Carlton's memberships
Robert Glab
Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last year!
Maybe I should join!
Richard Scott
You should join anyway. :) Interestingly, on the ABC they were talking
about these and Stephen Gough will be on on Sunday apparently, and these
are wrong. They looked odd to me as I had seen reports on Hawthorn etc.
that were higher - although these of course could be club propaganda. If
this is an AFL source though, they were behind on doing their AFL
memberships, maybe they are behind on adding up, which is more than
likely. :) So, they could all be wrong!
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--- No, I wasn't surprised, just heartened.
Graham Cornes, after Adelaide's 86 point thrashing of Hawthorn in their
inaugural match.
Chris Ball
Yeah you should join!!
On this topic I heard Graham Cornes talking to Rex, Sam et al on Saturday,
and he was saying that the actual paid-up membership of the Crows is only
about 1500!
It seems that both the Crows and the Power are counting season's ticket
holders as 'members'.
I think there needs to be some sort of review of the figures published
recently.
Richard Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.95q.970426110950.22839A-100000@uhunix4>...
>
> You should join anyway. :)
>
Rob
In article <01bc5291$5c2b2c00$1dee3fcb@glab>, gal...@smart.net.au says...
>
>Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last year!
>Maybe I should join!
>
Probably has something to do with the fact that Carlton continue to play
a great majority of their games at Princes Park. It seems they are a bit
behind other clubs when it comes to getting out of suburban football
mode.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dockers for Premiers 97.
"Mitchell White was very unlucky not to make CHF in the
All-Australian team last year"
"What, ahead of Carey?"
"Possibly"
Another mindless channel 7 commentator exchange.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun
"Chris Ball" <Chri...@Access.net.au> wrote:
>Yeah you should join!!
YES! YES! YES!
>On this topic I heard Graham Cornes talking to Rex, Sam et al on Saturday,
>and he was saying that the actual paid-up membership of the Crows is only
>about 1500!
>It seems that both the Crows and the Power are counting season's ticket
>holders as 'members'.
>
>I think there needs to be some sort of review of the figures published
>recently.
>Richard Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote in article
><Pine.GSO.3.95q.970426110950.22839A-100000@uhunix4>...
>>
>> You should join anyway. :)
>>
>> On 26 Apr 1997, Robert Glab wrote:
>>
>> > Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last
>year!
It was around 22,000 last year.
>> > Maybe I should join!
>> >
a big YES!
As should all true supporters of any football club.
Richard Scott
Actually, I just think some of these figures are wrong for more than one
club, as I have read different reports, so some of them can't be right.
They seem too low in general, Hawthorn and Carlton for ones I can
remember, and maybe Fremantle too.
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--- No, I wasn't surprised, just heartened.
Graham Cornes, after Adelaide's 86 point thrashing of Hawthorn in their
inaugural match.
On 29 Apr 1997, Rob wrote:
> In article <01bc5291$5c2b2c00$1dee3fcb@glab>, gal...@smart.net.au says...
> >
> >Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last year!
Richard Scott
That sounds a bit closer - as I am sure I read something about 19,000
quite a while back.
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--- No, I wasn't surprised, just heartened.
Graham Cornes, after Adelaide's 86 point thrashing of Hawthorn in their
inaugural match.
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Greg Forrester wrote:
> Egg On Face time.
>
> Goose in Carlton Membership area reports 1 Feb figures to AFL.
>
> Although getting an exact figure is not that easy I can confirm
> that we have over 21000. This is directly from the Club
> not hearsay evidence (which might get me accused of vilification!)
>
> Carlton are considering a press release but Gough thinks it might
> sound a bit like my dicks bigger than yours!
>
> Hearsay evidence suggests 24000+ members. (Ok Charge Me!)
>
> Greg Forrester
>
>
>
Greg Forrester
Herbie
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970429092929.2874E-100000@uhunix5>, Richard
Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Actually, I just think some of these figures are wrong for more than one
>club, as I have read different reports, so some of them can't be right.
>They seem too low in general, Hawthorn and Carlton for ones I can
>remember, and maybe Fremantle too.
At this time of year the figures are always going to be rubbery.
Inflating numbers or counting associate members (as in Port's case) may
help recuiting, but we really won't know until either the cut-off date for
finals tickets, or until each club is audited.
>
>Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
>--- No, I wasn't surprised, just heartened.
>Graham Cornes, after Adelaide's 86 point thrashing of Hawthorn in their
>inaugural match.
>
>On 29 Apr 1997, Rob wrote:
>
>> In article <01bc5291$5c2b2c00$1dee3fcb@glab>, gal...@smart.net.au says...
>> >
>> >Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last year!
>> >Maybe I should join!
>> >
>>
>> Probably has something to do with the fact that Carlton continue to play
>> a great majority of their games at Princes Park. It seems they are a bit
>> behind other clubs when it comes to getting out of suburban football
>> mode.
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dockers for Premiers 97.
>> "Mitchell White was very unlucky not to make CHF in the
>> All-Australian team last year"
>> "What, ahead of Carey?"
>> "Possibly"
>> Another mindless channel 7 commentator exchange.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
Herbie
"They put a hotwire to my head 'cause of the things I did and said and made these feelings go away, model citizen in every way." - J Lydon
Rob
In article <01bc52f7$d2840b40$167438cb@cball>, Chri...@Access.net.au says...
>Yeah you should join!!
>
>On this topic I heard Graham Cornes talking to Rex, Sam et al on Saturday,
>and he was saying that the actual paid-up membership of the Crows is only
>about 1500!
>It seems that both the Crows and the Power are counting season's ticket
>holders as 'members'.
Isn't that what a member is?
Shaun
her...@203.12.0.8 (Herbie) wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970429092929.2874E-100000@uhunix5>, Richard
>Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
>>Actually, I just think some of these figures are wrong for more than one
>>club, as I have read different reports, so some of them can't be right.
>>They seem too low in general, Hawthorn and Carlton for ones I can
>>remember, and maybe Fremantle too.
>
>At this time of year the figures are always going to be rubbery.
>Inflating numbers or counting associate members (as in Port's case) may
>help recuiting, but we really won't know until either the cut-off date for
>finals tickets, or until each club is audited.
Update!!
Carlton announced yesterday that they have already gone past last years
club membership figure of 23,278
>>
>>Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
>>--- No, I wasn't surprised, just heartened.
>>Graham Cornes, after Adelaide's 86 point thrashing of Hawthorn in their
>>inaugural match.
>>
>>On 29 Apr 1997, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> In article <01bc5291$5c2b2c00$1dee3fcb@glab>, gal...@smart.net.au says...
>>> >
>>> >Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last year!
>>> >Maybe I should join!
>>> >
>>>
>>> Probably has something to do with the fact that Carlton continue to play
>>> a great majority of their games at Princes Park. It seems they are a bit
>>> behind other clubs when it comes to getting out of suburban football
>>> mode.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Dockers for Premiers 97.
>>> "Mitchell White was very unlucky not to make CHF in the
>>> All-Australian team last year"
>>> "What, ahead of Carey?"
>>> "Possibly"
>>> Another mindless channel 7 commentator exchange.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <01bc5291$5c2b2c00$1dee3fcb@glab>, gal...@smart.net.au says...
>>
>>Is Carlton's membership so low? They were pushing 19000 at least last year!
23,278 was the figure last year. 2nd highest in Victoria behind Essendon
at MCG on around 24,324.
Carlton have already passed last years figure.
The figure in the press a few weeks back was a stuff up by somebody.
>>Maybe I should join!
YEP! :-)
>
>Probably has something to do with the fact that Carlton continue to play
>a great majority of their games at Princes Park. It seems they are a bit
>behind other clubs when it comes to getting out of suburban football
>mode.
Hey!
They are doing the right thing for the club. We have our own homeground
and the facilities and ground capacity have been improved to a very good
standard. Other clubs at MCG don't have their own proper home ground
because it is has so many tenants. In anycase any games we have that are
likely to be in the 50.000 range are usually moved to MCG anyway.
That's why we don't play strong rivals Essendon & Collingwood there
but play interstate clubs and some of the lesser supported Victorian
clubs there in which the capacity of ground can hold comfortably.
"suburban football mode.."
Methinks you are carrying on a bit :-)
I take it you hate Carlton and just like slagging them any chance you get
:-)
GO THE MIGHTY BLUES!
GREATEST CLUB THAT EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE!
Rob
In article <5kcfqo$se$5...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
> They are doing the right thing for the club. We have our own homeground
>and the facilities and ground capacity have been improved to a very good
>standard. Other clubs at MCG don't have their own proper home ground
>because it is has so many tenants. In anycase any games we have that are
>likely to be in the 50.000 range are usually moved to MCG anyway.
>That's why we don't play strong rivals Essendon & Collingwood there
>but play interstate clubs and some of the lesser supported Victorian
>clubs there in which the capacity of ground can hold comfortably.
Can't say I've been there, but you only need to look at the crowds it
draws. People just don't like going there. Maybe its because they charge
ludicrous amounts to get a seat, I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
shite crowds, Carltons game against Adelaide there were lots of empty
seats in what was supposed to be a big day, Richmond v Fremantle only
drew 15000, which prompted the Richmond president to come out and bag
the place, wondering why they keep playing there. People are voting with
their feet. And the people are also going to Waverley. Most games there
get bigger crowds than the capacity of Princes Park. Instead of
Docklands v Waverley, It should be Waverley v Princes Park. And from here
it certainly looks clear cut to which the people prefer, and it aint
the ground with a stand named after Elliott.
>"suburban football mode.."
>Methinks you are carrying on a bit :-)
>I take it you hate Carlton and just like slagging them any chance you get
>:-)
Yeah, I hate Carlton. I try to slag them, but its a bit hard when youre team
gets hammered the same week. Especially to the handbags. :)
Richard Scott
Well, a member of a club usually gets a vote/say in things, however,
limited. A season's ticket holders just gets to go cf USA NFL.
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--- No, I wasn't surprised, just heartened.
Graham Cornes, after Adelaide's 86 point thrashing of Hawthorn in their
inaugural match.
On 1 May 1997, Rob wrote:
> >It seems that both the Crows and the Power are counting season's ticket
> >holders as 'members'.
>
> Isn't that what a member is?
>
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>
>In article <5kcfqo$se$5...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>
>> They are doing the right thing for the club. We have our own homeground
>>and the facilities and ground capacity have been improved to a very good
>>standard. Other clubs at MCG don't have their own proper home ground
>>because it is has so many tenants. In anycase any games we have that are
>>likely to be in the 50.000 range are usually moved to MCG anyway.
>>That's why we don't play strong rivals Essendon & Collingwood there
>>but play interstate clubs and some of the lesser supported Victorian
>>clubs there in which the capacity of ground can hold comfortably.
>
>Can't say I've been there, but you only need to look at the crowds it
>draws.
Yeah! 30, 000 + when Carlton plays geelong for example.
So what's your problem with Carlton continuing to play there?
> People just don't like going there.
I do and lots of Carlton supporters do.
So no reason for us to get rid of the ground for our games.
Bulldogs etc are another matter...
Maybe its because they charge
>ludicrous amounts to get a seat,
Dumb Bulldogs!
I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
>shite crowds,
because they have a shit support base!
Carltons game against Adelaide there were lots of empty
>seats in what was supposed to be a big day,
Was until somebody decided it was a bright idea to wear light blue
guernseys for the day for something to remember the occassion (yuk!)
and get some decent money to help out the club
That's when a fair few Carlton supporters decided the would give that day
a skip....
Richmond v Fremantle only
>drew 15000, which prompted the Richmond president to come out and bag
>the place, wondering why they keep playing there.
Richmond have been playing homegames at MCG since 30 years ago or so.
This means most Richmond supporters & followers (which element is
bigger?) are not comfortable playing at a ground of one their arch rivals
I don't particular think they should be forced to play there but then
again interstate games v Richmond usually not going to get a crowd
way beyonbd 30,000 so MCG better of being used for games of bigger crowds
involving other Victorian based teams. e.g. Home game of Essendon, North,
Melbourne or Collingwood on same day.
>>"suburban football mode.."
>>Methinks you are carrying on a bit :-)
>>I take it you hate Carlton and just like slagging them any chance you get
>>:-)
>
>Yeah, I hate Carlton. I try to slag them, but its a bit hard when youre team
>gets hammered the same week. Especially to the handbags. :)
Don't worry too much, the handbaggers beat us aswell :-(
Then again it is only rounds 5 & 6 and we know how the handbaggers play
in late September :-)
Greg Forrester
Here are the facts and figures courtesy AFL/CFC
1. You have to get 35000 at MCG or you make a loss
2. You have to get 5000 at OO or you make a loss
Thus 15000 = 45000 OO <-> MCG as it is a very Rare
event for non-Vic clubs to attract large crowds to the
G it makes sense to play there. If clubs stopped whinging
and tried to get 25000 it would a) give them a great home
ground advantage and b) make quite a good profit for them!
