The AFL has stuffed up the Western Sydney experiment

[Left Field 313]

I was initially very strongly against this expansion but now see it as reasonable and indeed prudent given the need to retain our established lead over the other codes through growth.

I have been to a few games at the stadium now and you can see how it will work there when the team becomes competitive. Its a nice place to watch the footy, especially on a mild Sydney day (when often it's 4 degrees colder and blowing in from the south in Melbourne). BTW it's not a new stadium, it's a redevelopment of the Showgrounds main arena and has been used by local AFL junior representative competitions for at least a decade.

The area itself is nowhere near as bad as is described here by many posters (yes, my house is lower north shore but I don't mind pockets of the west). I agree that the club has erred with their Scully contract but definitely not the Folou one. Here we see one of the greats of league and union completely incapable of competing physically in our great game (a balance of power and aerobic capacity). It's more Izzy's loss I reckon but did not diminish the AFL brand in any way.

Yes they could have balanced their list better (is SOS the new BP?) but their young players are very good if they can keep them together. And with wins will come interest. And over time, with interest comes TV ratings, player recognition, memberships, merchandise sales etc. I am certain the AFL would be happy to eat into the Rugby League mindshare out there and to coexist with soccer for the next couple of decades.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

I agree with Ron, the move to western Sydney was a no brainer. The issue so far has been the execution but the move to grow the brand in such a vast untapped market was correct.

The AFL set up rules for the creation of the side with the view that GWS would recruit a bunch of quality youngsters supported by some experienced players obtained through trading picks to existing sides. GWS decided to put all their eggs in the youngster basket. In hindsight the AFL should have been more prescritive in the rules to ensure GWS would start as a competetive outfit, I dont think they expected GWS to take the path they have. From the comeptition perspective the quicker that side comes good and wins a premiership the better. From my perspective I hope we do it first.

Sheedy was a mistake. I think someone with greater links to the target market would have been better, Not sure who though (Roos???)

The other mistake was recuiting Folau. A disaster under any measure both financially and as a player.

The loss of Buddy to the Swans was also a disater for GWS he was critical for the club. The AFL were between a rock and hard place in that they could not intervene prior to any contract being signed and risk the media and everyother conspriacy theorist carping about the AFL costing Hawthorn Buddy, but they would have provided any amount of promotional money to Buddy to get him there.

All in all I recon the move is a good just done poorly.

[John Dee 445]

I agree that moving into Sydney's west was a no-brainer. There are ample people there to create a substantial AFL presence; it will just take time. Tasmania will always be marginalized because of its small population and the lack of people to convert to AFL, Although I would give them a team tomorrow, they may be waiting a long time.

To reach the next step, GWS will need to grow up as a club and get themselves out of the need to spend large parts of their salary cap on a few individuals. The absurd money that they were prepared to pay to Buddy and the money they do pay Scully is cancerous and must stop.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Those that think that the establishment of a particular entity only takes the the locating of such and time, are obviously not students of history.

[rpfc 28,781]

Not quite so...it needed 2 teams in a familial market. That ought to have been an ACT team and Sydney. ACT has history with Footy.. ppl actually will watch and be interested. They dont take to it quite so passionately if the team isn't called Canberra though. That was the no -brainer.

GWS is pushing shlt uphill....for ever.

The ACT may have history with AFL but it is a small market and I am not sure how it would survive trying to play 11 games at Manuka in front of 15k people.

You may think that GWS may not work, but at least it has a chance to succeed - a team called Canberra would need money in perpetuity and all for the attention of a small market.

The ACT has 150k less people than Tasmania and have far less AFL fans - if Tasmania is not a viable place for an AFL team in terms of stadia, corporate interest, and potential gate receipts - the ACT is even further behind.

[John Dee 445]

The ACT may have history with AFL but it is a small market and I am not sure how it would survive trying to play 11 games at Manuka in front of 15k people.

You may think that GWS may not work, but at least it has a chance to succeed - a team called Canberra would need money in perpetuity and all for the attention of a small market.

The ACT has 150k less people than Tasmania and have far less AFL fans - if Tasmania is not a viable place for an AFL team in terms of stadia, corporate interest, and potential gate receipts - the ACT is even further behind.

The elephant in the room when considering a team in Tasmania is the north-south divide. Until you have been down there and experienced it, you really can't describe it!

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Tasmania is a massive football state....but it never gets a look because none of the players would choose to live here compared to Sydney.....

