TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

You are a Swans' supporters so you presumably know their membership base. If we are going to talk about the blood suckers look no further than the Victorian Parasite League. They are the ones that could quite easily provide sufficient funds the a dynamic, vibrant WAFL competition.

Utter crap - On what possible basis do you work that out Swan. given the WAFC are supposed to be the ones looking after WAFL in accordance with their constitution, you know the one the WAFL agreed to? Why have the two local AFL(VFL) Franchises got so much stashed away when they are supposed to NO PROFIT for the good of WA footy?? why are you now defending these two parasites??

A short history lesson for you:
Who voted for the West Coast Eagles to the VFL? The WAFL Clubs..
Who agreed to the Indian Pacific Set up that went broke,,The WAFL Clubs
Who Agreed to pay a stupid amount to join..The WAFL Clubs
Who went bust and agreed to hand over power to the WAFC ..The WAFL Clubs.
Who voted in Peel..The WAFL Clubs
Who voted in the Dockers..The WAFL Clubs...

A litany of disaster all thanks to a our very own clubs and committees...

Sad but true:(

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

You are a Swans' supporters so you presumably know their membership base. If we are going to talk about the blood suckers look no further than the Victorian Parasite League. They are the ones that could quite easily provide sufficient funds the a dynamic, vibrant WAFL competition.

Utter crap - On what possible basis do you work that out Swan. given the WAFC are supposed to be the ones looking after WAFL in accordance with their constitution, you know the one the WAFL agreed to? Why have the two local AFL(VFL) Franchises got so much stashed away when they are supposed to NO PROFIT for the good of WA footy?? why are you now defending these two parasites??

A short history lesson for you:
Who voted for the West Coast Eagles to the VFL? The WAFL Clubs..
Who agreed to the Indian Pacific Set up that went broke,,The WAFL Clubs
Who Agreed to pay a stupid amount to join..The WAFL Clubs
Who went bust and agreed to hand over power to the WAFC ..The WAFL Clubs.
Who voted in Peel..The WAFL Clubs
Who voted in the Dockers..The WAFL Clubs...

A litany of disaster all thanks to a our very own clubs and committees...

Sad but true:(

My club, Swans, most assuredly did not vote for the Eagles to join the VFL. It certainly didn't vote for a host club alignment. Perhaps Bazza will refine or recant his assertion.

swan42 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote: Marketing is about growth, 42.

The WA market, ie WAFL, was already mature, as was the SANFL - the Sydney & Brisbane markets were ripe for growth.

I never completed Marketing 101 (BC can probably chime in here), but I know where I would have put my money.

On that basis it has been a singular failure. Head to head the NRL GF featuring to non-NSW teams thumped the AFL GF in Sydney's TV ratings A similar result occurred in Brisbane.

Your arguement is poor at best Swan42.

Sydney is the NRL heartland much the same as Melbourne is for the AFL (before you go on a rant, no other capital city could sustain 9 sides)

To measure the success or failure of the AFLs investment into NSW and QLD you can’t look at ratings for the GFs television audiences head to head. You need to look at the growth in the new markets of the following areas:
- participation
- live audiences
- television audiences
- sponsorship revenue

I’m sure the NRL would consider the Storm to be a success but they never have crowds which exceed the AFL or have television audiences that out rate AFL games in Vic.

The differential between those that watched the NRL GF versus those that watched the AFL GF was significantly greater in Sydney and Brisbane compared with the differential in Melbourne.

Like most AFL supporters who merely compare attendances between the two codes at the venues you completely misunderstand the Sydney market and psyche.

You must have missed my reference to 4 points to consider when measuring growth in new markets for sport. Only one is attendances at venues...you’ll find that all 4 KPIs have risen in the non-traditional Aussie Rules states.

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Afl are entitled to put their money where ever they like I guess, but as Jack says if you wanted to grow you market you go to where the people are, given the Swans now regarded according to Roy Morgan research as the most supported club across the country, it must be doing something right.

Rather than complain about the Afl, perhaps Swan should be asking why the Dockers and Eagles have accumulated 60 million in the bank after blood sucking the wafl, wa tax payer with a an armchair ride at subi, and now have the arrogance to suck more out of the wa public purse with the move to Burswood...breathtaking.

You are a Swans' supporters so you presumably know their membership base. If we are going to talk about the blood suckers look no further than the Victorian Parasite League. They are the ones that could quite easily provide sufficient funds the a dynamic, vibrant WAFL competition.

Utter crap - On what possible basis do you work that out Swan. given the WAFC are supposed to be the ones looking after WAFL in accordance with their constitution, you know the one the WAFL agreed to? Why have the two local AFL(VFL) Franchises got so much stashed away when they are supposed to NO PROFIT for the good of WA footy?? why are you now defending these two parasites??

A short history lesson for you:
Who voted for the West Coast Eagles to the VFL? The WAFL Clubs..
Who agreed to the Indian Pacific Set up that went broke,,The WAFL Clubs
Who Agreed to pay a stupid amount to join..The WAFL Clubs
Who went bust and agreed to hand over power to the WAFC ..The WAFL Clubs.
Who voted in Peel..The WAFL Clubs
Who voted in the Dockers..The WAFL Clubs...

A litany of disaster all thanks to a our very own clubs and committees...

Sad but true:(

My club, Swans, most assuredly did not vote for the Eagles to join the VFL. It certainly didn't vote for a host club alignment. Perhaps Bazza will refine or recant his assertion.

No The Post said the WAFL clubs in Majority voted YES - that is a fact of history. When given a chance that is the path the WAFL TOOK., they cant blame the VFL the WAFC or anyone else but themselves...

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: True - as did SF, but the MAJORITY did. The only one Im not sure about re the exact vote to the hand over to the WAFC, I think that may have been unanimous..

I might also remind Swan that it was WAFL Clubs that broke ranks on the alignment.

And I will point out to you that IT WAS the WAFC's DECISION. They could have and SHOULD HAVE VETOED the host club alignment. It is THEIR RESPONSIBILTY, 100% THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

And why do that when traditional clubs were wanting it once it came to light! Why would they veto a decision that their PAY MASTERS the dockers and eagles demanded??? and knowing the WAFL clubs would do SFA but accept cash anyway - which is what they did.

42 why shouldnt our club gladly accept the extra funding being the ONLY WAFL CLUB that has voted NO to the introduction of Eagles, Dockers, Peel, Alignment MkI & Alignment MkII.
Our club has a clear conscience when it comes to these absurd decisions that have stuffed WA footy up the gurgler can any other WAFL CLUB claim the same?
Billy Walker told those clowns in charge of WA Footy at the time that it was not the right set up nor the right time etc but those stubborn fools went ahead with joining the VFL anyways and you now have the ludicrous set up of the VFL (10 clubs) and 8 from the rest of the country instead of having a proper National Competition starting from scratch.
And as for the moronic decisions like the Peel & Alignments only a deadset fool would have voted for those introductions!