I love OO you are always close to the Action no matter
where you stand. OK some people sit but I could never
get the hang of sitting at the footy.
Rob
In article <5kn7i5$qvk$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>Can't say I've been there, but you only need to look at the crowds it
>>draws.
>
>Yeah! 30, 000 + when Carlton plays geelong for example.
>So what's your problem with Carlton continuing to play there?
Pretty convenient example. The biggest crowd there all year. And it still
wasn't a full house. Doesn't it hold 35000? A game like that should get
50-60000.
>> People just don't like going there.
>
>I do and lots of Carlton supporters do.
>So no reason for us to get rid of the ground for our games.
>Bulldogs etc are another matter...
>
>Maybe its because they charge
>>ludicrous amounts to get a seat,
>
>Dumb Bulldogs!
>
> I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
>>shite crowds,
>
>because they have a shit support base!
Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
> Carltons game against Adelaide there were lots of empty
>>seats in what was supposed to be a big day,
>
>Was until somebody decided it was a bright idea to wear light blue
>guernseys for the day for something to remember the occassion (yuk!)
>and get some decent money to help out the club
>That's when a fair few Carlton supporters decided the would give that day
>a skip....
>
> Richmond v Fremantle only
>>drew 15000, which prompted the Richmond president to come out and bag
>>the place, wondering why they keep playing there.
>
>
>Richmond have been playing homegames at MCG since 30 years ago or so.
>This means most Richmond supporters & followers (which element is
>bigger?) are not comfortable playing at a ground of one their arch rivals
Richmond and every other club in the league. The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
Carlton play Hawthorn next week. At Waverley, you would expect 50000.
Princes Park can't hold anywhere near that, and you should sell the
game out. Interesting to see if they do.
>I don't particular think they should be forced to play there but then
>again interstate games v Richmond usually not going to get a crowd
>way beyonbd 30,000 so MCG better of being used for games of bigger crowds
>involving other Victorian based teams. e.g. Home game of Essendon, North,
>Melbourne or Collingwood on same day.
Carlton can do what they like. If they want to fork out 10 million for a
shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
Princes Park, you have to wonder what sort of influence Elliott has on
the AFL.
Richard Scott
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
---- A Victorian club in normal times is strong to 30 or more places,
whereas in the other states club teams tail off after about 14 places and
there is a dearth of reserves -- Haydn Bunton, triple Brownlow and
Sandover Medalist comparing football in Victoria and other states in 1946.
On 10 May 1997, Rob wrote:
> Pretty convenient example. The biggest crowd there all year. And it still
> wasn't a full house. Doesn't it hold 35000? A game like that should get
> 50-60000.
>
Games in Wa and SA should always be full houses. They aren't. Why is
that?
> >Maybe its because they charge
> >>ludicrous amounts to get a seat,
> >
Yeah, charging WA prices for seat is stupid, certainly.
> Richmond and every other club in the league. The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
> was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
> that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
Unlikely. If you want to maximise crowds only, get rid of all 40,000 or
less grounds. Or just let interstate teams play there. All Victorian
team will play only at the MCG or Waverley, great idea.
> Carlton can do what they like. If they want to fork out 10 million for a
> shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
Looks warped? You an aesthetic architect? :)
> But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
> clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
> Princes Park, you have to wonder what sort of influence Elliott has on
> the AFL.
>
Some actually believe what they read in the newspaper, too. This can be
quite silly of them.
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5kn7i5$qvk$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>
>>>Can't say I've been there, but you only need to look at the crowds it
>>>draws.
>>
>>Yeah! 30, 000 + when Carlton plays geelong for example.
>>So what's your problem with Carlton continuing to play there?
>
>Pretty convenient example.
Well Carlton only played their twice & i know the other game against
Adelaide i expected not such a big crowd due to the jumper fiasco.
The biggest crowd there all year. And it still
>wasn't a full house. Doesn't it hold 35000?
Yep!
A game like that should get
>50-60000.
Maybe at the MCG but that ain't Carlton's homeground.
>>> People just don't like going there.
>>
>>I do and lots of Carlton supporters do.
>>So no reason for us to get rid of the ground for our games.
>>Bulldogs etc are another matter...
>>
>>Maybe its because they charge
>>>ludicrous amounts to get a seat,
Yeah! The Bulldogs did that first week and Carlton advised them against
it..
>>Dumb Bulldogs!
>>
>> I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
>>>shite crowds,
>>
>>because they have a shit support base!
>
>Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
>excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
Good for them. That is in the Footscray town so i 'd expect it to.
>> Carltons game against Adelaide there were lots of empty
>>>seats in what was supposed to be a big day,
>>
>>Was until somebody decided it was a bright idea to wear light blue
>>guernseys for the day for something to remember the occassion (yuk!)
>>and get some decent money to help out the club
>>That's when a fair few Carlton supporters decided the would give that day
>>a skip....
>>
>> Richmond v Fremantle only
>>>drew 15000, which prompted the Richmond president to come out and bag
>>>the place, wondering why they keep playing there.
>>
>>
>>Richmond have been playing homegames at MCG since 30 years ago or so.
>>This means most Richmond supporters & followers (which element is
>>bigger?) are not comfortable playing at a ground of one their arch rivals
>
>Richmond and every other club in the league. The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
No way! Western V Bulldogs would never get 40,000 unless it was a final..
>Carlton play Hawthorn next week. At Waverley, you would expect 50000.
>Princes Park can't hold anywhere near that, and you should sell the
>game out. Interesting to see if they do.
Probably go near the full capacity i imagine unless a dreary wet day.
Waverley is another matter. Carltons' homeground is Princes Park.
NOT Waverley! That's Hawks homeground and it ain't a Hawks homematch.
>
>>I don't particular think they should be forced to play there but then
>>again interstate games v Richmond usually not going to get a crowd
>>way beyonbd 30,000 so MCG better of being used for games of bigger crowds
>>involving other Victorian based teams. e.g. Home game of Essendon, North,
>>Melbourne or Collingwood on same day.
>
>Carlton can do what they like.
EXACTLY! So stop whinging about us staying at our homeground!
If they want to fork out 10 million for a
>shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
>But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
>clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
>Princes Park, you have to wonder what sort of influence Elliott has on
>the AFL.
huh!
What brings this on?
Elliott has no extra influence on AFL than any normal club president.
I live a lot closer to Waverley than Carlton's ground but i know that
i much prefer going to see Carlton play at Prices Park rather than
Waverley! I still don't mind Waverley and even went their previous round
to see Hawthorn v North, but i still prefer Carlton's homeground because
it ain't got the Arctic like conditions of Waverley and the atmosphere is
a lot better due to crowd being a lot closer to the ground than at
Waverley.
But you started of this thread knocking Carlton and accusing them of
something you called "Suburban football mode" by still playing at our
homeground. That's just stupid. Particularly when you take into account
Brisbane Lions homeground that is has only 2/3rds the capacity of
Carlton's homeground, not as good for facilities and holds finals games
their that can not even hold 30,000 spectators.
Yet you did not knock Brisbane 's ground...
Greg Forrester
Also lets get one thing straight about costings.
Most clubs have to get at least 30,000 to a game at the MCG
and 20,000 at Waverley (AFL owned) just to break even.
Carlton have to get 10,000 more than this because they don't
just get a proportion of sales (food etc) during the day they
get 100% (at Optus) so a 30,000 crowd at Optus is equivalent to
70000+ at the MCG and 50000+ at Waverley.
Not only that but the Doggies are not paying any rent at Optus
(I believe the AFL are picking up the tab) thus whilst crowds
at Optus have been 9000, 15000, 12000 & 18000 they have made
more money than the 35000 who turned up to the Richmond game!
Interesting to note also that a US sports writer was commissioned
to go to each of the grounds (without any preconceptions) and
rated Optus 2nd behind the MCG!
GregF
Rob
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970511232938.23280D-100000@uhunix4>, rsc...@hawaii.edu says...
>> Pretty convenient example. The biggest crowd there all year. And it still
>> wasn't a full house. Doesn't it hold 35000? A game like that should get
>> 50-60000.
>>
>
>Games in Wa and SA should always be full houses. They aren't. Why is
>that?
When 2 WA teams are competing they are. But the support isn't there to
fill the ground for every game.
And at Football Park its pretty close to a full house every game.
>> >Maybe its because they charge
>> >>ludicrous amounts to get a seat,
>> >
>
>Yeah, charging WA prices for seat is stupid, certainly.
Ah, but people are prepared to pay. West Coast make the largest profits in
the game, even though the don't have anywhere near as big a membership
base as Adelaide. And Fremantle make pretty healthy profits as well,
despite the WAFC forecasting financial losses for the first few years.
Probably has something to do with small capacities of the grounds. If
there was an 80000 seater then you would find that the charges on top
of the entry price for a seat would be a lot smaller.
>> Richmond and every other club in the league. The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>> was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>> that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
>
>Unlikely. If you want to maximise crowds only, get rid of all 40,000 or
>less grounds. Or just let interstate teams play there. All Victorian
>team will play only at the MCG or Waverley, great idea.
Depends on the way you look at it. Football crowds are growing pretty
rapidly, this year alone the average is just under 35000. What will be
the story in, say, 10 years time where the number of clubs in Melbourne
will be down to 7 or 8 and PP is far too small? Will they be regretting
getting rid of Waverley?
>> Carlton can do what they like. If they want to fork out 10 million for a
>> shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
>
>Looks warped? You an aesthetic architect? :)
Well, the roof does look bloody odd. For some reason its all curved in
a weird way that makes it look warped.
>> But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
>> clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
>> Princes Park, you have to wonder what sort of influence Elliott has on
>> the AFL.
>>
>Some actually believe what they read in the newspaper, too. This can be
>quite silly of them.
Hey, you see enough of him in the media to realise what he's on about.
Rob
In article <5l6ej4$9p4$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>Pretty convenient example.
>Well Carlton only played their twice & i know the other game against
>Adelaide i expected not such a big crowd due to the jumper fiasco.
We'll see how they go later in the year.
> The biggest crowd there all year. And it still
>>wasn't a full house. Doesn't it hold 35000?
>Yep!
>A game like that should get
>>50-60000.
>Maybe at the MCG but that ain't Carlton's homeground.
So Carlton should move there! They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
>>>> People just don't like going there.
>>>I do and lots of Carlton supporters do.
>>>So no reason for us to get rid of the ground for our games.
>>>Bulldogs etc are another matter...
>>>Maybe its because they charge
>>>>ludicrous amounts to get a seat,
>Yeah! The Bulldogs did that first week and Carlton advised them against
>it..
Yeah all right. What do Carlton charge for a seat?
>>>Dumb Bulldogs!
>>> I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
>>>>shite crowds,
>>>because they have a shit support base!
>>
>>Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
>>excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
>
>Good for them. That is in the Footscray town so i 'd expect it to.
All the more reason to stop using Princes Park. Thats the point. No other
club apart from Carlton gets any people along, yet the AFL still wants
to keep playing about 20 games a year there, and get rid of Waverley while
still keeping PP.
>>> Carltons game against Adelaide there were lots of empty
>>>>seats in what was supposed to be a big day,
>>>Was until somebody decided it was a bright idea to wear light blue
>>>guernseys for the day for something to remember the occassion (yuk!)
>>>and get some decent money to help out the club
>>>That's when a fair few Carlton supporters decided the would give that day
>>>a skip....
>>> Richmond v Fremantle only
>>>>drew 15000, which prompted the Richmond president to come out and bag
>>>>the place, wondering why they keep playing there.
>>>Richmond have been playing homegames at MCG since 30 years ago or so.
>>>This means most Richmond supporters & followers (which element is
>>>bigger?) are not comfortable playing at a ground of one their arch rivals
>>Richmond and every other club in the league. The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>>was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>>that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
>
>No way! Western V Bulldogs would never get 40,000 unless it was a final..
Why wouldn't it? Games there so far this year have got around that. What
was so different about this game?
>>Carlton play Hawthorn next week. At Waverley, you would expect 50000.
>>Princes Park can't hold anywhere near that, and you should sell the
>>game out. Interesting to see if they do.
>
>Probably go near the full capacity i imagine unless a dreary wet day.
>
>Waverley is another matter. Carltons' homeground is Princes Park.
>NOT Waverley! That's Hawks homeground and it ain't a Hawks homematch.
Youre missing the point. Its not about whose home ground it is, its about
what ground should go when the Docklands is built. Clearly people prefer
Waverley. Thats reason enough to get rid of PP.