If GWS start to win games the supporters might role on in and watch....sound familiar anyone???

It's been sufficiently covered by a few others, but essentially this is an inferior use of AFL money. Tasmania is already an AFL state. NSW is not.

The Izzy Folau experiment went exactly as planned. No one seriously expected him to hang around for long. He was purely a marketing tool, surely you knew that. As for Scully, GWS have to pay overs to attract players. Scully spent two years with us and was predicted by many to be the next big thing. Let's be honest, when he left we thought that too. Two years on we are all wiser.

Can't agree with the Folau comment. Having him walk away after being nigh-on useless at AFL after just one season cannot have been what the AFL or GWS wanted out of that. Some may say any publicity is good publicity, and in the case of GWS getting in the news is obviously handy, but the hope with Folau was for him to be a successful drawcard to matches and to supporting the club, and he failed at both. He also was awful in front of cameras and had no spark in the media. Same goes for Scully. I don't disagree that they had to pay overs to get players. But that money still needed to be spent wisely. Scully's not delivering on the field, which is something that was reasonably foreseeable given his knee issues even when at Melbourne. He's also not a marketing-type player, he's not a good media performer (he doesn't even like that stuff). I have no problem with them going and getting Scully, but it would have worked a lot better if he was not one of their highest-paid, nor one of the players they appeared to bank a lot on.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

I think the AFL dodged a bullet with Franklin going to Sydney. If he'd gone to GWS he would be expected to do mountains of media which he's not comfortable with. He's essentially a shy person. And with Patton, Cameron and now Boyd the one part of their list in good shape is KPFs. GWS have, instead, gained enormously by getting Mumford, essentially because Sydney couldn't keep him as well as Franklin (and Tippett).

[rpfc 28,781]

The elephant in the room when considering a team in Tasmania is the north-south divide. Until you have been down there and experienced it, you really can't describe it!

Another issue in the ACT is that Ainslie and Belconnen are loving being in the NEAFL and won't allow the league to move to what would be more beneficial to ACT footy, namely a two-team structure without allegiances - basically a North Canberra and South Canberra or something similar. Ainslie will be trying to get any Canberra licence in the AFL if it is an option... That would be an abortive move.

And if people think that Canberrans that like footy aren't going to go for some team simply because it hasn't 'Canberra' in the title, they are misguided. The most supported team here in Canberra in the Swans, so that kind of eats into this notion that people can't go for teams that aren't named after the place they live in.

The GWS are the 'second team' for a number of people I know and they put in effort to get folks to care about them. Phil Davis coming from Canberra is a plus. Frankly, 4 games and a bit of attention is all that Canberra should get at this moment. It simply isn't big enough to support an AFL side as a third string behind the Raiders and Brumbies.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,408]

What part of "Izzy was nothing but a smart marketing ploy" don't people understand. The fat controller said himself during a press conference had he and Karmichael Hunt held out for money he would have had no problem paying it.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

What part of "Izzy was nothing but a smart marketing ploy" don't people understand. The fat controller said himself during a press conference had he and Karmichael Hunt held out for money he would have had no problem paying it.

The part where he was inept on the field, worse than even the lowest of expectations. The part where he walked out on the club with two years left to run on his contract. The part where he didn't stay in the game, but instead jumped to rugby, one of the codes AFL is trying to compete with, and supplant, in western Sydney.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Oh that part!!! LOL

I agree he was rubbish ad a waste pf money.

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

The part where he was inept on the field, worse than even the lowest of expectations. The part where he walked out on the club with two years left to run on his contract. The part where he didn't stay in the game, but instead jumped to rugby, one of the codes AFL is trying to compete with, and supplant, in western Sydney.

Yeah but Hunt has done SFA since his first year either. In reality the contract was all about year one of GWS anyway and just getting them in the papers and in the minds. After that every party would be happy for him to go and I bet the AFL is actually happy he went to union. Union will take corporate dollars from AFL (the rebels are a pain in Melbourne for that) but in reality will always have a niche in certain Sydney areas. I don't think the AFL are really attempting to down Union (or soccer or basketball or several other sports). The real fight is with league in Western Sydney and Issy bailing on Parramatta did AFL a huge favour.

