other pompous w***ers in the AFL must be squirming in their seats at the moment. How they could allow GWS and GC to set up in a manner that would mean they were largely uncompetitive for 2-3 years is unfathomable. The whole perhaps of giving so many concessions was that they weren't going to turn into a Bears basket case.

Well, both clubs have put almost all of their eggs in the youth basket - banking on the glory in 4-6 years, leaving the AFL to stupidly carry the can in the meantime.

As Brian Cook from Geelong says, the AFL are going to have spend countless millions propping up both clubs for many more years than they expected, which will mean they have less money available to help out other struggling clubs in the competition (for instance - Port, Brisbane, Bulldogs, Melbourne, North - just to name a few). And due to GWS and GC probably finishing down the bottom each year they will get the best draft picks - and possibly even priority selections as well - keeping the other struggling clubs from rebuilding.

The AFL has made its bed they will have to deal with it. Have fun with that Vlad.
 
I understand the AFL will spend 200 million dollars on GWS and the region of Western Sydney over 5 years.

Judging by that woeful attendance at their first actual home match, at their own ground, they will need it.

It really is a pathetic crowd, which seems to have been overlooked by the AFL (no surprise) and the media. But then again, the club is effectively run by the AFL (CEO an AFL employee) and the media, well, they are also in bed with the AFL, directly or indirectly.

How many of the crowd of 6,875 were either members or paid at the gate??

I suspect a large number of 'FREE TICKETS' would have also been given away, which makes the attendance even more embarassing....
 
Mark my words, GWS will not last more than 10 years. 6,875 says it all really - the people in the area just aren't interested. The majority of those fans in attendence would have received free tickets. The team is nothing short of a joke; an overrated hack like Tom Scully on the same coin as a champion like Ablett......you idiots.
 
The AFL will have a dilemma when the next tv rights deal comes around, there is no doubt that they will be pumping around $10M a year into GWS over and above what they spend on Marketing and the redevelopment of the Bankstown ground.

Sydney crowds are known for not being willing to turn up to watch losing teams, in the early 90s when Sydney was terrible they were lucky to get 10,000 to a game. Considering GWS is in the heart of league terriotory and the only other sport that stands a chance involves a round ball, I expect crowds to drop off and they'll be lucky to get 5,000.
 
BLPC08 said:
Mark my words, GWS will not last more than 10 years. 6,875 says it all really - the people in the area just aren't interested. The majority of those fans in attendence would have received free tickets. The team is nothing short of a joke; an overrated hack like Tom Scully on the same coin as a champion like Ablett......you idiots.
Click to expand...

The AFL will not let them fold, Vlad just seems desperate for GWS to work and to extinguish rugby league at all costs.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You were conned. At least with us, minus all the arrogant rubbish that went on at the time, you'd have a Melbourne based club that would retain Fitzroy's Melbourne culture and where they came from and the entire history of the club. How the hell can you do that in Brisbane? They're just taking the piss out of you guys. If it meant putting the FFC on the jumper and adjusting the colours a little I'd go along with it.
 
On the back of impressive crowd numbers at Port Adelaide's initial home matches, I recall numerous media commentaries justifying their inclusion at the expense of the Roys. Time, nonetheless, tells a different story. Accordingly I'm not prepared to judge GWS' low crowd figures at this moment. All the same I do appreciate the viewpoints of previous posters and similarly am bemused by the monies the AFL have directed to GWS and the Gold Coast given historic (that being mid-1990's) strategic approaches.
 
Wonaeamirri33 said:
Correction. The AFL will try to keep them alive for as long as possible. But fold they will.
Click to expand...

Possibly re-branded and sent off to Tasmania with a full compliment of players who can be competitive from day 1. At least, my guess is that Tassie won't get a team of its own until the AFL has made a decision on the viability of GWS.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

As unjustified as killing Fitzroy was, it had nothing to do with the current administration. I don't like Vlad, but it's unfair to heap the death of Fitzroy on his leadership. You can't really compare the inclusion of GWS and the exclusion of Fitzroy.

In the 1990s, the AFL was a different beast under a different man. That AFL was about purging clubs for a stronger competition. The current suits are about keeping clubs, expansion, and the growth of the entire code. How many clubs are getting payouts these days? If the Roys still existed, you'd be netting payouts – not being denied them at all costs.
 