>>>I don't particular think they should be forced to play there but then
>>>again interstate games v Richmond usually not going to get a crowd
>>>way beyonbd 30,000 so MCG better of being used for games of bigger crowds
>>>involving other Victorian based teams. e.g. Home game of Essendon, North,
>>>Melbourne or Collingwood on same day.
>>Carlton can do what they like.
>EXACTLY! So stop whinging about us staying at our homeground!
I'm not. Just when other clubs are forced to play there it gives me the
shits, because it affects crowds and in the long term, the popularity of
the game.
> If they want to fork out 10 million for a
>>shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
>>But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
>>clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
>>Princes Park, you have to wonder what sort of influence Elliott has on
>>the AFL.
>huh!
>What brings this on?
Reality.
>Elliott has no extra influence on AFL than any normal club president.
Hehehehehe......shit, I'm 3000 km away and I can see that Elliott has a
*big* influence on the way things are run. He is certainly the most
well known club pres going around in the media. And a big part of the
opposition to Waverley. Wouldn't have anything to do with preserving
his precious Elliott stand would it?
>I live a lot closer to Waverley than Carlton's ground but i know that
>i much prefer going to see Carlton play at Prices Park rather than
>Waverley! I still don't mind Waverley and even went their previous round
>to see Hawthorn v North, but i still prefer Carlton's homeground because
>it ain't got the Arctic like conditions of Waverley and the atmosphere is
>a lot better due to crowd being a lot closer to the ground than at
>Waverley.
Fine. but you seem to be in a minority.
Yes, Waverley is not a great ground. But everyone gets a seat for free,
it holds nearly 80000, and it appears that people prefer going there.
And it is owned by the AFL, and will not have the same problems with
the council that PP does, particularily in regard to upgrading the
facilities of the ground.
>But you started of this thread knocking Carlton and accusing them of
>something you called "Suburban football mode" by still playing at our
>homeground. That's just stupid. Particularly when you take into account
>Brisbane Lions homeground that is has only 2/3rds the capacity of
>Carlton's homeground, not as good for facilities and holds finals games
>their that can not even hold 30,000 spectators.
>
>Yet you did not knock Brisbane 's ground...
Not at the moment. But I was big on the Gabba abuse wagon last year around
finals time when only 22000 people could get into a final.
But even so, PP is a bit different to the Gabba, because there is no other
option in Brisbane. Its either the Gabba or a brand new stadium, and no
ones going to fork out the money for that. In Melbourne there is soon to
be a new stadium, which should make PP obsolete. Yet the AFL doesn't
seem to see it that way.
By the way, what is the future of PP in regard to lights? Can the be
installed, or has the council got too much power?
Richard Scott
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
---- A Victorian club in normal times is strong to 30 or more places,
whereas in the other states club teams tail off after about 14 places and
there is a dearth of reserves -- Haydn Bunton, triple Brownlow and
Sandover Medalist comparing football in Victoria and other states in 1946.
On 12 May 1997, Rob wrote:
> When 2 WA teams are competing they are. But the support isn't there to
> fill the ground for every game.
> And at Football Park its pretty close to a full house every game.
>
In other words, it would be a waste of time for games in Melbourne with
these teams, who aren't big draws, to ever play at the MCG? That is, if
you are only interested in crowds. Or even at Waverley. They should be
sent to Victoria Park, the Western Oval, Princes Park, etc.
> Ah, but people are prepared to pay. West Coast make the largest profits in
> the game, even though the don't have anywhere near as big a membership
> base as Adelaide. And Fremantle make pretty healthy profits as well,
> despite the WAFC forecasting financial losses for the first few years.
> Probably has something to do with small capacities of the grounds. If
> there was an 80000 seater then you would find that the charges on top
> of the entry price for a seat would be a lot smaller.
>
Right. They probably won't build one either, as they want to keep it
fullish and hence charge more. What would you call that?
> Depends on the way you look at it. Football crowds are growing pretty
> rapidly, this year alone the average is just under 35000. What will be
> the story in, say, 10 years time where the number of clubs in Melbourne
> will be down to 7 or 8 and PP is far too small? Will they be regretting
> getting rid of Waverley?
>
Well, I certainly don't want Waverley to go. That would be foolish. Then
you could get WA-style ripoffs inflicted on more people. If Princes Park
would be too small in that case, then by your WA theory, because it is
basically full, people will pay more?
> Well, the roof does look bloody odd. For some reason its all curved in
> a weird way that makes it look warped.
>
Actually, it looks pretty funky, I think. Modern design and all that. :)
Herbie
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970513133027.24731C-100000@uhunix3>, Richard
Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
>---- A Victorian club in normal times is strong to 30 or more places,
>whereas in the other states club teams tail off after about 14 places and
>there is a dearth of reserves -- Haydn Bunton, triple Brownlow and
>Sandover Medalist comparing football in Victoria and other states in 1946.
>
>On 12 May 1997, Rob wrote:
>
>> When 2 WA teams are competing they are. But the support isn't there to
>> fill the ground for every game.
>> And at Football Park its pretty close to a full house every game.
>>
>In other words, it would be a waste of time for games in Melbourne with
>these teams, who aren't big draws, to ever play at the MCG? That is, if
>you are only interested in crowds. Or even at Waverley. They should be
>sent to Victoria Park, the Western Oval, Princes Park, etc.
And in most part, they are. The exception is the deal the AFL has done to
ensure that non-Vic teams get to play at the MCG at least twice each-
that's fair enough.
>
>> Ah, but people are prepared to pay. West Coast make the largest profits in
>> the game, even though the don't have anywhere near as big a membership
>> base as Adelaide. And Fremantle make pretty healthy profits as well,
>> despite the WAFC forecasting financial losses for the first few years.
>> Probably has something to do with small capacities of the grounds. If
>> there was an 80000 seater then you would find that the charges on top
>> of the entry price for a seat would be a lot smaller.
>>
>Right. They probably won't build one either, as they want to keep it
>fullish and hence charge more. What would you call that?
We're still waiting on the final plans for the Eastern Stand at Subi.
Options include a capacity of the gound to hold 75,000. I suppose when
the contract with the WACA ends, then they (the WAFC) will approve the
stand.
>
>> Depends on the way you look at it. Football crowds are growing pretty
>> rapidly, this year alone the average is just under 35000. What will be
>> the story in, say, 10 years time where the number of clubs in Melbourne
>> will be down to 7 or 8 and PP is far too small? Will they be regretting
>> getting rid of Waverley?
>>
>Well, I certainly don't want Waverley to go. That would be foolish. Then
>you could get WA-style ripoffs inflicted on more people. If Princes Park
>would be too small in that case, then by your WA theory, because it is
>basically full, people will pay more?
Who knows? We have to pay more because the is no other option. We
haven't had the luxury of a 95,000 seat stadium which costs $12.50 for a
basic seat.
>
>> Well, the roof does look bloody odd. For some reason its all curved in
>> a weird way that makes it look warped.
>>
>
>Actually, it looks pretty funky, I think. Modern design and all that. :)
Is it just me, or is one of those signs at the south-western end already
falling off?
Rob
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970513133027.24731C-100000@uhunix3>, rsc...@hawaii.edu says...
>> When 2 WA teams are competing they are. But the support isn't there to
>> fill the ground for every game.
>> And at Football Park its pretty close to a full house every game.
>>
>In other words, it would be a waste of time for games in Melbourne with
>these teams, who aren't big draws, to ever play at the MCG? That is, if
>you are only interested in crowds. Or even at Waverley. They should be
>sent to Victoria Park, the Western Oval, Princes Park, etc.
Effectively, yes, if you talk in a purely financial sense. Thats what will
happen in Victoria in a few years. When Oakley left he made some comment
that the AFL was working towards not having 'home grounds', instead putting
games at the best available stadium, like the shit crowd pulling games
at the lower capacity centres.
>> Ah, but people are prepared to pay. West Coast make the largest profits in
>> the game, even though the don't have anywhere near as big a membership
>> base as Adelaide. And Fremantle make pretty healthy profits as well,
>> despite the WAFC forecasting financial losses for the first few years.
>> Probably has something to do with small capacities of the grounds. If
>> there was an 80000 seater then you would find that the charges on top
>> of the entry price for a seat would be a lot smaller.
>>
>Right. They probably won't build one either, as they want to keep it
>fullish and hence charge more. What would you call that?
Silliness. They won't built one because it won't get filled. If Subi was
packed out every weekend, then they would built an 80000 seater. The
next stage for the Subi development is the eastern stand, which would
eliminate standing room, and extend the cpaacity to over 50000. Be
interesting to see if they still charge for the really shit seats though.
>> Depends on the way you look at it. Football crowds are growing pretty
>> rapidly, this year alone the average is just under 35000. What will be
>> the story in, say, 10 years time where the number of clubs in Melbourne
>> will be down to 7 or 8 and PP is far too small? Will they be regretting
>> getting rid of Waverley?
>>
>Well, I certainly don't want Waverley to go. That would be foolish. Then
>you could get WA-style ripoffs inflicted on more people. If Princes Park
>would be too small in that case, then by your WA theory, because it is
>basically full, people will pay more?
In theory yes. In Princes Parks case, no. Games that should draw 40000 only
get 20000, probably due to excessive prices, and the fact that Carlton need
the money to pay it off.
>> Well, the roof does look bloody odd. For some reason its all curved in
>> a weird way that makes it look warped.
>>
>
>Actually, it looks pretty funky, I think. Modern design and all that. :)
Nahh, this aint modern design. Its just warped. :)
BWEVA1
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>>Maybe at the MCG but that ain't Carlton's homeground.
>
>So Carlton should move there! They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
>like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
Maybe Fremantle should go there by your logic. Why don't they? Its not
their home ground....just the same as Carlton, they'd lose a massive home
ground advantage...just like Carlton. They'd stand to make less money
than they would playing at their regular home ground, just like Carlton.
I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
Brad
Richard Scott
Well, you don't know a lot about American football then, either. The
majority of NFL grounds are real grass. The percentage continues to
increase. Who said anything about artificial turf, anyway?
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
---- A Victorian club in normal times is strong to 30 or more places,
whereas in the other states club teams tail off after about 14 places and
there is a dearth of reserves -- Haydn Bunton, triple Brownlow and
Sandover Medalist comparing football in Victoria and other states in 1946.
On 16 May 1997, CBJAUST wrote:
>
> Show how little a septic writer would know, I am surprised that he even
> knew what grass was!!. The seppo game of football and its players is
> hardly ever played on real grass, it is just such a farse it isn't funny.
> And then thre is about 5 minuted of action in 2 to 3 hours of play.
> Pathetic. So I wouldn't hold musc credence in a seppo sports journo's
> opinion.
>
> Give us Aussie rules any day and keep it on grass where it belongs. from
> the wetern oval to waverly park football isn't football unless it is
> played on grass
>
CBJAUST
In article <3376B8...@ozemail.com.au>, Greg Forrester
<stat...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>Interesting to note also that a US sports writer was commissioned
>to go to each of the grounds (without any preconceptions) and
>rated Optus 2nd behind the MCG!
>
>
Show how little a septic writer would know, I am surprised that he even
knew what grass was!!. The seppo game of football and its players is
hardly ever played on real grass, it is just such a farse it isn't funny.
And then thre is about 5 minuted of action in 2 to 3 hours of play.
Pathetic. So I wouldn't hold musc credence in a seppo sports journo's
opinion.
Give us Aussie rules any day and keep it on grass where it belongs. from
the wetern oval to waverly park football isn't football unless it is
played on grass
Chris J
HFC member #4678
============================================================
"Take all the trouble that you can afford
at least you won't have time to be bored"
============================================================
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5l6ej4$9p4$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
<snip>
>>Maybe at the MCG but that ain't Carlton's homeground.
>
>So Carlton should move there!
Like hell!!
We are perfectly happy being at our homeground!
They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
>like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
No!
Victoria Park is a run down old ground and the general facilities are no
longer upto the standard the AFL want.
I doubt it holds 30,000 these days aswell.
So Collingwoods defacto homeground has been MCG in recent years as the
case with Victoria Park is 'going! Going! GONE!' and we have already past
the going! Going! stage anyway.
This season or next will be the last it is used in AFL.
After that Colligwood will be playing either combination of Docklands &
MCG or out to Waverley with Hawthorn.
They are looking at the options now.
<snip>
>Yeah all right. What do Carlton charge for a seat?
I think to get a reserved seat in Legends stand it costs an extra $5
over the normal admission. That's for people who ain't members or
anything i think. e.g. Turn up as no member and probably pay $15 to 17
to get a decent seat in Legends stand.