[titan_uranus 25,045]

Yeah but Hunt has done SFA since his first year either. In reality the contract was all about year one of GWS anyway and just getting them in the papers and in the minds. After that every party would be happy for him to go and I bet the AFL is actually happy he went to union. Union will take corporate dollars from AFL (the rebels are a pain in Melbourne for that) but in reality will always have a niche in certain Sydney areas. I don't think the AFL are really attempting to down Union (or soccer or basketball or several other sports). The real fight is with league in Western Sydney and Issy bailing on Parramatta did AFL a huge favour.

Hunt's still playing. Didn't jump back to rugby. There's one advantage his signing has over Folau's.

I don't disagree that there was some short term benefit to signing Izzy, but I find it hard to deny that the Folau experiment did not go as well as it could have, nor did it go as well as the AFL and GWS would have liked.

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

Hunt's still playing. Didn't jump back to rugby. There's one advantage his signing has over Folau's.

I don't disagree that there was some short term benefit to signing Izzy, but I find it hard to deny that the Folau experiment did not go as well as it could have, nor did it go as well as the AFL and GWS would have liked.

But I'm pretty sure on his career trajectory to date that Karmichael will be back in one form of rugby by this time next year. It would take a huge leap for him to get back in the best 22 at GCS as their young talent matures and they add more (Jack Martin, KK). So in that way the only real benefit of him over Folau has probably been a little more buzz in the first year and the duration away from league. But I question whether Hunt going back to rugby makes much of a difference compared to an out an out gun like Folau.

Of course if Folau had become a consistent quality AFL player that would be huge but what I'm trying to say is considering he didn't it's not such a huge loss that he's out.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,408]

From what I understand, people think for us to remain the no. 1 sport in Australia we have to have two teams in Sydney because of the untapped market/potential growth/number of people living there already and only one team currently based there/tv market. On that same logic rugby league should start a second team in Melbourne in 2015. We were before, and still would be without GWS being established the no. 1 sporting code in Australia. We have a monopoly on Vic, WA, SA, Tas, possibly NT, only playing second fiddle to QLD(where we have two teams to leagues three, I think Titans are propped up by News LTD) and obviously NSW. I'm from Melbourne but have lived in Sydney for the last four years. It's a known fact that rugby struggles to get crowds at games. Most clubs have these boutique stadiums which they can't bloody fill. As much as we love our game it doesn't mean everyone else is going to. If Swans had a waiting list for memberships and were selling out every home game fair enough. I do understand the concept of this is for the next generation of people from Western Sydney, but ultimately I think it will fail. I hope I'm wrong. As for the tv rights argument, numerous weekends had four AFL games live, with a minimum of three thanks to 7mate. So there's still plenty of advertising available.

[dee-luded 2,959]

From what I understand, people think for us to remain the no. 1 sport in Australia we have to have two teams in Sydney because of the untapped market/potential growth/number of people living there already and only one team currently based there/tv market. On that same logic rugby league should start a second team in Melbourne in 2015. We were before, and still would be without GWS being established the no. 1 sporting code in Australia. We have a monopoly on Vic, WA, SA, Tas, possibly NT, only playing second fiddle to QLD(where we have two teams to leagues three, I think Titans are propped up by News LTD) and obviously NSW. I'm from Melbourne but have lived in Sydney for the last four years. It's a known fact that rugby struggles to get crowds at games. Most clubs have these boutique stadiums which they can't bloody fill. As much as we love our game it doesn't mean everyone else is going to. If Swans had a waiting list for memberships and were selling out every home game fair enough. I do understand the concept of this is for the next generation of people from Western Sydney, but ultimately I think it will fail. I hope I'm wrong. As for the tv rights argument, numerous weekends had four AFL games live, with a minimum of three thanks to 7mate. So there's still plenty of advertising available.

yes but the types of demographic in the West may be more tribal & loyal to the cause they follow... so if the Giants can get a foothold into a demographic that goes to games & supports with a fierce passion, then they will grow.

maybe the Northern & inner suburbs people are more “Comme ci, comme ca”.

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

From what I understand, people think for us to remain the no. 1 sport in Australia we have to have two teams in Sydney because of the untapped market/potential growth/number of people living there already and only one team currently based there/tv market. On that same logic rugby league should start a second team in Melbourne in 2015. We were before, and still would be without GWS being established the no. 1 sporting code in Australia. We have a monopoly on Vic, WA, SA, Tas, possibly NT, only playing second fiddle to QLD(where we have two teams to leagues three, I think Titans are propped up by News LTD) and obviously NSW. I'm from Melbourne but have lived in Sydney for the last four years. It's a known fact that rugby struggles to get crowds at games. Most clubs have these boutique stadiums which they can't bloody fill. As much as we love our game it doesn't mean everyone else is going to. If Swans had a waiting list for memberships and were selling out every home game fair enough. I do understand the concept of this is for the next generation of people from Western Sydney, but ultimately I think it will fail. I hope I'm wrong. As for the tv rights argument, numerous weekends had four AFL games live, with a minimum of three thanks to 7mate. So there's still plenty of advertising available.

