Sydney Swans want GWS out of Sydney

[Colonial]

His only role is the Swans community, not another clubs community. His job is to increase his reach for the Swans, and the crows say he is. Look he has a mouth but in this case, no issue. Have more an issue with his whinge about the academies but that's for another thread.

Where did i say another clubs? Im talking Sydney. The community the Swans keep saying they are "Proudly" of.

Fair Olympic Park it's still not Greater Western lol

True, is Western though... Hmmm Western Sydney Giants...

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Again, I'm not saying that.

You really are a bad faith poster at times. This is one of them.

The Swans aren't here to help the Giants, well not unless we get something out of it. The CEO is in the role to better our club, that's it. We are not here to promote a rival team. It's frankly business, like it or not clubs aren't charities they are business. Perhaps the Giants should look internally and start with the horrid name for starters, and stop the bridge stuff when it's nowhere near a bridge! It isn't as if a Pies CEO is gunna say hey boys lets help Carlton today.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Where did i say another clubs? Im talking Sydney. The community the Swans keep saying they are "Proudly" of.

True, is Western though... Hmmm Western Sydney Giants...

Well to do that how about not playing games in Canberra, Western maybe but it sure aint Greater West that's hilarious and always has been.

 

[sherb]

I think multiple things are true:

• Sydney Swans have no right to demand a monopoly over a city of 5 million people
• GWS needs to engage with Western Sydney better than they currently are, and that probably starts by severing their ties with Canberra (it's like going for seconds when you haven't even finished your main course)
• Canberra deserves to be Team #20

That is all 100% spot on for mine.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

That's not his role one bit. His role is to improve the Swans, that's it. You don't become a CEO and think..'hey gotta improve my rival'. Heck no.

The biggest beneficiaries of the Giants leaving Western Sydney are the NRL and the A-League.

A strong Western Sydney Giants playing 11 games in Western Sydney means stronger interest in Aussie Rules in the Sydney metro area.

Which means better TV rights deals, and more mainstream media attention.

It means when a big Victorian club argues for something like eliminating COLA or winding down the academies, there's another club with aligned interests in Sydney.

If Pridham think that advocating a position that benefits the NRL and A-League over Aussie Rules in NSW somehow serves the Swans' long-term interests, then frankly he should step down.

 

[sherb]

The Swans aren't here to help the Giants, well not unless we get something out of it. The CEO is in the role to better our club, that's it. We are not here to promote a rival team. It's frankly business, like it or not clubs aren't charities they are business. Perhaps the Giants should look internally and start with the horrid name for starters, and stop the bridge stuff when it's nowhere near a bridge! It isn't as if a Pies CEO is gunna say hey boys lets help Carlton today.

Yet again, I'm not saying that.

You are just digging a hole for yourself by repeatedly lying about my position, at least by implication.

 

[sherb]

The biggest beneficiaries of the Giants leaving Western Sydney are the NRL and the A-League.

A strong Western Sydney Giants playing 11 games in Western Sydney means stronger interest in Aussie Rules in the Sydney metro area.

Which means better TV rights deals, and more mainstream media attention.

It means when a big Victorian club argues for something like eliminating COLA or winding down the academies, there's another club with aligned interests in Sydney.

If Pridham think that advocating a position that benefits the NRL and A-League over Aussie Rules in NSW somehow serves the Swans' long-term interests, then frankly he should step down.

Exactly, all that backs up my position that he has a responsibility to the game as well as his club.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The biggest beneficiaries of the Giants leaving Western Sydney are the NRL and the A-League.

A strong Western Sydney Giants playing 11 games in Western Sydney means stronger interest in Aussie Rules in the Sydney metro area.

Which means better TV rights deals, and more mainstream media attention.

It means when a big Victorian club argues for something like eliminating COLA or winding down the academies, there's another club with aligned interests in Sydney.

If Pridham think that advocating a position that benefits the NRL and A-League over Aussie Rules in NSW somehow serves the Swans' long-term interests, then frankly he should step down.