But i'm not 100% sure as they have different packages available for that
stand and it has not been advertised to well in the media. In fact
some of the negative people in the media have tried to make it sound like
it costs a lot more than it actually does. e.g. Turn up and have to pay
$30 or more which i'm sure is just bullshit! As yet i've just get into
the ground as a paid up memeber anyway so have not looked at it too
closely to remember the actually differing prices.
The Carlton v Adelaide game i just sat on wing in front of Elliott stand
but against Geelong when we arrived at the ground we were walking past
the Legends stand and asked an attendant whether we could get into the
stand with AFL-Carlton supporter package and they said yes. This was
behind the goals to left of screen when viewing on tv.
>>>>Dumb Bulldogs!
>
>>>> I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
>>>>>shite crowds,
>
>>>>because they have a shit support base!
>>>
>>>Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
>>>excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
Looked pretty empty plenty of times Bulldogs played Freo.
In fact i bet the Bulldogs v Freo game at Princes Park had a bigger crowd
than at Bulldog v Freo games at Western Oval.
>>
>>Good for them. That is in the Footscray town so i 'd expect it to.
>
>All the more reason to stop using Princes Park. Thats the point. No other
>club apart from Carlton gets any people along, yet the AFL still wants
>to keep playing about 20 games a year there, and get rid of Waverley while
>still keeping PP.
The AFL have not indicated either way on this. You are making a silly
assumption here.
<snip more>
The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>>>was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>>>that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
>>
>>No way! Western Bulldogs v Hawthorn would never get 40,000 unless it was a final..
>
>Why wouldn't it? Games there so far this year have got around that.
Bulldogs v Hawthorn games just traditionally don't attract crowds.
Go research when they ever did get a big crowd. My guess is you would
have to go back to 1985 when Footscray played Hawthron in the finals
twice. Once at MCG and Preliminary Final at VFL Park.
Can't recall them ever having a crowd sellout at ANY ground!
What
>was so different about this game?
See above!
It does not involve Essendon, Carlton , Collingwood or Richmond.
These 4 clubs are the popular ones in Melbourne or non-fans of these
clubs will usually follow the underdog in a game against these 4.
St.Kilda probably got the most fans after these 4 and Hawthorns
great membership drive this year makes it look like Hawthorn support
is finally being increased as a result of the successful eras of 70's &
80's.
it will be interesting to see if the memberships numbers for this season
stay up or increase in following years to keep with Essendon, Carlton &
Collingwood. More than likely no!
>>>Carlton play Hawthorn next week. At Waverley, you would expect 50000.
>>>Princes Park can't hold anywhere near that, and you should sell the
>>>game out. Interesting to see if they do.
>>
>>Probably go near the full capacity i imagine unless a dreary wet day.
>>
>>Waverley is another matter. Carltons' homeground is Princes Park.
>>NOT Waverley! That's Hawks homeground and it ain't a Hawks homematch.
>
>Youre missing the point.
No!
I'm not, You just have not got to your point until this posting!
Its not about whose home ground it is, its about
>what ground should go when the Docklands is built.
Docklands is not even built yet so this is irrelevant to this weeks game.
Fremantle get 11 games in your homestate.
I think i'm entitled to feel Carlton deserve atleast 9 games at our
homeground.
We played Hawthorn at Waverley last year and this year it's our turn
to play at home. Note i doubt Hawthron v Carlton game at VFL Park last
year got a crowd that would indicate any good reason why Carlton should
not play this game at our homeground.
Clearly people prefer
>Waverley. Thats reason enough to get rid of PP.
I don't know whether this is right and people are still getting used to
the change at Princes Park and confused in a negative sense to the prices
it costs to go to Princes Park.
Least Princes Park has some public transport to the grounds front door.
Unless you drive to Waverley you are likely to have to fork out $5
for any bus etc.
e.g. Hawthorn v North Saturday night game at Waverley had some buses
going from Burwood East to the ground. Cost $5
>>>>I don't particular think they should be forced to play there but then
>>>>again interstate games v Richmond usually not going to get a crowd
>>>>way beyonbd 30,000 so MCG better of being used for games of bigger crowds
>>>>involving other Victorian based teams. e.g. Home game of Essendon, North,
>>>>Melbourne or Collingwood on same day.
>
>>>Carlton can do what they like.
>
>>EXACTLY! So stop whinging about us staying at our homeground!
>
>I'm not. Just when other clubs are forced to play there it gives me the
>shits, because it affects crowds and in the long term,
In the long term i'm sure people will understand the new setup at Princes
Park and how good the facilities are in the Legneds Stand etc.
Once this occurs crowds will be up there and show good value for a club
like Essendon playing say Fremantle or Port Adelaide at the ground.
the popularity of
>the game.
>
>> If they want to fork out 10 million for a
>>>shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
>>>But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
>>>clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
>>>Princes Park, you have to wonder what sort of influence Elliott has on
>>>the AFL.
>
>>huh!
>>What brings this on?
>
>Reality.
Reality in your mind
Not in the world outside it :-)
>>Elliott has no extra influence on AFL than any normal club president.
>
>Hehehehehe......shit, I'm 3000 km away and I can see that Elliott has a
>*big* influence on the way things are run.
Yeah! I see how the media and television hype shapes your thinking on
things.
He is certainly the most
>well known club pres going around in the media.
Big Deal!
Does not mean he has any bigger influence on AFL than any other club
president.
He does not!
And a big part of the
>opposition to Waverley. Wouldn't have anything to do with preserving
>his precious Elliott stand would it?
John Elliott's opposition to Waverley is his business not mine.
Your opposition to Princes Park is even sillier than his comments of
Bulldozing Waverley.
>>I live a lot closer to Waverley than Carlton's ground but i know that
>>i much prefer going to see Carlton play at Prices Park rather than
>>Waverley! I still don't mind Waverley and even went their previous round
>>to see Hawthorn v North, but i still prefer Carlton's homeground because
>>it ain't got the Arctic like conditions of Waverley and the atmosphere is
>>a lot better due to crowd being a lot closer to the ground than at
>>Waverley.
>
>Fine. but you seem to be in a minority.
Geez! i've heard you say this a few times to different poeple.
Indicates this may not to be as minor as you seem to believe.
More people are AWARE of what you get when you goto Waverley
but a helluva lot of people are UNAWARE of exactly the situation with new
setup at Princes Park. But some negative and incorrect comments by some
sections of media have misled a fair few people and i have no doubt this
has had some real effect on crowd figures that you are complaining about
at games such as Bulldogs v Hawks etc.
Personally i make a point of finding out the situation of different
prices this Sunday when i goto the ground and will pass on next week.
>Yes, Waverley is not a great ground. But everyone gets a seat for free,
>it holds nearly 80000,
75,000 now actually.
>and it appears that people prefer going there.
^^^^^^^
So far yes!
I'm pretty sure that may change over time when poeple are more aware of
situation at Princes Park.
>And it is owned by the AFL,
for not much longer!
and will not have the same problems with
>the council that PP does, particularily in regard to upgrading the
>facilities of the ground.
The future of the ground is uncertain.
It's in a good spot of metroplitan Melbourne for people like myself that
live in Eastern or Southern suburbs but it also has problems in that
particular spot it was built due to being a rain belt and bloody cold
and unbearable in many afternoon. When the chilly wind is up at that
ground you would know why it has accurately nicknamed Arctic Park.
Has no real public Transport to speak of aswell which is a real hassle.
The actual design of the stadium with respect to viewing for supporters
is the worst in the league despite having the ground that can hold the
2nd biggest capacity.
In the end there are probably too many negatives for it to survive which
is sad for us people in Eastern & Southern suburbs that would really like
a decent football stadium to service the outer areas which is heavily
populated.
>>But you started of this thread knocking Carlton and accusing them of
>>something you called "Suburban football mode" by still playing at our
>>homeground. That's just stupid. Particularly when you take into account
>>Brisbane Lions homeground that is has only 2/3rds the capacity of
>>Carlton's homeground, not as good for facilities and holds finals games
>>their that can not even hold 30,000 spectators.
>>
>>Yet you did not knock Brisbane 's ground...
>
>Not at the moment. But I was big on the Gabba abuse wagon last year around
>finals time when only 22000 people could get into a final.
Yes! that is something that annoys me to see a final wasted on such as
ground the can not hold a decent capacity.
>But even so, PP is a bit different to the Gabba, because there is no other
>option in Brisbane.
Is this true?
Are not there grounds used via Rugby that hold 35,000 crowds or more that
could be used for AFL football?
What's Lang Park or ANZ staduim? I don't know anything about these
grounds but i have heard of them. Are they in Brisbane and suitable.
They could also upgrade the Gabba as Carlton has done with their ground.
Its either the Gabba or a brand new stadium, and no
>ones going to fork out the money for that.
Why not?
In Melbourne there is soon to
>be a new stadium, which should make PP obsolete.
We will see!
Yet the AFL doesn't
>seem to see it that way.
I do not know the AFL had any view on this yet.
What have they said that makes you think otherwise?
>By the way, what is the future of PP in regard to lights?
Don't think there are any plans to have lights.
Hope not! I prefer footy in the day.
Can the be
>installed, or has the council got too much power?
Don't know! Don't care personally. I'm happy with the ground as it is and
see no reason not to play day games there at all times.
Long term possibility: (with 8 clubs in Victoria)
Docklands - St.Kilda play 11 homegames a year there.
- Collingwood & North Melbourne about 6 each.
( Their remaining 5 probably at MCG)
MCG - Homeground for Melbourne, Richmond & Essendon.
(might play the odd game at Princes Park against
clubs from outside Victoria e.g. Essendon v Freo )
Kardinia Park - 9 games for Geelong.
Princes Park - 9 games for Carlton.
(Carlton's other 2 games at MCG v Essendon & Collingwood)
( Geelongs other 2 games at Docklands or MCG)
If Waverley goes, as i think it probably will, then i can't see Hawks
staying as a Victorian based club. Hence re-location to Canberra or
Tassie likely. Bulldogs will probably be in deep shit by the time
Docklands is built anyway so they could possibly merge with Kangeroos
or re-locate outside Victoria
Richard Scott
Well, you can lay the increased bus cost to get to Waverley at the
wonderful Mr. Kennett's door, it would seem.
We used to be able to get there by bus for 95c/1.30 or whatever, depending
on where from. You could just get a three hour ticket (which don't exist
now, apparently - or the bus system as it once was thanks to you know who)
and go and they would let you go back, ticket expired or not. $5 now?
That's a pretty nice 'inflation' rate, 300-400%. 25% perhaps, but that is
ridiculous. The car industry boys must be nice to the government as well,
it seems.
Dettol
CBJAUST wrote:
>
> In article <3376B8...@ozemail.com.au>, Greg Forrester
> <stat...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
> >Interesting to note also that a US sports writer was commissioned
> >to go to each of the grounds (without any preconceptions) and
> >rated Optus 2nd behind the MCG!
> >
> >
>
> Show how little a septic writer would know, I am surprised that he even
> knew what grass was!!. The seppo game of football and its players is
> hardly ever played on real grass, it is just such a farse it isn't funny.
> And then thre is about 5 minuted of action in 2 to 3 hours of play.
> Pathetic. So I wouldn't hold musc credence in a seppo sports journo's
> opinion.
>
> Give us Aussie rules any day and keep it on grass where it belongs. from
> the wetern oval to waverly park football isn't football unless it is
> played on grass
My sentiments exactly. So a US sports writer rated the phone box number two,
well he must be right!!!! Suppose an australian sports writer went to the US
to rate grounds. Suppose it was mike sheahan...
Mike
Richard Scott
True, which is again the fault of car types and governments. Although he
is currently responsible for big price increases and reduction of ticket
times etc. as far as rail travel goes. Used to be quite reasonable to get
around, but when people move because of what travel zone they are in that
is getting a tad ridiculous.
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
---- A Victorian club in normal times is strong to 30 or more places,
whereas in the other states club teams tail off after about 14 places and
there is a dearth of reserves -- Haydn Bunton, triple Brownlow and
Sandover Medalist comparing football in Victoria and other states in 1946.
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Dettol wrote:
> Of course none of that would be an issue if they had have been able to build a
> rail link to waverly.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
Richard Scott
That's right, and they have been tearing them out fast, and one of the
dome teams is hightailing out of there. :) Interesting that no team in a
dome has won the Big One either.
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
---- A Victorian club in normal times is strong to 30 or more places,
whereas in the other states club teams tail off after about 14 places and
there is a dearth of reserves -- Haydn Bunton, triple Brownlow and
Sandover Medalist comparing football in Victoria and other states in 1946.