Rugby League should consider a second Melbourne team, but should definitely get a second team in Brisbane and in Auckland. That would get them teams in Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Melbourne, Gold Coast, Townsville, Auckland, Wellington and they should cover Wollongong and Gosford as well. The combined populations if they get interest will sustain the game.

Sydney might have the games on TV but GWS means people are actually going to watch at least some of them. It's vital for Foxtel who have heaps of subscriptions in Sydney and have most of the AFL games on Fox Footy as well as channel 7. League is a good game for TV, very suited for TV watching where as footy is decent on TV but way better live which in some way explains crowds. The ease of getting to the MCG/Etihad and getting big games helps explains footy crowds.

The other reason the AFL needs a bigger presence in Sydney is using the population for talent. Stuff all talent gets drafted from the state of NSW. To sustain 20 teams but even 18 good ones we need more talent.

[binman 43,822]

The other reason the AFL needs a bigger presence in Sydney is using the population for talent. Stuff all talent gets drafted from the state of NSW. To sustain 20 teams but even 18 good ones we need more talent.

Yes, yes and yes. For me this is absolutely crucial. To me the talent pool is the elephant in the room. The game is already suffering i reckon from too few really good players and too many teams. Without a good ongoing supply of talented players coming into the game 18 teams is not sustainable in the long run as the quality of games will be too low and the big clubs will dominate.

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

Yes, yes and yes. For me this is absolutely crucial. To me the talent pool is the elephant in the room. The game is already suffering i reckon from too few really good players and too many teams. Without a good ongoing supply of talented players coming into the game 18 teams is not sustainable in the long run as the quality of games will be too low and the big clubs will dominate.

It's looking bad right now as GWS and Gold Coast took 40 of the best kids but if you sprinkle them in to the remaining 16 clubs giving the best ones to the bottom teams like us and some decent ones to the top teams it looks better. But in 5 or so years when the lists have equaled out at the expansion clubs (to a degree) then it will look very interesting. Hawthorn are one club who have paid the price of little depth to have a great best 22 but started young enough and sustainable enough for it to work. St Kilda sold out and landed in a mess. Sydney are now sacrificing depth of mature talent (and losing the chance at some young kids as well) for Franklin.

QLD and NSW have to at least be providing enough that they'd fill their teams and expansion teams (so now 4) with talent if that's how it worked and we are a fair way from that. Each state kind of needs 8 guys drafted not 3 and some quality like Lenny Hayes would be nice!

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

From what I understand, people think for us to remain the no. 1 sport in Australia we have to have two teams in Sydney because of the untapped market/potential growth/number of people living there already and only one team currently based there/tv market. On that same logic rugby league should start a second team in Melbourne in 2015. We were before, and still would be without GWS being established the no. 1 sporting code in Australia. We have a monopoly on Vic, WA, SA, Tas, possibly NT, only playing second fiddle to QLD(where we have two teams to leagues three, I think Titans are propped up by News LTD) and obviously NSW. I'm from Melbourne but have lived in Sydney for the last four years. It's a known fact that rugby struggles to get crowds at games. Most clubs have these boutique stadiums which they can't bloody fill. As much as we love our game it doesn't mean everyone else is going to. If Swans had a waiting list for memberships and were selling out every home game fair enough. I do understand the concept of this is for the next generation of people from Western Sydney, but ultimately I think it will fail. I hope I'm wrong. As for the tv rights argument, numerous weekends had four AFL games live, with a minimum of three thanks to 7mate. So there's still plenty of advertising available.

Al. if there is one thing that is certain in business, change will happen. You either grow or contract one or the other. The key is make continualy change without taking un-nessecary risks. GWS IMO is not a great risk. The AFL have enough cash to pump in to ensure they dont start with an unmanageable debt. They have put in place draft concessions that will eventually provide GWS with a very strong side allbeit later than the AFL would have wanted. I assume the stadium deals the AFL have brokered for GWS means they will make a quid with small crowds and I am sure that the record media rights deal the AFL acheived was on the back of exposure to this huge market.