Silent Alarm said:
As unjustified as killing Fitzroy was, it had nothing to do with the current administration. I don't like Vlad, but it's unfair to heap the death of Fitzroy on his leadership. You can't really compare the inclusion of GWS and the exclusion of Fitzroy.

In the 1990s, the AFL was a different beast under a different man. That AFL was about purging clubs for a stronger competition. The current suits are about keeping clubs, expansion, and the growth of the entire code. How many clubs are getting payouts these days? If the Roys still existed, you'd be netting payouts – not being denied them at all costs.
Click to expand...

What he said.

GWS are going to succeed. But like the Swans, it will take 20 years.

Regrettably, Fitzroy were *not* allowed to do the right thing for the game of Australian Rules, which was to play 6 games a year in Canberra. This would have been great for everyone concerned, and would have been their survival margin, and today we would have the Fitzroy Lions and the Brisbane Bears.
 
IanW said:
Regrettably, Fitzroy were *not* allowed to do the right thing for the game of Australian Rules, which was to play 6 games a year in Canberra. This would have been great for everyone concerned, and would have been their survival margin, and today we would have the Fitzroy Lions and the Brisbane Bears.
Click to expand...

Obviously I've never supported the GWS move, I've made my reasons pretty clear on that, and I doubt I ever will.

But I absolutely applaud Ian's contribution to our discussion here - ditto for recent contributions he's made on the Demons board as well :thumbsu:

And of course, prior to the Canberra plan, if Fitzroy's move into Tasmania back in 1992 had been supported by the AFL in the same way as the move Hawthorn made in that direction afterwards, and now the move being made by North Melbourne, that too would have secured our future as a club.

The AFL's actions in regards to both our Tasmania and Canberra moves obviously being just two decisions amongst numerous deliberate steps taken under Oakley, Samuel & co, either actively, or passively, which were designed to white-ant us out of the league...
 
Silent Alarm said:
As unjustified as killing Fitzroy was, it had nothing to do with the current administration. I don't like Vlad, but it's unfair to heap the death of Fitzroy on his leadership. You can't really compare the inclusion of GWS and the exclusion of Fitzroy.

In the 1990s, the AFL was a different beast under a different man. That AFL was about purging clubs for a stronger competition.
Click to expand...

People seem to think that the current AFL is somehow different to previous iterations; but it most certainly isn't. It's still just as arrogant, secretive and self-serving.End of the day, Demetriou got the job because he matched the ideals, values and ethics of the AFL (which isn't a compliment), not because he was going to alter its agenda or be a softer touch than Oakley. The only reason we see hand-outs given to the clubs is because the AFL finally realised it was the traditional Victorian ones that kept it afloat. The WA and SA teams do great business in their own states but outside of that, in the biggest tv markets, they constitute ratings suicide (and tv does very much drive the AFL). That's the only reason for setting up GWS. It's got nothing to do with 'growing the game' and everything to do with increasing the AFL revenue by making inroads in the biggest tv marketplace.

Also, I think the notion that the competition is stronger than it was prior to the inclusion of interstate teams is one of the AFL's greatest myths. Some clubs might be healthier financially but, apart from Collingwood, not the ones that were struggling prior to the expanded competition. Traditionally unsuccessful clubs might have had some success in the finals but that's due to the draft, not an expanded competition. Skills might be better, but that's got nothing to do with an expanded competition. What has happened is that the WA and SA competitions have been decimated, just as country football in Victoria has suffered and the actual strength of the AFL game has been diminished by spreading the most elite players over more teams. Simply put, if you lost the interstate clubs the competition wouldn't miss a beat. The only thing you'd lose out on is money from tv rights which would, naturally, be reduced - but not by as much as people might think.
 
AndrewD said:
People seem to think that the current AFL is somehow different to previous iterations; but it most certainly isn't. It's still just as arrogant, secretive and self-serving.
Click to expand...

This is painfully true.

If the current AFL was indeed different, it would be allocating a tiny fraction of the amazing money currently being ploughed into West Sydney and the Gold Coast to help the Roys return to our rightful place in the league, as I said before.