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Dettol wrote:
>
> The impression I get from people who follow the game is that with the benefit of
> hindsight astroturf was a bad move but is necessary in domed stadiums.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
Dettol
Richard Scott wrote:
>
> Well, you don't know a lot about American football then, either. The
> majority of NFL grounds are real grass. The percentage continues to
> increase. Who said anything about artificial turf, anyway?
>
The impression I get from people who follow the game is that with the benefit of
Dettol
Richard Scott wrote:
>
> Well, you can lay the increased bus cost to get to Waverley at the
> wonderful Mr. Kennett's door, it would seem.
>
> We used to be able to get there by bus for 95c/1.30 or whatever, depending
> on where from. You could just get a three hour ticket (which don't exist
> now, apparently - or the bus system as it once was thanks to you know who)
> and go and they would let you go back, ticket expired or not. $5 now?
> That's a pretty nice 'inflation' rate, 300-400%. 25% perhaps, but that is
> ridiculous. The car industry boys must be nice to the government as well,
> it seems.
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5leoea$iat$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>
>>enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>>
>>>>Maybe at the MCG but that ain't Carlton's homeground.
>>>
>>>So Carlton should move there! They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
>>>like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
>>
>>their home ground....just the same as Carlton, they'd lose a massive home
>>ground advantage...just like Carlton. They'd stand to make less money
>>than they would playing at their regular home ground, just like Carlton.
>
>on its home ground. Why? Cos its not up to AFL standard and doesn't
>provide the facilities for the sponsors or the public. So they play
>at Subiaco and the WACA instead, despite the fact that playing at
>Fremantle Oval would be one of the biggest HGA's in the comp.
This is just plain silliness Rob.
I guess you did John Cleese's silly walk from Monty Python days after you
posted this :-)
Lets get real!
Freamntle Dockers have only existed for 2+ seasons.
In that time the have had Subiaco Oval & WACA their homegrounds in
effect.
>>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
>
>I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
>with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
>year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
>by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
>so keen to keep PP.
Are they keen?
They seem to just be sticking to their contract and nothing more.
I've never heard the AFL rave on about PP.
They are leaving their options open for period after contract is gone.
THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
>yet another contract that locks them in. What would happen in, say, 8
>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
Can't see this happening!
Might go down to 8 but not 6!
Thats 66 games in
>Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
>at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
>and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
All based of the hypothetical though so means nothing.
In anycase they are getting into a contract for Docklands to have atleast
about 23 games a year there. So not 9 anyway.
You make to many assumptions on issues like this. Stick to making
comments on things your sure about in West Australia because you just
keep getting too many things wrong when commenting on grounds/contracts
to do with Football in Victoria.
Comment on Fremantle instead.
e.g. How come Tony Delaney is not doing very well?
How is Heath Black settling in with Dockers teamwork?
Will Matthew Burton get back seeing as Bandy & White seem to have
sewn up the Ruck division?
Do you think in long term Daniel Parker will develop into a better
option at Full Forward as opposed to Kinglsey Hunter?
When is Scott Watters going to return?
Rob
In article <5leoea$iat$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>
>enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>
>>
>>So Carlton should move there! They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
>>like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
>
>their home ground....just the same as Carlton, they'd lose a massive home
>ground advantage...just like Carlton. They'd stand to make less money
>than they would playing at their regular home ground, just like Carlton.
I hate to be the first to tell you this, but Fremantle don't play any games
on its home ground. Why? Cos its not up to AFL standard and doesn't
provide the facilities for the sponsors or the public. So they play
at Subiaco and the WACA instead, despite the fact that playing at
Fremantle Oval would be one of the biggest HGA's in the comp.
>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
so keen to keep PP. THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
yet another contract that locks them in. What would happen in, say, 8
years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams? Thats 66 games in
Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
--
Herbie
In article <19970516044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cbj...@aol.com (CBJAUST) wrote:
>In article <3376B8...@ozemail.com.au>, Greg Forrester
><stat...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
>>Interesting to note also that a US sports writer was commissioned
>>to go to each of the grounds (without any preconceptions) and
>>rated Optus 2nd behind the MCG!
>>
>>
>
>Show how little a septic writer would know, I am surprised that he even
>knew what grass was!!. The seppo game of football and its players is
>hardly ever played on real grass, it is just such a farse it isn't funny.
> And then thre is about 5 minuted of action in 2 to 3 hours of play.
>Pathetic. So I wouldn't hold musc credence in a seppo sports journo's
>opinion.
>
>Give us Aussie rules any day and keep it on grass where it belongs. from
>the wetern oval to waverly park football isn't football unless it is
>played on grass
>
>Chris J
Actually, I didn't get to play on real grass until I was about 13. Our
school oval was a claypan with weeds (including double-gee!), Our Town
Oval only managed to grow grass after the first rains- and then it was cut
to shit by the boots. Some other Towns had reasonable coverings, usually
only those which had some sort of reticulation, to let the grass grow over
summer.
BWEVA1
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5leoea$iat$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>
>>enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So Carlton should move there! They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
>>>like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
>>
>>their home ground....just the same as Carlton, they'd lose a massive home
>>ground advantage...just like Carlton. They'd stand to make less money
>>than they would playing at their regular home ground, just like Carlton.
>
>I hate to be the first to tell you this, but Fremantle don't play any games
>on its home ground. Why? Cos its not up to AFL standard and doesn't
>provide the facilities for the sponsors or the public. So they play
>at Subiaco and the WACA instead, despite the fact that playing at
>Fremantle Oval would be one of the biggest HGA's in the comp.
I don't recall the Fremantle Dockers ever having Fremantle Oval as its
home ground.
>
>>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
>
>I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
>with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
>year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
>by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
>so keen to keep PP. THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
>yet another contract that locks them in.
Once again, the AFL had to reassure the ground owners that a suficient
number of games would be played to ensure that building a new stand would
be viable. Would Carlton have built the stand if they weren't guarenteed
a certain number of games? The AFL obviously felt then that OO was an
important part of the future of the AFL. A feeling which has changed now
with the Docklands proposal, which the AFL possibly didn't know of when
the OO contract was signed.
Something which obviously escapes you Rob is that people aren't going to
take a risk on building a new stand if they have no assurances that they
will be able to pay for it.
>What would happen in, say, 8
>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
Possibly you will wake up and change hands. I doubt Melbourne/Victoria
will ever be left with only 6 teams. Hawthorn are working to secure
their future, Western are giving themselves a chance, although you'd
think that maybe they're in too much trouble. Melbourne are possibly in
a lot of trouble. St Kilda and North Melbourne are also unsecure, but
Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond and Geelong. Thats 5 there,
Hawthorn should survive, and mergers or fighting and a turnaround should
keep 1-2 more teams alive
Thats 66 games in
>Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
>at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
>and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
Assuming of course that you're right and there are only 6 teams and 66
games. The agreement is only until 2006 anyway, although apparantly
their is a handshake agreement for 40 years. We'll have to wiat and
see if the AFL in honorable or not :-)
Brad
Herbie
In article <5lhhg8$ohn$4...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, Shaun
<SDB...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>>In article <5leoea$iat$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>>
>>>enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Maybe at the MCG but that ain't Carlton's homeground.
>>>>
>>>>So Carlton should move there! They have that option. Perhaps use PP a bit
>>>>like Collingwood uses Victoria Park.
>>>
>>>Maybe Fremantle should go there by your logic. Why don't they? Its not
>>>their home ground....just the same as Carlton, they'd lose a massive home
>>>ground advantage...just like Carlton. They'd stand to make less money
>>>than they would playing at their regular home ground, just like Carlton.
>>
>>I hate to be the first to tell you this, but Fremantle don't play any games
>>on its home ground. Why? Cos its not up to AFL standard and doesn't
>>provide the facilities for the sponsors or the public. So they play
>>at Subiaco and the WACA instead, despite the fact that playing at
>>Fremantle Oval would be one of the biggest HGA's in the comp.
>
>This is just plain silliness Rob.
>I guess you did John Cleese's silly walk from Monty Python days after you
>posted this :-)
I guess it's no more silly than suggesting that Carlton should be allowed
to have a home ground when almost every other Melbourne team has been told
to close doors and move. St Kilda at Waverley? That *is* a joke.
>
>Lets get real!
>Freamntle Dockers have only existed for 2+ seasons.
>In that time the have had Subiaco Oval & WACA their homegrounds in
>effect.
*Fremantle* please. The same arrangement for West Coast. If you knew the
history- until this year, only the WACA had lights, so a contract was
drawn up to play 6 (I think) games there. Due to the AFL draw, not all
the games played there would be at night, so one or two games were played
on a Sunday arvo. Oh and WC had a final against the Pies there, because
some work was being carried out at Subi.
The contract with the WACA is due to run out in the next few years. It
doesn't have the capacity of Subi (35,000 compared to 42,000 and proposed
65,000), Subi now has lights, and Subi is better suited for public
transport, even if Rob doesn't agree.
>
>>>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>>>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>>>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>>>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
>>
>>I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
>>with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
>>year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
>>by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
>>so keen to keep PP.
>
>Are they keen?
>They seem to just be sticking to their contract and nothing more.
>I've never heard the AFL rave on about PP.
>They are leaving their options open for period after contract is gone.
>
> THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
>>yet another contract that locks them in. What would happen in, say, 8
>>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
>
>Can't see this happening!
>Might go down to 8 but not 6!
Why not? It is the balance sheets that will ultimately determine which
clubs survive. That leaves Carlton (although they are spending a lot on
legal fees!), Essendon,Collingwood, Richmond and Geelong in a resonalble
position. North Melbourne and Melbourne are a bit shakey, and St Kilda,
Hawks and Bulldogs are very shakey. Having 6 Victorian teams is a very
real possibility.
>
> Thats 66 games in
>>Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
>>at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
>>and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
>
>All based of the hypothetical though so means nothing.
>In anycase they are getting into a contract for Docklands to have atleast
>about 23 games a year there. So not 9 anyway.
>You make to many assumptions on issues like this. Stick to making
>comments on things your sure about in West Australia because you just
>keep getting too many things wrong when commenting on grounds/contracts
>to do with Football in Victoria.
Ok, so 41 for MCG, 16 for PP/OO and 23 for Docklands. That's 80 games in
metro Melbourne. If 8 clubs are left, and Geelong is one of them, then
that means only 8 games a Kardinia Park (not a bad number really). If
only 7 teams left, then there is a surplus of 3 matches, and a surplus of
14 matches for 6 clubs, if the AFL continue with the current 22 rounds.
Which non-Victorian club is going to allow some of their home games to be
transferred to Melbourne?
I still remember the cries of Fitzroy sympathisers who wanted Fitzroy's
last game transferred to the MCG- so their supporters could 'pay their
last respects'. Just as well it didn't come off, because there would have
been 20,000 *very* angry Freo members, like me and Rob, who had already
paid for our seats 8 months in advance.
It might be hypothetical, but I'm sure as fuck I don't want the AFL locked
into deals with Victorian venues at the expense of the rest of the
National competition.
>
>Comment on Fremantle instead.
> e.g. How come Tony Delaney is not doing very well?
Not sure, was very quiet against Melbourne- subsequently dropped.
> How is Heath Black settling in with Dockers teamwork?
Very well. Very good foot skills- should fill Ben Allan's boots nicely.
> Will Matthew Burton get back seeing as Bandy & White seem to have
>sewn up the Ruck division?
Burton has had some knee problems, and that is affecting his consistancy.
While White and Bandy continue to jump all over their opponents, Spider
will struggle for selection.
> Do you think in long term Daniel Parker will develop into a better
>option at Full Forward as opposed to Kinglsey Hunter?
There are really only 2 options for FF longer term, Hunter and Micheal
Brown. Parker is probably better suited to a CHF or pocket. Our main
problem (besides kicking) has always been that there is only one target up
forward; only one leading option. If we had the Likes of Loewe, or
Plugger or even Dunstall, then it wouldn't be a problem. Most of the
other teams have a combination of a stong-leading foward and a strong
overhead forward for the packs. At the start of the year, Parker was left
alone, and the opposition effort was concentrated on Peter Mann at CHF.
By adding Clive ShitterHouse to the forward line, there has been another
target to aim for, and forcing the opposition to spread its resources a
little thinner. The combination of Parker, Mann, Leach and Shitterhouse
as a base up forward worked well against Melbourne (not that it's any acid
test). White and Bandy could then float between CHF and CHB as required,
leaving Toia, Wills, Dirty Harry and Winny to swoop on the loose balls.
> When is Scott Watters going to return?
Probably never. I wouldn't be suprised if he is dropped at the end of the
year. He's basically a dud.
Rob
In article <5lj2vt$r0f$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>I hate to be the first to tell you this, but Fremantle don't play any games
>>on its home ground. Why? Cos its not up to AFL standard and doesn't
>>provide the facilities for the sponsors or the public. So they play
>>at Subiaco and the WACA instead, despite the fact that playing at
>>Fremantle Oval would be one of the biggest HGA's in the comp.
