Independent report into Hobart's proposed new stadium has found the costs of the project have been significantly underestimated

[Walshawk]

Agree with one or two home games at SCG... therefore up to 3 matches incl Swans v Giants.. ( Hopefully Swans Giants Bris GC will soon get parity with Crows Port West Coast + Freo and get 13 games each in home state...makes a game at SCG more likely). Obviously your remaining argument implies a new team in Canberra or some other arrangement.....IMO Giants would have to be pretty big in Sydney before that happens.

Giants will never be big is Sydney whilst they are hedging their bets with Canberra.

With the fixture changing significantly once Tassie comes in, there is plenty of scope for other teams to play in Canberra. Hawks maybe.

 

[BornAgainIdiot]

a lot of the commentary in this thread about all matters GWS is interesting since it seems most people posting haven't really spent any time there.

Western Sydney is year on year increasingly populated by pacific islanders, indians and asians. It's just how it is.

and they do not play australian rules football. It's rugby league, cricket and soccer. In that order.

The Western Sydney experiment is a gigantic fail.the only people regularly attending games (all couple hundred of them) are from the Hills District and they will be priced out soon.

 

[catters05]

I was talking about GWS. GC is full of Victorians. It is not the problem.

GWS

• no growth in participation in Western Sydney since 2012 (there was in the first five years but it is now going backwards)
• no growth in crowds (relative to NRL and other AFL crowds they have gone backwards)
• no growth in GWS Sydney TV ratings (Collingwood rate better)
• very good membership numbers
• no presence in mainstream media (TV/radio/newspapers - the SEN talkback hosts says that whenever they talk about the Giants they never get a single talkback caller, it is all about the Swans)
• good social media numbers

There is no way GWS is in track. That is not to say they are without hope, but it isn’t working and it is time to review the strategy.

Yes, have the team 100% committed to the location you want it to grow in would be a good start.

 

[All Aust]

Posting of last has wandered north. It bears sweet buggerall relevance to the thread title.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Watch the mess at Launceston and you'll see why Hobart stadium must have a roof.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Yeah put a roof on it and just build it in Melbourne instead.

It'll save everyone a whole load of trouble heading down there.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

a lot of the commentary in this thread about all matters GWS is interesting since it seems most people posting haven't really spent any time there.

Western Sydney is year on year increasingly populated by pacific islanders, indians and asians. It's just how it is.

and they do not play australian rules football. It's rugby league, cricket and soccer. In that order.

The Western Sydney experiment is a gigantic fail.the only people regularly attending games (all couple hundred of them) are from the Hills District and they will be priced out soon.

I'll jump in. Spend time there? I'm Western Sydney right now.

I'd put soccer ahead of league in terms of overall popularity with multicultural communities out here. But it varies by community and suburb.

The Giants are a long-term project.

Remember the Swans were playing to a nearly empty SCG every week, 10 years after moving up.

The Brisbane Bears were at a similar point 10 years in as well. They ended up moving from the Gold Coast, getting a new jumper and theme song, and then getting rebadged as the Lions a decade into their existence.

A thing that was very interesting to see was last year when the Swans played the Giants in the finals last year.

Both around the Parra CBD and on the T1 line, the Swans jumpers outnumbered the Giants.

Remember the Swans used to play some of their home games at Stadium Australia around 20 years ago, and most people who followed the AFL before the Giants came in were already Swans supporters. Or they came from another state (or used to live in Melbourne in my case) and followed an AFL club.

So the Giants' challenge isn't just to get people in the western suburbs to follow the footy. It's to get new people who don't already follow a club interested.

And the Giants' long term success depends on how well they engage with different cultural communities.

A couple of years ago, I took a friend of mine who doesn't follow footy to a Giants game.

She made a comment at one point about how white all the players are for a team that supposedly represents Western Sydney.

It was a good point. GWS probably does need a more multicultural playing list if it wants to engage with multicultural communities.

GWS os also hamstrung by being in Olympic Park, which suffers the same issue as Waverley and Football Park. It's in the middle if nowhere.

It's stuck between suburbia, an industrial area, and Silverwater Prison.

Maybe more apartments, the metro, and the light rail might help? But I think they'd draw better crowds if their ground were near the Parra CBD.

So all that's a long way of saying it's a long road, but there's definitely room for growth.

Anf FWIW, I think the Giants should play all 11 games in Western Sydney, and Canberra should get its own team.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Giants will never be big is Sydney whilst they are hedging their bets with Canberra.