To expand and grow the competition needs to gain greater market share in Sydney and the only way is get more sides there (The same is true for the NRL, they need to expand into Melbourne). Other options like ACT, NT and Tas would have been looked at but ACT is not big enough even if the team was marketed as a central Australia side and include Albury/Wodonga and Wagga etc, NT is relatvely small and isolated and Tas is small and has the North/South divide. If you compare the potential returns Sydney would be a mile in front.

If people dont agree with the Sydney expansion I would be interested to hear what decisions the AFL should have made to grow the competition.

[rpfc 28,781]

From what I understand, people think for us to remain the no. 1 sport in Australia we have to have two teams in Sydney because of the untapped market/potential growth/number of people living there already and only one team currently based there/tv market. On that same logic rugby league should start a second team in Melbourne in 2015. We were before, and still would be without GWS being established the no. 1 sporting code in Australia. We have a monopoly on Vic, WA, SA, Tas, possibly NT, only playing second fiddle to QLD(where we have two teams to leagues three, I think Titans are propped up by News LTD) and obviously NSW. I'm from Melbourne but have lived in Sydney for the last four years. It's a known fact that rugby struggles to get crowds at games. Most clubs have these boutique stadiums which they can't bloody fill. As much as we love our game it doesn't mean everyone else is going to. If Swans had a waiting list for memberships and were selling out every home game fair enough. I do understand the concept of this is for the next generation of people from Western Sydney, but ultimately I think it will fail. I hope I'm wrong. As for the tv rights argument, numerous weekends had four AFL games live, with a minimum of three thanks to 7mate. So there's still plenty of advertising available.

Did you know that Tom Wills was from NSW?

I think you are dismissive of the need for a game to grow, and grow on people.

At some point, WA and SA and NT and Tas were won over completely by a game invented at Yarra Park in the centre of Melbourne.

That can't happen again? Or isn't happening now?

As for that last line, you can't possibly think that that one line settles 'the TV rights argument?'

[poita 3,902]

I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up about this. It is a long term project and was always going to be, but absolutely essential for the competition long term.

It took Hawthorn 25-30 years to convert their domination in the 1980's into memberships in recent years. It is the kids of my generation who jumped on board a successful team in their school years and who are now taking their kids to the footy who are responsible for this, not the people who lived through the era.

As discussed previously, GWS have sacrificed short term results for long term success, but GWS will have success when their draftees come of age. The school kids will come on board in due course, and in a generation the club will be entrenched in the area. Sure it will cost a lot of money and heartache in that time, but big investments always do. Do you think BHP get a return from opening a new mine in the first two years?

[PaulRB 6,411]

Given the money in the game I'd suggest the opportunity the AFL are missing is to create a vibrant second division of teams and create an opportunity for the ACT, Hobart, Launceston, Darwin, Auckland, North Shore, etc... and the pick of the independent teams from the state comps (i.e. Williamstown, Glenelg, etc... ?) to play in a AFL National second division.

This would explore and allow these teams to develop their markets, develop and sell players to the first division...

And allow the AFL to explore promotion and relegation between the two divisions at some future date.

Edited January 14, 2014 by PaulRB

[rpfc 28,781]

Given the money in the game I'd suggest the opportunity the AFL are missing is to create a vibrant second division of teams and create an opportunity for the ACT, Hobart, Launceston, Darwin, Auckland, North Shore, etc... and the pick of the independent teams from the state comps (i.e. Williamstown, Glenelg, etc... ?) to play in a AFL National second division.

This would explore and allow these teams to develop their markets, develop and sell players to the first division...

And allow the AFL to explore promotion and relegation between the two divisions at some future date.

Why is this something to shoot for?

The European Football leagues have it - is that the reason?

In England 4 teams can win the competition, the same goes for Spain, Italy, Germany, and France. It is in no small part because of the fact that teams cannot build without the spectre of a one year failure that crushes them for half a decade or a generation.

How would the draft work in this future league? How would player payments be affected?

The evolution of a sporting league does not have to go toward punishment of bad teams - you don't make an equitable and exciting league by punishing those that are struggling and prolonging and indenturing that struggle.

There is no need for a second division. Each football state has its leagues and the NEAFL is up and running for the new football states that need a more comopetitive league. There is little need for a second division league.

Edited January 14, 2014 by rpfc