The Giants haven't helped that one bit I mean they aren't even in Greater Western Sydney...and we won't even discuss playing in Canberra whilst in the same note wanting to build a market in Sydney. You either want to be from Sydney or you don't. In other words play home games at home, and rebrand the club to satisfy the area. Not that hard that part.

I have no issue with the academies paying fair price, none at all, it's a great change this year (about time too). Don't agree with Pridham and his complaining about this point.

 

[Corkintheocean]

The Swans aren't here to help the Giants, well not unless we get something out of it. The CEO is in the role to better our club, that's it. We are not here to promote a rival team. It's frankly business, like it or not clubs aren't charities they are business. Perhaps the Giants should look internally and start with the horrid name for starters, and stop the bridge stuff when it's nowhere near a bridge! It isn't as if a Pies CEO is gunna say hey boys lets help Carlton today.

What are you talking about? Sydney have been an AFL charity case since day dot ffs.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Giants, Swans and Canberra footy fans acting like each party is holding the other back. It's quite comical.

The reason none of them will get what they really want is due to the refusal of the NSW and ACT governments to build proper AFL stadiums.

 

[Colonial]

Giants, Swans and Canberra footy fans acting like each party is holding the other back. It's quite comical.

Comical? You mean like your club trying to sell itself to everywhere and being told no thanks?

The reason none of them will get what they really want is due to the refusal of the NSW and ACT governments to build proper AFL stadiums.

Yeah that aint it.

 

[sherb]

Comical? You mean like your club trying to sell itself to everywhere and being told no thanks?

Yeah that aint it.

Yeah, it's a bit rich coming from a North supporter.

I well remember when the Kangas tried to insert themselves into the Sydney market in the late 90s/early 00s. That went well.............

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

The Giants haven't helped that one bit

The Giants' board could be doing more at a grassroots level. But it's a big stretch to say the club has done nothing to increase the number of people who engage with footy, or the depth of their engagement.

I mean, every home game there's about 10,000 people attending, and that's 10,000 people mostly from Western Sydney who are deepening their engagement with the sport...

I mean they aren't even in Greater Western Sydney

The Giants are based at Olympic Park.

Strathfield is probably the furthest west you can go and still be considered Inner West. And Olympic Park is a long way west of Five Dock.

And FWIW, I've argued before that ideally, long term, the Giants' home ground should be a new stadium in or near Parramatta.

and we won't even discuss playing in Canberra whilst in the same note wanting to build a market in Sydney.

Completely agree Canberra should get the 20th AFL club, and the Giants should ideally play all home games in Western Sydney.

You either want to be from Sydney or you don't. In other words play home games at home, and rebrand the club to satisfy the area. Not that hard that part.

Again, I agree the Giants should be the Western Sydney Giants, and I've argued the point elsewhere.

The position that the Giants should play all 11 home games in Western Sydney and be called the Western Sydney Giants is very different to what Pridham is advocating for.

He's basically calling for the Canberra Giants, with the Swans having Sydney to themselves.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Just in relation an earlier post about to the SCG, yes the Swans have a long-term exclusive venue hire agreement which gives us the first and final rights over any AFL games played at the SCG. As Pridham said again last year, re. Giants trying to get a game vs Richmond: "we would enforce that as we always have, so it’s not going to happen.”

Pridham has said the ONLY time we would consider it would be if the Giants play their home derby against the Swans there if it gives them a better financial outcome.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Yeah, it's a bit rich coming from a North supporter.

I well remember when the Kangas tried to insert themselves into the Sydney market in the late 90s/early 00s. That went well.............

Only relevance North Melbourne has to this thread:

Went to Sydney and Canberra in the '90s, and now there's a Sydney-Canberra team.
Went to the Gold Coast in the 2000s, and now there's a Gold Coast team.
Went to Tasmania in the 2010s, now Tasmania's getting a team.
Went to WA in the 2020s and, well, you get the idea...