With the fixture changing significantly once Tassie comes in, there is plenty of scope for other teams to play in Canberra. Hawks maybe.

Or better yet, Ainslie or Eastlake can play its home games in Canberra as the 20th team, and the Giants can play all 11 in Western Sydney.

Ideally at a new stadium near Parramatta.

 

[speedpeck23]

Giants will never be big is Sydney whilst they are hedging their bets with Canberra.

With the fixture changing significantly once Tassie comes in, there is plenty of scope for other teams to play in Canberra. Hawks maybe.

You're right when Tassie comes in if we hang on to Gather Round it will add another 21 matches to the AFL fixture... 11 home games for Tassie and then 10 more matches to bring all clubs up to 24 matches for the season. This would give Tassie an extra home game and Swans/Giants/Lions/Suns and extra home game.

Giants like the others would have 13 games in NSW/ACT....3 Canberra,7 Western Sydney , 3 SCG ( One away v Swans, One make up game from Gather Round and play a home game at SCG during Easter,) See if they can pull a crowd at the SCG without disconnecting with their current supporter base.

 

[capitalhawk]

Watch the mess at Launceston and you'll see why Hobart stadium must have a roof.

Each club's home ground has an advantage for them. Why take that away from the Devils by not allowing the cold be advantageous for them. Geelong have their lopsided ground, Sydney have the smaller SCG and water it before matches, Brisbane hot and humid etc Last night was no colder than Canberra especially when it snows. There is no need for a roof, just have grandstands surrounding Launceston Oval.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Each club's home ground has an advantage for them. Why take that away from the Devils by not allowing the cold be advantageous for them. Geelong have their lopsided ground, Sydney have the smaller SCG and water it before matches, Brisbane hot and humid etc Last night was no colder than Canberra especially when it snows. There is no need for a roof, just have grandstands surrounding Launceston Oval.

The Tassie Government were the ones that put the proposal in with a stadium with a roof, it was taken to the clubs to vote.

They voted in favour
But now you are saying Tassie should renege on the roof?

Should we then take it back to the clubs to re-vote?

 

[nobbyiscool]

The Tassie Government were the ones that put the proposal in with a stadium with a roof, it was taken to the clubs to vote.

They voted in favour
But now you are saying Tassie should renege on the roof?

Should we then take it back to the clubs to re-vote?

I can see how you'd think that if you're a pillock who blindly swallows everything the AFL tells you.

Also, the AFL didn't spend a decade white-anting Fitzroy until it was untenable, and Melbourne didn't tank.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I can see how you'd think that if you're a pillock who blindly swallows everything the AFL tells you.

Also, the AFL didn't spend a decade white-anting Fitzroy until it was untenable, and Melbourne didn't tank.

Ok, let's say you are right and the AFL proposed the roof.

That proposal was still voted on by the clubs, if you believe the media, which I very much doubt you will, one of the conditions for voting in favour, was the stadium with a roof.

So whether you believe it or not, if the Tassie Government renege on the roof, do you think it should go back to the clubs to re-vote?

 

[catters05]

Yeah put a roof on it and just build it in Melbourne instead.

It'll save everyone a whole load of trouble heading down there.

Relocate marvel stadium to Hobart since it seems a lot of Victorians hate that stadium.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Ok, let's say you are right and the AFL proposed the roof.

That proposal was still voted on by the clubs, if you believe the media, which I very much doubt you will, one of the conditions for voting in favour, was the stadium with a roof.

So whether you believe it or not, if the Tassie Government renege on the roof, do you think it should go back to the clubs to re-vote?

We know that the current approval is contingent on a roof. Welcome to 2 years ago!

So to answer your question, yes - I don't think there's any way around needing a new proposal to put to the Commission and the Clubs.

I just happen to think that 200k members is a hell of a lot of bargaining power, and people on all sides of this debate are underestimating the strength of that number. In the context of a season where the AFL is giving people a weekly reminder that footy isn't really for them any more, telling 200k members that they don't have a club because of an unaffordable roof requirement that has never been placed on any other club is an extraordinarily tough sell.

 

[LoungeLizard]

We know that the current approval is contingent on a roof. Welcome to 2 years ago!

So to answer your question, yes - I don't think there's any way around needing a new proposal to put to the Commission and the Clubs.