>I don't recall the Fremantle Dockers ever having Fremantle Oval as its
>home ground.
So where did you think the Dockers train and where its social facilities
are? They just put a submission to the WAFC to spend $3 million there
to upgrade the facilities. Unfortunately it will be a long time and a great
deal of money would need to be spent to ever play AFL games down there.
And once again, it is a pity. The weather down there (particularily the
wind factor) really gives you a home ground advantage.
>>>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>>>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>>>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>>>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
>>I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
>>with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
>>year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
>>by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
>>so keen to keep PP. THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
>>yet another contract that locks them in.
>Once again, the AFL had to reassure the ground owners that a suficient
>number of games would be played to ensure that building a new stand would
>be viable. Would Carlton have built the stand if they weren't guarenteed
>a certain number of games? The AFL obviously felt then that OO was an
>important part of the future of the AFL. A feeling which has changed now
>with the Docklands proposal, which the AFL possibly didn't know of when
>the OO contract was signed.
Which exposes the stupidity of signing contracts that lock you in.
>Something which obviously escapes you Rob is that people aren't going to
>take a risk on building a new stand if they have no assurances that they
>will be able to pay for it.
So was it worth the AFL taking the risk of signing a contract that locks
them in? They haven't done it in any other state. Why are Carlton so
priviliged? Try to look at it from a supporter of football stance instead
of carlton supporter stance.
>>What would happen in, say, 8
>>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
>
>Possibly you will wake up and change hands. I doubt Melbourne/Victoria
>will ever be left with only 6 teams.
Unlikely, yes. But still possible. Even 7 teams only gives Victoria
77 games a year, which means there is only 20 games left to play with.
I can just see Wayne Jackson standing up there in 8 years rescheduling
Non-Victorian club home games to Melbourne because they have to fulfill
contracts signed with the MCG, Docklands and PP. After all, they did
it with the finals, why won't they do it in the H & A season?
> Hawthorn are working to secure
>their future, Western are giving themselves a chance, although you'd
>think that maybe they're in too much trouble. Melbourne are possibly in
>a lot of trouble. St Kilda and North Melbourne are also unsecure, but
>Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond and Geelong. Thats 5 there,
>Hawthorn should survive, and mergers or fighting and a turnaround should
>keep 1-2 more teams alive
I wonder about Geelong. People keep telling me they have massive support
in Geelong, but their membership is down near the bottom, and you can
hardly say they have been losing. What if in 5 years, they finish in
the bottom 3, and membership plummets? Maybe they have a shitload of
cash in the bank.
Melbourne are in the shit, but while Gutnick is there, they will continue.
How much of a fan is he though? Apparantly he has put in 3 mil already
with no result. Will he continue to do so?
And you would have to bank on a relocation. From what I see in the
news, the bid by Hobart is pretty serious. Now a new team would be
far too risky, so perhaps a large carrot by the AFL to relocate for a team
like North or Hawthorn might just persuade the shift. Western Sydney is
an option as well. And there is still a doubt about the validity about
Hawthorns membership, and, if in fact it is legit, how many of these new
members are prepared to put in every year?
Western is gone. They will be out by 2000 at most.
St Kilda are in trouble, because they look like being down the bottom
for a while, which can't be good for the finances. They seem to have a lot
of bandwagon support though.
So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
>Thats 66 games in
>>Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
>>at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
>>and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
>Assuming of course that you're right and there are only 6 teams and 66
>games. The agreement is only until 2006 anyway, although apparantly
>their is a handshake agreement for 40 years. We'll have to wiat and
>see if the AFL in honorable or not :-)
I just wonder about the intelligence about these contracts. Subiaco
just got a new stand and will build another soon without getting involved
with some bullshit AFL contract. Why is Victoria so different?
steve
Rob, the Victorian hater, wrote
[lots of anti-victorian stuff snipped]
>So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
>North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
>left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
>and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
>and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
>hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
Geez Rob, when your not whingeing about some dreamed up pro-Victorian
bias within the AFL, you're trying to kill off half the Victorian teams. You
seem to think that membership numbers are the only thing that should
be taken into account when determining if a team should remain in the
competition.
Hawthorn have been the most successful team in the past 10 to 15 years
and now have a large membership. It wasn't that long ago that Melbourne,
St Kilda and Footscray were playing in finals. Your comment about
Geelong's existence being in doubt shows how little you know about
football in Victoria. I seem to recall North winning a premiership recently
and now you're trying to shift them to Sydney.
I get annoyed when supporters of a team that has only been in the AFL
for a relatively short time start trying to kill off teams that have been
in the competition for over a hundred years. It is the Victorian teams
that have built this competition up over the years and have put much
more money into the game than the 4 million dollars entry fee that
the interstate teams had to pay. While the hell should these teams
have to merge or relocate just because they are down a bit at the
moment?
On another point: why do you keep sticking up for the Eagles when they
continually kick Fremantle's butt, and only recently Mick Malthouse
called the Fremantle players a bunch of faggots (as reported in the
Herald-Sun).
Steve
BWEVA1
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5lj2vt$r0f$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>
>>>I hate to be the first to tell you this, but Fremantle don't play any games
>>>on its home ground. Why? Cos its not up to AFL standard and doesn't
>>>provide the facilities for the sponsors or the public. So they play
>>>at Subiaco and the WACA instead, despite the fact that playing at
>>>Fremantle Oval would be one of the biggest HGA's in the comp.
>
>>I don't recall the Fremantle Dockers ever having Fremantle Oval as its
>>home ground.
>
>So where did you think the Dockers train and where its social facilities
>are?
Hawthorn train at Glenferie Oval, Melbourne at the Junction Oval,
Richmond at Punt Road, Essendon at Windy Hill, Collingwood at Victoria
Park and North Melbourne at Arden St. All up there are about 3 games
played on those grounds.
They just put a submission to the WAFC to spend $3 million there
>to upgrade the facilities. Unfortunately it will be a long time and a great
>deal of money would need to be spent to ever play AFL games down there.
>And once again, it is a pity. The weather down there (particularily the
>wind factor) really gives you a home ground advantage.
Maybe when they take steps, such as Carlton have, to improve their
facilities someone will let them play games there. I hope so, for
Fremantle.
>
>>>>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>>>>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>>>>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>>>>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
>
>>>I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
>>>with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
>>>year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
>>>by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
>>>so keen to keep PP. THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
>>>yet another contract that locks them in.
>
>>Once again, the AFL had to reassure the ground owners that a suficient
>>number of games would be played to ensure that building a new stand would
>>be viable. Would Carlton have built the stand if they weren't guarenteed
>>a certain number of games? The AFL obviously felt then that OO was an
>>important part of the future of the AFL. A feeling which has changed now
>>with the Docklands proposal, which the AFL possibly didn't know of when
>>the OO contract was signed.
>
>Which exposes the stupidity of signing contracts that lock you in.
Did I see something about a contract to play 6 games at the WACA each
season?
>
>>Something which obviously escapes you Rob is that people aren't going to
>>take a risk on building a new stand if they have no assurances that they
>>will be able to pay for it.
>
>So was it worth the AFL taking the risk of signing a contract that locks
>them in? They haven't done it in any other state. Why are Carlton so
>priviliged? Try to look at it from a supporter of football stance instead
>of carlton supporter stance.
Fair enough, possibly from a supporter of football I can see your point,
but try looking at it from the AFL and Carlton's viewpoint and not a
Fremantle supporters.
Subiaco really the only other ground to come out and spend the money of
renovating their ground. Maybe if the AFL didn't have some silly
contract to play 6 games at the WACA Subi could egt more games and pay
off their debt sooner :-) Actually, I don't really know the full details
of that agreement, so take that as jestful.
>
>>>What would happen in, say, 8
>>>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
>>
>>Possibly you will wake up and change hands. I doubt Melbourne/Victoria
>>will ever be left with only 6 teams.
>
>Unlikely, yes. But still possible. Even 7 teams only gives Victoria
>77 games a year, which means there is only 20 games left to play with.
>I can just see Wayne Jackson standing up there in 8 years rescheduling
>Non-Victorian club home games to Melbourne because they have to fulfill
>contracts signed with the MCG, Docklands and PP. After all, they did
>it with the finals, why won't they do it in the H & A season?
He can't do that.
>
>> Hawthorn are working to secure
>>their future, Western are giving themselves a chance, although you'd
>>think that maybe they're in too much trouble. Melbourne are possibly in
>>a lot of trouble. St Kilda and North Melbourne are also unsecure, but
>>Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond and Geelong. Thats 5 there,
>>Hawthorn should survive, and mergers or fighting and a turnaround should
>>keep 1-2 more teams alive
>
>I wonder about Geelong. People keep telling me they have massive support
>in Geelong, but their membership is down near the bottom, and you can
>hardly say they have been losing. What if in 5 years, they finish in
>the bottom 3, and membership plummets? Maybe they have a shitload of
>cash in the bank.
Reports are they're strong enough, don't assume things.
>Melbourne are in the shit, but while Gutnick is there, they will continue.
>How much of a fan is he though? Apparantly he has put in 3 mil already
>with no result. Will he continue to do so?
I think Melbourne were never bad financially, just on field. That was
their reason for looking to merge.
>And you would have to bank on a relocation. From what I see in the
>news, the bid by Hobart is pretty serious. Now a new team would be
>far too risky, so perhaps a large carrot by the AFL to relocate for a team
>like North or Hawthorn might just persuade the shift. Western Sydney is
>an option as well. And there is still a doubt about the validity about
>Hawthorns membership, and, if in fact it is legit, how many of these new
>members are prepared to put in every year?
>Western is gone. They will be out by 2000 at most.
>St Kilda are in trouble, because they look like being down the bottom
>for a while, which can't be good for the finances. They seem to have a lot
>of bandwagon support though.
>
>So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
>North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
>left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
>and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
>and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
>hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
Its pretty difficult to estimate any of this. You still underestimate
the level of support in Victoria. Look how long it took for Fitzroy to
die. Fans of other clubs have seen this and should rally behind their
team now. Its also given the clubs a good kick up the backside to start
running their club properly.
>
>
>>Thats 66 games in
>>>Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
>>>at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
>>>and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
>
>>Assuming of course that you're right and there are only 6 teams and 66
>>games. The agreement is only until 2006 anyway, although apparantly
>>their is a handshake agreement for 40 years. We'll have to wiat and
>>see if the AFL in honorable or not :-)
>
>I just wonder about the intelligence about these contracts. Subiaco
>just got a new stand and will build another soon without getting involved
>with some bullshit AFL contract. Why is Victoria so different?
Probably because there are 10 teams in Melbourne and 4-5 different
grounds. The Grand Final is always going to be played here so you need
the best stadium you can get for that. If that means signing a contract
to ease the mind of the MCC and the govt then so be it.
A question. Why would the AFL agree to play games at the Docklands,
given the contracts they have in place? They already have Waverley and
OO. Even without an obligation to play an extra 7 games at OO, they're
still in shit because of the Docklands, not OO. Games are going to be
played at OO regardless of how many other grounds there are. They should
never have joined the Docklands. It doesn't really bring any advantage
to the AFL. We don't need to play Indoor games.
Brad
Herbie
>Rob, the Victorian hater, wrote
>
>[lots of anti-victorian stuff snipped]
>>So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
>>North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
>>left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
>>and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
>>and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
>>hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
>
>Geez Rob, when your not whingeing about some dreamed up pro-Victorian
>bias within the AFL, you're trying to kill off half the Victorian teams. You
>seem to think that membership numbers are the only thing that should
>be taken into account when determining if a team should remain in the
>competition.
>Hawthorn have been the most successful team in the past 10 to 15 years
>and now have a large membership. It wasn't that long ago that Melbourne,
>St Kilda and Footscray were playing in finals. Your comment about
>Geelong's existence being in doubt shows how little you know about
>football in Victoria. I seem to recall North winning a premiership recently
>and now you're trying to shift them to Sydney.
Winning premierships, it seems, has little to do with supporter base.
Have a look at Collingwood- not consistanct finalists for the past decade,
yet still manage to chalk up a few members. But it is the supporter base
that sustains a club.
I see that only 12,000 turned up to Optus Oval for the Roos v Pap smears.
That's not many considering they won a premiership last year, and it's in
Melbourne. Keep that up and they will move North sooner than later.
>I get annoyed when supporters of a team that has only been in the AFL
>for a relatively short time start trying to kill off teams that have been
>in the competition for over a hundred years. It is the Victorian teams
>that have built this competition up over the years and have put much
>more money into the game than the 4 million dollars entry fee that
>the interstate teams had to pay. While the hell should these teams
>have to merge or relocate just because they are down a bit at the
>moment?