Pretty clear where the 20th team is going. That's why Pridham sees the opportunity to push the Giants to Canberra full-time. But it won't happen because the AFL have learned their lesson about expecting these backwater markets to properly invest in venues.

 

[1990crow]

Sydney have had a massive ego for 20 years. Having massive leg ups over the competition means any slight inconvenience seems too much.

 

[rye]

That's not his role one bit. His role is to improve the Swans, that's it. You don't become a CEO and think..'hey gotta improve my rival'. Heck no.

youre acting like its a zero sum game when if anything a strong gws with a larger supporter base would see financial benefit also flow to sydney.

 

[sherb]

Only relevance North Melbourne has to this thread:

Went to Sydney and Canberra in the '90s, and now there's a Sydney-Canberra team.
Went to the Gold Coast in the 2000s, and now there's a Gold Coast team.
Went to Tasmania in the 2010s, now Tasmania's getting a team.
Went to WA in the 2020s and, well, you get the idea...

Pretty clear where the 20th team is going. That's why Pridham sees the opportunity to push the Giants to Canberra full-time. But it won't happen because the AFL have learned their lesson about expecting these backwater markets to properly invest in venues.

The irony was still real (and enjoyable) though.

Given the history you've posted, I'd strongly recommend that North rename themselves The Pioneers!

 

[Sucker for Trade Period]

youre acting like its a zero sum game when if anything a strong gws with a larger supporter base would see financial benefit also flow to sydney.

This is more or less the reason Eddie McGuire consistently defended Carlton over the years and lobbied against sanctions targeted at us. He saw a mutual benefit in having two strong clubs sharing very similar DNA, protecting his club's interests almost by proxy.

 

[robbieando]

But what's the point you're making?

I'm saying Giants did better than Swans in the same time frame.

The numbers don't back that up and with our 15th year in Sydney being 1996 they are well behind us with our big averages coming in 1997 and 1998. The Swans had 5 seasons over 15,000 average crowds (including 3 over 20k) and 4 seasons over 12k in their first 15 years. The Giants have been over 12k average 5 times (and should get to a 6th this year) and that's not excluding games played in Canberra from their averages.




While the expectations on the Giants crowds are unrealistic in general, they have not matched what the Swans have done other than get to what our rock bottom average was which is a good starting point and built a good solid base of support to grow from.

The Swans have never wanted the Giants in Sydney, that is not new news. What should be put on the Swans is the expectations that they are here to stay and that both clubs need to work their own areas to grow the game.

 

[Colonial]

Just in relation an earlier post about to the SCG, yes the Swans have a long-term exclusive venue hire agreement which gives us the first and final rights over any AFL games played at the SCG. As Pridham said again last year, re. Giants trying to get a game vs Richmond: "we would enforce that as we always have, so it’s not going to happen.”

Pridham has said the ONLY time we would consider it would be if the Giants play their home derby against the Swans there if it gives them a better financial outcome.

“Proudly Sydney.” A motto but not a way of life it seems.

 

[sherb]

The numbers don't back that up and with our 15th year in Sydney being 1996 they are well behind us with our big averages coming in 1997 and 1998. The Swans had 5 seasons over 15,000 average crowds (including 3 over 20k) and 4 seasons over 12k in their first 15 years. The Giants have been over 12k average 5 times (and should get to a 6th this year) and that's not excluding games played in Canberra from their averages.

View attachment 2615568
View attachment 2615569

While the expectations on the Giants crowds are unrealistic in general, they have not matched what the Swans have done other than get to what our rock bottom average was which is a good starting point and built a good solid base of support to grow from.

The Swans have never wanted the Giants in Sydney, that is not new news. What should be put on the Swans is the expectations that they are here to stay and that both clubs need to work their own areas to grow the game.

A couple of "spikes" for the Swans in there to be fair. 86/87 was the Edelsten era, with all its glamour & excesses. 95 saw the RL Super League war and Lockett arriving at the Swans.