I just happen to think that 200k members is a hell of a lot of bargaining power, and people on all sides of this debate are underestimating the strength of that number. In the context of a season where the AFL is giving people a weekly reminder that footy isn't really for them any more, telling 200k members that they don't have a club because of an unaffordable roof requirement that has never been placed on any other club is an extraordinarily tough sell.

Then why has the Tassie government wasted everyones time if the weren't realistic about the stadium.

If they knew they couldn't build it, then they shouldn't have agreed in the 1st place and argued the proposal, but I still think they are the ones who proposed it.
I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind.

 

[Rail King]

200,000 members........

 

[Philhawk]

1. Play all games in Sydney. When Showgrounds is out of action in April, play @ SCG v Swans and Collingwood. Some might say the SCG is not in Western Sydney, but neither is Canberra which is 300k further than the SCG. Also play (some) finals at the SCG. No one from interstate wants to travel to Homebush. Homebush is the worst main stadium in the SFL and the location is poor. You will get an extra 10k - 20k to those SCG games, and you might actually pick up some fans from the inner west (see point 3).

2. Change the name back to Western Sydney (the original and legal name of the club). GWS is a mouthful, has little meaning to people and and is not a name that people identify with. Every time it is used in the media it is a missed opportunity to say the words ‘Western Sydney’, which is the what people in Western Sydney call the area that they live in.

3. Rezone the Academy/marketing zones so that suburbs west of the SCG switch from Swans to Giants. It is ridiculous that some western suburbs remain in Swans territory. This includes Bankstown, and the inner west.

Now, there may be plenty of better ideas than these, but something certainly needs to change.

I have family in GWS territory (near Penrith). They are not massive sports fans - they might watch one game of NRL on TV weekly and some Swans games (certainly finals). I remember visiting her in 2017 and asked if she has switched to GWS. She and her husband had no idea what I was talking about. They were not aware that there was a second team in Sydney. They were wondering who GWS was. Now I know 70+ is not the demographic that they are going for, but the point remains - it the most stupid name ever in Australian sport. If there was a soccer team in Tarneit, or Dandenong called GWM, or SESM would anyone know what that meant? Would it have any cut through? Would the supposed target market identify with an acronym? Ridiculous.

If you listen to ‘Across the Divide ‘ with Gerard Whately and Andrew Voss weekly on SEN, they talk about this regularly. Vossy hosts on SEN Sydney. He says that they don’t talk about the Giants because they get zero talkback callers when they do. Not just less than the Swans. Zero. He is an NRL man, but also talks about how his son is playing AFL in western Sydney (Canterbury Bankstown area from memory) and that every single kid and family there follows the Swans. NRL and the Swans are booming in Sydney. Crowds are up significantly. GWS is invisible.

Time to change the narrative.

I agree with literally everything you’ve written.

Only thing I’d add, guarantee Giants games are on FTA every single time they play

 

[Altum Volantes]

1. Play all games in Sydney. When Showgrounds is out of action in April, play @ SCG v Swans and Collingwood. Some might say the SCG is not in Western Sydney, but neither is Canberra which is 300k further than the SCG. Also play (some) finals at the SCG. No one from interstate wants to travel to Homebush. Homebush is the worst main stadium in the SFL and the location is poor. You will get an extra 10k - 20k to those SCG games, and you might actually pick up some fans from the inner west (see point 3).

2. Change the name back to Western Sydney (the original and legal name of the club). GWS is a mouthful, has little meaning to people and and is not a name that people identify with. Every time it is used in the media it is a missed opportunity to say the words ‘Western Sydney’, which is the what people in Western Sydney call the area that they live in.

3. Rezone the Academy/marketing zones so that suburbs west of the SCG switch from Swans to Giants. It is ridiculous that some western suburbs remain in Swans territory. This includes Bankstown, and the inner west.

Now, there may be plenty of better ideas than these, but something certainly needs to change.

I have family in GWS territory (near Penrith). They are not massive sports fans - they might watch one game of NRL on TV weekly and some Swans games (certainly finals). I remember visiting her in 2017 and asked if she has switched to GWS. She and her husband had no idea what I was talking about. They were not aware that there was a second team in Sydney. They were wondering who GWS was. Now I know 70+ is not the demographic that they are going for, but the point remains - it the most stupid name ever in Australian sport. If there was a soccer team in Tarneit, or Dandenong called GWM, or SESM would anyone know what that meant? Would it have any cut through? Would the supposed target market identify with an acronym? Ridiculous.