Because if they can't handle being in the big time, they shouldn't be
there. We can't afford to have mill-stones of the likes of Fitzroy.
>On another point: why do you keep sticking up for the Eagles when they
>continually kick Fremantle's butt, and only recently Mick Malthouse
>called the Fremantle players a bunch of faggots (as reported in the
>Herald-Sun).
We Fremantle have a grudging admiration for the Eagles. They recruit
well, are solid performers on field, have a large support base, and they
paved the way so that we could have a crack at it too. As for Mick, what
would he know? He's only a Victorian. :^)
>
>Steve
Corey Popelier
On Sat, 17 May 1997 12:12:03 +0800, her...@203.12.0.8 (Herbie) wrote:
>In article <19970516044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>cbj...@aol.com (CBJAUST) wrote:
>
>>In article <3376B8...@ozemail.com.au>, Greg Forrester
>><stat...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
[snip]
>
>Actually, I didn't get to play on real grass until I was about 13. Our
>school oval was a claypan with weeds (including double-gee!), Our Town
>Oval only managed to grow grass after the first rains- and then it was cut
>to shit by the boots. Some other Towns had reasonable coverings, usually
>only those which had some sort of reticulation, to let the grass grow over
>summer.
>
>Herbie
>
Reminds me of one game I played in Armadale at under 15 level. Armadale oval had
copped about 3 days of solid rain, and made Western Oval look like the surface
of Subiaco. Mum wouldn't let me in the house for about a week afterwards. :-)
Cheers,
Corey Popelier.
Perth, Western Australia.
Corey Popelier
Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what is the big deal about getting too and from
Waverley, and playing games there ? Is there no car parks or what ? Is it that
far out of the way ? (I am *not* trying to be facetious here, I really don't
have any idea (Perth Boy!!) and am curious).
Corey Popelier
On Sun, 18 May 1997 12:52:09, s.ma...@bom.gov.au (steve) wrote:
>Rob, the Victorian hater, wrote
>
>[lots of anti-victorian stuff snipped]
[lost of other bits snipped]
>On another point: why do you keep sticking up for the Eagles when they
>continually kick Fremantle's butt, and only recently Mick Malthouse
>called the Fremantle players a bunch of faggots (as reported in the
>Herald-Sun).
>
>Steve
>
He said what ?? Surely that is not a direct quote... I've heard of trying to
instill a bit of rivalry, but I thought the Western Derby already had enough of
that, even if the result appears to always be a forgone conclusion. (Anyone in
any tipping comps tipping Freo next time ? :-)
Herbie
I'm probably answering before rob, but anyway..
In article <5llig3$vrm$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWEVA1
<BWE...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
{snip previous arguments}
>>So where did you think the Dockers train and where its social facilities
>>are?
>
>Hawthorn train at Glenferie Oval, Melbourne at the Junction Oval,
>Richmond at Punt Road, Essendon at Windy Hill, Collingwood at Victoria
>Park and North Melbourne at Arden St. All up there are about 3 games
>played on those grounds.
>
>They just put a submission to the WAFC to spend $3 million there
>>to upgrade the facilities. Unfortunately it will be a long time and a great
>>deal of money would need to be spent to ever play AFL games down there.
>>And once again, it is a pity. The weather down there (particularily the
>>wind factor) really gives you a home ground advantage.
>
>Maybe when they take steps, such as Carlton have, to improve their
>facilities someone will let them play games there. I hope so, for
>Fremantle.
Fremantle's licence is owned by the WAFC. Every thing the club does has
to be approved by the WAFC. And I can't see WAFC allowing money being
drawn away from Subi, which it leases.
{more edits}
>>Which exposes the stupidity of signing contracts that lock you in.
>
>Did I see something about a contract to play 6 games at the WACA each
>season?
The difference is the WACA is a short term contract, and has been
renegotiated on previous occasions. Also the WACA was the only venue
until this year with lights, so obviously a proportion of games had to be
played there.
{more edits}
>
>Fair enough, possibly from a supporter of football I can see your point,
>but try looking at it from the AFL and Carlton's viewpoint and not a
>Fremantle supporters.
>
>Subiaco really the only other ground to come out and spend the money of
>renovating their ground. Maybe if the AFL didn't have some silly
>contract to play 6 games at the WACA Subi could egt more games and pay
>off their debt sooner :-) Actually, I don't really know the full details
>of that agreement, so take that as jestful.
I'll note your jovialness :) The development of the WACA lights and new
seating areas as well as ripping up the old surface and relaying was
possible in part due to the contract the AFL/WACA has with the WACA. As
far as Subi goes, the debt is not great; more development is due soon. It
certainly does not need to be paid off any faster.
>
>>
>>>>What would happen in, say, 8
>>>>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
>>>
>>>Possibly you will wake up and change hands. I doubt Melbourne/Victoria
>>>will ever be left with only 6 teams.
>>
>>Unlikely, yes. But still possible. Even 7 teams only gives Victoria
>>77 games a year, which means there is only 20 games left to play with.
>>I can just see Wayne Jackson standing up there in 8 years rescheduling
>>Non-Victorian club home games to Melbourne because they have to fulfill
>>contracts signed with the MCG, Docklands and PP. After all, they did
>>it with the finals, why won't they do it in the H & A season?
>
>He can't do that.
Oh? The AFL board has done a lot of things that punters have said they
can't do, like extend the loan period for Sydney (which BWT I agree with),
arrange the finals so that West Coast could hold their first 'home' final,
and so on. I would suggest that the board, and Wayne Jackson in
particular, would be more familiar with what they can and can't do than
you or I.
{more edits}
>>So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
>>North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
>>left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
>>and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
>>and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
>>hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
>
>Its pretty difficult to estimate any of this. You still underestimate
>the level of support in Victoria. Look how long it took for Fitzroy to
>die. Fans of other clubs have seen this and should rally behind their
>team now. Its also given the clubs a good kick up the backside to start
>running their club properly.
The length of time it took Fitzroy to die was not really a function of
support. It would not be wise to kick a club out if it's still solvent
(though I believe the board of directors grossly misrepresented the
situation), and even sillier to can it midway through a season.
Importantly, other clubs have recognised the Fitzroyish signs within their
own balance sheets to attempt restructures or mergers. In these cases,
the dull minded supporters are forcing the clubs concerned to 'go it
alone'; more Fitzroyish foolishness.
{more edits}
>>I just wonder about the intelligence about these contracts. Subiaco
>>just got a new stand and will build another soon without getting involved
>>with some bullshit AFL contract. Why is Victoria so different?
>
>Probably because there are 10 teams in Melbourne and 4-5 different
>grounds. The Grand Final is always going to be played here so you need
>the best stadium you can get for that. If that means signing a contract
>to ease the mind of the MCC and the govt then so be it.
>
>A question. Why would the AFL agree to play games at the Docklands,
>given the contracts they have in place? They already have Waverley and
>OO. Even without an obligation to play an extra 7 games at OO, they're
>still in shit because of the Docklands, not OO. Games are going to be
>played at OO regardless of how many other grounds there are. They should
>never have joined the Docklands. It doesn't really bring any advantage
>to the AFL. We don't need to play Indoor games.
Look at deals this way. The MCG, WACA, SCG and 'Gabba are venues owned by
sporting bodies, and the AFL indirectly leases these venues. It owns AFL
Park in Victoria, while in WA the WAFC 'owns' Subiaco, and the SANFL
Football park. All these organisations put their profits back into the
game for the benefit of all. The Docklands will be jointly owned by the
AFL who will have the controling share. Victoria Park will shortly cease
to be a AFL venue, and Kardinia only hosts Geelong home games.
That only leaves Carlton's home ground. It is the only ground where the
home club directly benefits when it two *other* teams play. It is the only
ground where other clubs have been forced to call home, have no control
over pricing. It is the only ground where, in effect, the tennents are
forced to pay rent to the 'owning' club. Not only is that unfair, it's
immoral. Why should Carlton be in such a priveleged position?
>
>Brad
Dettol
Corey Popelier wrote:
[snip]
>
> >Of course none of that would be an issue if they had have been able to build a
> >rail link to waverly.
> >
> >
> >Mike
>
> Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what is the big deal about getting too and from
> Waverley, and playing games there ? Is there no car parks or what ? Is it that
> far out of the way ? (I am *not* trying to be facetious here, I really don't
> have any idea (Perth Boy!!) and am curious).
>
>
> Corey Popelier.
> Perth, Western Australia.
Its a question of relativity. It is extremely easy to get to the other grounds by
public transport if you wish to do so. You can get out to waverly but it certainly
doeasn't fit the "easy" description...and you need to take a cut lunch.
Alot of people prefer to take public transport ot the footy for several reasons,
including having a beer and not being done for 0.05 and also not having to worry
about traffic and parking.
Mike
Kathryn Linge
<s.malley.1...@bom.gov.au> <338346a3....@newsman.murdoch.edu.au>
Distribution:
Corey Popelier (c.pop...@student.murdoch.edu.au) wrote:
:
:
Yep! Apparently he called Fremantle "the fremantle faggots" at some
eagles supporters breakfast in Melbourne - his later excuse was that thats
what _everyone_ called the dockers in melbourne ( although this was the
first i'd heard of that) and that they call west coast the "weak eagles"
(boo hoo. how could they!) - which again i'd never heard and frankly, if
that the best that melbourne can do to insult the eagles i would think
they were pretty .... WEAK!
Of course nothing was made much of it over here in the media - I faintly
remember it being reported on the news but the angle they took was "Gosh
that mick is a jokester - he'll do anthing for a laugh!"
GOCF
Kathryn
Richard Scott
As far as the AFL goes and as far as they have been saying they want 16
teams, so they won't get rid of any, only move them - more teams = more
games.
Now, as to crowds - if North vs some team with basically no supporters in
town at a ground some people call bad gets 12,000 with other games an
option for the weekend, and Fremantle versus a team that probably has a
few more than none supporters around only gets 14,000 then by this logic
either a) no-one wants to go to that ground or b) no-one wants to see
Fremantle?
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
On 20 May 1997, Shaun wrote:
> When are Fremantle going to get some decent crowds?
> Something tells me the Dockers have not quite attracted the support they
> expected from South & East Fremantle supporters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Shaun
Well in fact to my surprise that is in fact closer to the mark than my
guess was. On Saturday i asked an attendent how much extra cost it was
for Legends stand and he said yes it's only $17-50
so only $5 extra than general admission. BUT i checked with Ticketeck
and the Carlton club today and in fact that is wrong.
The price for a reserved seat is in fact $26-50 and $2 off for vistion
member or $12 off for Carlton member.
(that applies to both Legends stand and Southern Stand)
There is said to be room around ground for 3,500 general admission at
normal price of $12-50 and also $2 off for a vistiing member.
So in fact the prices are expensive compared to other grounds in Victoria
and obviously they are following the idea at Football Park where
basically reserved seating is only thing available other than members of
the home club.
As yet i've just get into
>the ground as a paid up member anyway so have not looked at it too
>closely to remember the actually differing prices.
>The Carlton v Adelaide game i just sat on wing in front of Elliott stand
>but against Geelong when we arrived at the ground we were walking past
>the Legends stand and asked an attendant whether we could get into the
>stand with AFL-Carlton supporter package and they said yes. This was
>behind the goals to left of screen when viewing on tv.
>
>>>>>Dumb Bulldogs!
>>
>>>>> I wouldn't know. But Western are getting
>>>>>>shite crowds,
>>
>>>>>because they have a shit support base!
>>>>
>>>>Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
>>>>excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
No!
1996 Bulldogs V Hawks at Western Oval crowd 16,804
at Optus Oval a few weeks back was 18,860
Hawthorn v Bulldogs at Waverley in 1996
14,914
>Looked pretty empty plenty of times Bulldogs played Freo.
Yes! Because of tv angle and Legends stand too expensive at present
so most people spread around other parts of ground not shown on tv.
Footscray v Freo at Western Oval last year with crowd of 8,674
Don't remember figure for their clash at Optus Oval but it certainly was
bigger than Western Oval. I think 12,000 was around about the figuref or
this year. Neither crowd is good but certainly getting better crowd at
Optus Oval than Western Oval.
>In fact i bet the Bulldogs v Freo game at Princes Park had a bigger crowd
>than at Bulldog v Freo games at Western Oval.
>
>>>
>>>Good for them. That is in the Footscray town so i 'd expect it to.
>>
>>All the more reason to stop using Princes Park. Thats the point. No other
>>club apart from Carlton gets any people along, yet the AFL still wants
>>to keep playing about 20 games a year there, and get rid of Waverley while
>>still keeping PP.