A step they could take relatively easily, with comparatively little financial investment needed, which would pay for itself pretty quickly, and bring thousands of supporters back to the competition in the process.

And if there was to be a further expansion outside Victoria, Tasmania would have been the first choice, given the overwhelming support within Tasmania for their entry into the AFL. If this was an AFL administration that truly served the public interest, that is.
 
AndrewD said:
That's the only reason for setting up GWS. It's got nothing to do with 'growing the game' and everything to do with increasing the AFL revenue by making inroads in the biggest tv marketplace.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. If this was true, and it's not, then why has the AFL assisted bringing two Sydney sides into the national second-tier competition, as well as the two AFL reserves sides ?

Thats about forty jobs for semi-professional Australian Rules players in Sydney, meaning a good kid can keep playing footy while keeping his job and his mates, rather than giving the game up because he doesnt want to move to Pertyh, Adelaide or Melbourne to maybe get a game in a second tier comp.

And, yes, thats what the NEAFL is, and my expectation is the AFL's next step in expansion will be for Newcastle to going NEAFL East, and Bendigo, Ballarat, Wagga Wagga and Wangaratta to be getting sides in the NEAFL South.

If you ever want the Roys back in the AFL, then you want the NEAFL South to happen, as that will mean a choice to going back to the VFA, or joining NEAFL as the Fitzroy Gorillas.

images


And, yes, the AFL is the same group of ruthless, long-thinking, implacable sons of bitches that killed Fitzroy, and - while still perfectly prepared to do it - they've just realised that killing teams is a bad idea.

And geeez do I prefer them to the inept, bumbling incompetents at the ARU, NRL and Cricket Australia.
 
IanW said:
my expectation is the AFL's next step in expansion will be for Newcastle to go into the NEAFL East, and Bendigo, Ballarat, Wagga Wagga and Wangaratta to be getting sides in the NEAFL South.

If you ever want the Roys back in the AFL, then you want the NEAFL South to happen
Click to expand...

Again, a very good point here :thumbsu:

Entry into a future NEAFL division of this kind, were it to come about, would have to be far more feasible than contemplating anything to do with the VFL as is.

Especially given the huge financial hurdles involved both in entering that competition and being competitive within it, partly as a consequence of the AFL "affiliations" with VFL clubs, which have effectively destroyed the identity of those clubs, thus decimating the VFL's original support base - another reason why the VFL wouldn't be a particularly attractive option, even if we had the necessary financial resources.
 
Wonaeamirri33 said:
Again, a very good point here :thumbsu:

Entry into a future NEAFL division of this kind, were it to come about, would have to be far more feasible than contemplating anything to do with the VFL as is.

Especially given the huge financial hurdles involved both in entering that competition and being competitive within it, partly as a consequence of the AFL "affiliations" with VFL clubs, which have effectively destroyed the identity of those clubs, thus decimating the VFL's original support base - another reason why the VFL wouldn't be a particularly attractive option, even if we had the necessary financial resources.
Click to expand...

Where AFL House has all the power, there are no "affiliated teams".

Sydney Hills Eagles stand alone. Belconnen is Belconnen. The NT Thunder dont have a single player borrowed from an AFL club.

As a result, Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast and Brisbane all have stand alone reserves sides, and everyone is happy.

Im therefore concluding this is the model Vlad wants.

Where the AFL, reluctantly and snarlingly, has to share power in Adelaide and Perth, we have a mess of players being played in different ways, and in different positions, when they are dropped from the senior side.

Therefore, my guess is when the NEAFL South comes in, AFL sides will be invited to drop their "affiliation" agreements and put their reserves sides into it, and hopefully the VFL will be renamed the VFA and allowed to be the VFA.

If Fitzroy has done its planning right, then it can come in early into that process with a plan for the stand-alone Fitzroy Gorillas, to play in either competition.
 
IanW said:
The NT Thunder dont have a single player borrowed from an AFL club.
Click to expand...

Oh I know - that's where Aussie is right now. Would kill to see him back at his best and wearing a Demons jersey again
R9z1Q.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mobbs
Is Fitzroy now the strongest team outside of AFL, and why is the answer "fight me"?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Mobbs
Mobbs

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top