If you listen to ‘Across the Divide ‘ with Gerard Whately and Andrew Voss weekly on SEN, they talk about this regularly. Vossy hosts on SEN Sydney. He says that they don’t talk about the Giants because they get zero talkback callers when they do. Not just less than the Swans. Zero. He is an NRL man, but also talks about how his son is playing AFL in western Sydney (Canterbury Bankstown area from memory) and that every single kid and family there follows the Swans. NRL and the Swans are booming in Sydney. Crowds are up significantly. GWS is invisible.

Time to change the narrative.

Some very interesting points there.

To be honest, The Giants are probably due a rebrand/refresh anyway.
They have some elements working (the nickname, the colours, the song), so it doesn't have to completely throw everything out.

I think GWS is a 'well intentioned' attempt to capture 'the rest' without diluting the Swans market share in Sydney. Hence the ambiguous name and supposed ties to Canberra etc.

The 'Western Sydney' name would certainly add an element of identity to the club but I think the AFL would be worried that may limit their appeal (for whatever reason they come up with). There is also the issue of Western Bulldogs (who admittedly, probably could be convinced to change their name back) and West Coast Eagles, who are likely well established enough to avoid any great confusion.

I actually think if the AFL did go down the road of dropping GWS, its more likely we'd end up with a 'Dolphins' style (or 'Kangaroos' if you like..) rename with the club simply being called 'The Giants'....which personally I hate but would allow them to use them for whatever purpose desired moving forward I guess.

 

[Walshawk]

Some very interesting points there.

To be honest, The Giants are probably due a rebrand/refresh anyway.
They have some elements working (the nickname, the colours, the song), so it doesn't have to completely throw everything out.

I think GWS is a 'well intentioned' attempt to capture 'the rest' without diluting the Swans market share in Sydney. Hence the ambiguous name and supposed ties to Canberra etc.

The 'Western Sydney' name would certainly add an element of identity to the club but I think the AFL would be worried that may limit their appeal (for whatever reason they come up with). There is also the issue of Western Bulldogs (who admittedly, probably could be convinced to change their name back) and West Coast Eagles, who are likely well established enough to avoid any great confusion.

I actually think if the AFL did go down the road of dropping GWS, its more likely we'd end up with a 'Dolphins' style (or 'Kangaroos' if you like..) rename with the club simply being called 'The Giants'....which personally I hate but would allow them to use them for whatever purpose desired moving forward I guess.

Western Bulldogs/ West Coast is not an issue. Not one person has ever called them ‘Western’ or ‘West. It wouldn’t confuse anybody.

 

[Giant YoYo]

2. Change the name back to Western Sydney (the original and legal name of the club). GWS is a mouthful, has little meaning to people and and is not a name that people identify with. Every time it is used in the media it is a missed opportunity to say the words ‘Western Sydney’, which is the what people in Western Sydney call the area that they live in.

I was watching the Lions v Giants game at a venue in Melbourne over the weekend and got asked where are GWS from.

Says it all, really.

 

[magpienato]

Western Bulldogs/ West Coast is not an issue. Not one person has ever called them ‘Western’ or ‘West. It wouldn’t confuse anybody.

Ideally, Bulldogs would go back to using the name Footscray full-time and GWS have a soft rebrand to 'West Sydney/Western Sydney'. But there should be no confusion either way.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

An almost laughable bit of honesty from Tasmanian Chris Fagan that highlights the huge issues the club is going to have:



“Yeah I’ll work for them, as long as I can do it in Melbourne.”

 

[MisterMarcus]

An almost laughable bit of honesty from Tasmanian Chris Fagan that highlights the huge issues the club is going to have:



“Yeah I’ll work for them, as long as I can do it in Melbourne.”

"My family lives in Melbourne so we intend to settle here" is a far cry from "I'm not going there because I hate the place and it sucks".

 

[Bunk Moreland]

"My family lives in Melbourne so we intend to settle here"

This is the issue - everybody’s family lives in Melbourne. Or one of the other mainland cities.

And all those cities are growing long-term, some rapidly, so they are very well placed to be talent farms for the local AFL clubs.

The four northern clubs are already reaping huge benefits from their academies and that will only grow.

Tassie is not going to grow. There is no prospect in the long term for it to supply any strong level of talent. The talent will always have to be imported and so you will always have difficulty retaining.

The AFL has never expanded into a flat/contracting region like this.

This club is going to need EVERY free kick possible.

And yet there are somehow still people who think they can be a success in a far-flung, lifeless, inaccessible suburban shithole like Bellerive.