On the back of the SL war and renewed on-field success in 96, the Swans were finally able to consolidate their support in Sydney.

 

[Colonial]

The numbers don't back that up and with our 15th year in Sydney being 1996 they are well behind us with our big averages coming in 1997 and 1998. The Swans had 5 seasons over 15,000 average crowds (including 3 over 20k) and 4 seasons over 12k in their first 15 years. The Giants have been over 12k average 5 times (and should get to a 6th this year) and that's not excluding games played in Canberra from their averages.

View attachment 2615568
View attachment 2615569

While the expectations on the Giants crowds are unrealistic in general, they have not matched what the Swans have done other than get to what our rock bottom average was which is a good starting point and built a good solid base of support to grow from.

The Swans have never wanted the Giants in Sydney, that is not new news. What should be put on the Swans is the expectations that they are here to stay and that both clubs need to work their own areas to grow the game.

Considering we are part time in a new area and our boss is embarrassed to be called Western Sydney, I think our crowds are a credit to fans in Western Sydney.

Makes me wonder with quality leadership and 100% commitment what it would look like.

 

[Cleric]

While this has been raised as a sidenote in other threads, I think this deserves its own thread.

For a while now, there have been rumblings that some senior figures at the Sydney Swans have not been happy about having a second team in Sydney.

That stretches right back to the creation of the Giants. And going back even further, the Swans openly undermined efforts by North Melbourne to play a number of games each year in Sydney back in the '90s.

In recent months, that has only escalated.

First, unflattering and out-of-date Western Sydney junior participation figures were leaked to the media.

Then the Swans' boss, Andrew Pridham, openly made unprompted comments about how the Giants have made no headway in Western Sydney.

And now there's reports that the Swans are lobbying the AFL to move the Giants to Canberra and Wagga.

Because of board rules, I won't quote the article, but here's the link:

Rival club fumes at ‘selfish’ Swans’ bombshell statement to AFL

Tensions are flaring after the latest escalation in a long-running feud emerged from behind closed doors for ‘the first time’.

7news.com.au

Personally, I think there should be an AFL club in Canberra. But it should be the 20th club, and not the relocated Giants.

But more importantly, I think Pridham needs to pull his head in, and stop putting the interests of the Swabs ahead of the sport in Sydney.

Canberra is not a viable spot for an AFL team. The Raiders are set as the biggest show in town, and its a far bigger Rugby city than people understand. Whatever AFL interest is there comes from the people who have moved there from the AFL states for political reasons, and they arnt natives. They also tend to be in Canberra for a set amount of time before moving back to their original states once their political appointments are over.
Add to that, Canberra is the most sterile place I have every visited.

I think that GWS are doing it the right way with playing some games there during the year to tend to those AFL people in Canberra, but the Sydney market is far bigger and more potential that moving soley to Canberra. Throwing in some random other country areas like Wagga doesnt make the case any stronger for a move to Canberra.

They need to lose the Western tag first so they can appeal to people from all over NSW, and start there.

As for the Swans, of course they would prefer no competition in the Sydney market. They arnt worried about growing the game.in NSW, they are worried about capturing the whole state for themselves.
The Swans have had over 40 years to get their foothold, and when they were there in the early years they were playing in front of 5,000 people at times.
Sydney also had the allure of the Dr and Capper to draw attention to the club in theit early years.

Let GWS cook.

 

[Franc de Borges]

His responsibility ends with his club, he's not there to make love to the other 17 (will be 18 clubs). If there's a financial bonus for it, he's negligent to not campaign for it.

We are not there to help a rival club, that's not the Swans role. That's the AFL's role and your own club. Blame GWS for the ridiculous branding (Greater Western...um what...you are playing in Homebush, since when is that Greater West) and don't even get me started on the Battle of the Bridge nonsense.

Killing the interest in a product you are selling isn't the greatest strategy.