>
>The AFL have not indicated either way on this. You are making a silly
>assumption here.
>
><snip more>
>
>The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>>>>was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>>>>that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
1996 at Waverley 14,914 for those 2 teams.
whilst 18,860 at Optus Oval over a week ago.
Your 40,000 figure is way off as i previously pointed out.
>>>No way! Western Bulldogs v Hawthorn would never get 40,000 unless it was a final..
>>
>>Why wouldn't it? Games there so far this year have got around that.
>
>Bulldogs v Hawthorn games just traditionally don't attract crowds.
>Go research when they ever did get a big crowd. My guess is you would
>have to go back to 1985 when Footscray played Hawthron in the finals
>twice. Once at MCG and Preliminary Final at VFL Park.
>Can't recall them ever having a crowd sellout at ANY ground!
>
> What
>>was so different about this game?
>
>See above!
>It does not involve Essendon, Carlton , Collingwood or Richmond.
>These 4 clubs are the popular ones in Melbourne or non-fans of these
>clubs will usually follow the underdog in a game against these 4.
>
>St.Kilda probably got the most fans after these 4 and Hawthorns
>great membership drive this year makes it look like Hawthorn support
>is finally being increased as a result of the successful eras of 70's &
>80's.
>it will be interesting to see if the memberships numbers for this season
>stay up or increase in following years to keep with Essendon, Carlton &
>Collingwood. More than likely no!
>
>>>>Carlton play Hawthorn next week. At Waverley, you would expect 50000.
>>>>Princes Park can't hold anywhere near that, and you should sell the
>>>>game out. Interesting to see if they do.
>>>
>>>Probably go near the full capacity i imagine unless a dreary wet day.
Around 31,500 with full capacity as 35,000.
Note Legends stand was basically full except for one small area.
So obviously when Carlton play there they are getting people to sit in
Legends Stand despite the hefty prices.
The stand itself holds about 14,400 so even in nobody is in it at
Bulldogs game can still fit over 20,000 crowd into ground.
Actaully i looked up Bulldogs v Adelaide crowd and it surprised me that
quoted 24,670 which i find hard to believe considering Hawthorn game
against Bulldogs was qouted 18,860
>>>Waverley is another matter. Carltons' homeground is Princes Park.
>>>NOT Waverley! That's Hawks homeground and it ain't a Hawks homematch.
>>
>>Youre missing the point.
>
>No!
>I'm not, You just have not got to your point until this posting!
>
> Its not about whose home ground it is, its about
>>what ground should go when the Docklands is built.
>
>Docklands is not even built yet so this is irrelevant to this weeks game.
>Fremantle get 11 games in your homestate.
>I think i'm entitled to feel Carlton deserve atleast 9 games at our
>homeground.
>We played Hawthorn at Waverley last year and this year it's our turn
>to play at home. Note i doubt Hawthron v Carlton game at VFL Park last
>year got a crowd that would indicate any good reason why Carlton should
>not play this game at our homeground.
>
> Clearly people prefer
>>Waverley. Thats reason enough to get rid of PP.
Hawthorn v Carlton in 1996 at Waverley was crowd of 28,670.
On Sunday at PP there was about 31,500
& certainly a crowd of that size has a better view and better atmsophere
around the ground than Waverley with similar size crowd.
Those figures i showed even surprised me. But they are showing you are
wrong!
Pointed out earlier in this post and in fact they are pretty expensive to
what us Victorians are used to paying for going to footy.
>>Yes, Waverley is not a great ground. But everyone gets a seat for free,
>>it holds nearly 80000,
Not for free unelss they are a Member of the HAwks, St.Kilda or AFL.
Same situation for Carlton & AFL members at PP.
2 times i sat in Legends stand i payed nothing on the day.
General Admission at both grounds is the same although PP has a lot less
than Waverley. So if you really want to go you are forced to pay an extra
price for reserved seats or get there early when gates open.
>75,000 now actually.
>
>>and it appears that people prefer going there.
> ^^^^^^^
>So far yes!
>I'm pretty sure that may change over time when poeple are more aware of
>situation at Princes Park.
The only thing better about Waverley is the fact it has much bigger
capacity and hence many more available spots for general admission which
is good. ( a very good advantage though)
Viewing, transport & atmosphere it losses out to Princes Park.
Rob
In article <33824609....@newsman.murdoch.edu.au>, c.pop...@student.murdoch.edu.au says...
>Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what is the big deal about getting too and from
>Waverley, and playing games there ? Is there no car parks or what ? Is it that
>far out of the way ? (I am *not* trying to be facetious here, I really don't
>have any idea (Perth Boy!!) and am curious).
Theres enough car parking there, just when it rains it turns to bog.
But the main problem is that theres no rail link, so it makes it
hard for those people without a car, or just like going on public transport.
And that bloody freeway that goes out there (South Eastern?) doesn't have
too many on ramps out to Waverley. I must have gone through about 3
intersections trying to get on the damn thing, but you could only go
towards the city.
The actual stadium itself is pretty good. A bit lacking in atmosphere,
but I guess you get that when it fills up. There was only about 34000
people when I was there.
tch...@psinet.net.au
>On Sun, 18 May 1997 12:52:09, s.ma...@bom.gov.au (steve) wrote:
>
>>Rob, the Victorian hater, wrote
>>
>>[lots of anti-victorian stuff snipped]
>[lost of other bits snipped]
>
Thats right Corey mick the pricks word thatFremantle were a bunch of
faggots and the next day he made it out to be said in jest.
>He said what ?? Surely that is not a direct quote... I've heard of trying to
>instill a bit of rivalry, but I thought the Western Derby already had enough of
>that, even if the result appears to always be a forgone conclusion. (Anyone in
>any tipping comps tipping Freo next time ? :-)
>
>
Michael Cullen
c.pop...@student.murdoch.edu.au (Corey Popelier), far, far away from here,
appears to have written:
>Reminds me of one game I played in Armadale at under 15 level. Armadale oval had
>copped about 3 days of solid rain, and made Western Oval look like the surface
>of Subiaco. Mum wouldn't let me in the house for about a week afterwards. :-)
I'm surprised she does now :-)
cheers,
Mic. (http://netserv.net.au/tiger/) GO TIGERS!
Cross Purposes Studios (Web & Graphic Design)
Shaun
Sorry but Carlton *already* have a home ground. I'm not suggesting we get
a new one. Just keep what we already have. Which is bloody fair enough.
The grounds that have stopped being used in recent years are Windy Hill
- Essendon , Moorabin - St.Kilda & now Whitten Oval - Footscray is going
along with Victoria Park - Collingwood sometime in next 18 months.
These grounds have been closed to AFL football because the standards of
the ground and facilities have been deemed unsatisfactory for AFL
football. Essendon moved from Windy Hill (about 24,000 capacity) to
MCG (about 98,000 capacity). Fair enough too as their membership increase
has shown since.
Whitten Oval is a shocker and won't get any reasonable arguement from
anybody why it should have benn kept.
Victoria Park ( run down facilities & only holds about 27,000)
Meanwhile Carlton ground is 1000% better standard than any of those
grounds and now holds about 35,000 capacity.
Not any reason for Carlton to leave it.
> St Kilda at Waverley? That *is* a joke.
I tend to agree a bit.
But what choice to St.Kilda have?
Upgrade Moorabin?
Goto MCG?
I think they'll eventually end up at Victoria Stadium and probably
attract more of their supporters there than Waverley Park.
>>Lets get real!
>>Freamntle Dockers have only existed for 2+ seasons.
>>In that time the have had Subiaco Oval & WACA their homegrounds in
>>effect.
>
>*Fremantle* please. The same arrangement for West Coast. If you knew the
>history- until this year, only the WACA had lights, so a contract was
>drawn up to play 6 (I think) games there. Due to the AFL draw, not all
>the games played there would be at night, so one or two games were played
>on a Sunday arvo. Oh and WC had a final against the Pies there, because
>some work was being carried out at Subi.
>
>The contract with the WACA is due to run out in the next few years. It
>doesn't have the capacity of Subi (35,000 compared to 42,000 and proposed
>65,000), Subi now has lights, and Subi is better suited for public
>transport, even if Rob doesn't agree.
I dunno about all the bickering between supporters over their and ground
preference i was just replying to Rob's silly suggestion that Fremantle
does not play any games on their homeground.
There's is only 2 sides in Perth and both share the WACA & Subiaco so
clearly no homeground avantage for games between Eagles & Dockers, BUT
clearly WACA & Subiaco Oval effectively are homegrounds for each of their
remaining *home* games In Perth against clubs from interstate.
>>
>>>>I've never been to Subiaco so I won't put it down, just liek you
>>>>shouldn't put OO down until you've seen it yourself, especially now. Its
>>>>facilities are much better than Waverley. Waverley have big crowds at
>>>>the moment, but that'll die down once the novelty of saving it goes away.
>>>
>>>I just read in the round 1 football record that the AFL signed a contract
>>>with whoever runs Princes Park that 16 games must be played there every
>>>year until 2006. Once again we see the AFL get locked into a long term deal
>>>by signing some silly contract. Perhaps thats the reason why they are
>>>so keen to keep PP.
>>
>>Are they keen?
>>They seem to just be sticking to their contract and nothing more.
>>I've never heard the AFL rave on about PP.
>>They are leaving their options open for period after contract is gone.
>>
>> THey don't want to have more bad publicity by signing
>>>yet another contract that locks them in. What would happen in, say, 8
>>>years if Melbourne is only left with 6 teams?
>>
>>Can't see this happening!
>>Might go down to 8 but not 6!
>
>Why not?
Simple!
It's been hard enough reducing the Victorain clubs from 11 to 10 and it
will be even harder to reduce it any further. Each time a club goes it
makes it easier for the other remaining Victorian based clubs to
survive. If the AFL stays at 16 clubs which i think it will then
Victorian based clubs making up 50% of teams for next decade or 2 more is
most likely. Also check out the number of players of Victorian origin and
that's is around 50%.
8 clubs out of 16 seems about right to me and with the population in
Melbourne & great support of football clubs in general it won't be too
hard to keep atleast 8 clubs for atleast another decade or two.
It is the balance sheets that will ultimately determine which
>clubs survive. That leaves Carlton (although they are spending a lot on
>legal fees!), Essendon,Collingwood, Richmond and Geelong in a resonalble
>position.
Yep! I agree the are in no real danger. Too much support behind them.
North Melbourne and Melbourne are a bit shakey, and St Kilda,
>Hawks and Bulldogs are very shakey.
Well out of these 5 clubs i'd say St.Kilda has the biggest fan base if
not bigger membership at the present moment. If St.Kilda stay at Waverley
and the ground is not improved then they might eventually get in trouble
but i think they are looking towards Victoria Stadium which is more
central for their fans.
Hawthorn on the other hand have Waverly Park in perfect place for
the regions they get reasonable support in.
Bulldogs look the most vulnerable to me and are hanging out for Victoria
Stadium to be built but that may be too late.
North look safe for atleast the next 5 years or so.
Melbourne are meant to be safe financially.
I think maybe 2 clubs out of Bulldogs, Hawks, Kangas & Demons will
re-locate or merge or something but i can't see 4 of these clubs all
going missing before in next 9 years. Geez! Fitzroy struggled for 10
years atleast before they finally went.
Having 6 Victorian teams is a very
>real possibility.
Maybe in the very long term but certainly not in the foreseable future
and certainly not before 2006.
>> Thats 66 games in
>>>Melbourne. 41 must be played at the MCG, as per the MCG contract, 16
>>>at PP. So just 9 games are left for the Docklands, Waverley (if it exists)
>>>and Kardinia Park (if Geelong exist). What a bunch of fools.
Yeah! They would be IF it got down to 6 by 2006, BUT it won't.
>>All based of the hypothetical though so means nothing.
>>In anycase they are getting into a contract for Docklands to have atleast
>>about 23 games a year there. So not 9 anyway.
>>You make to many assumptions on issues like this. Stick to making
>>comments on things your sure about in West Australia because you just
>>keep getting too many things wrong when commenting on grounds/contracts
>>to do with Football in Victoria.
>
>Ok, so 41 for MCG, 16 for PP/OO and 23 for Docklands. That's 80 games in
>metro Melbourne.
I looked it up!
It's 41 for MCG
22 for Victoria Stadium (Docklands)
16 for Optus Oval (Princes Park)
If 8 clubs are left, and Geelong is one of them, then
>that means only 8 games a Kardinia Park (not a bad number really).
EVen better number is 9 which is what it would be.
If
>only 7 teams left, then there is a surplus of 3 matches, and a surplus of
>14 matches for 6 clubs, if the AFL continue with the current 22 rounds.
>Which non-Victorian club is going to allow some of their home games to be
>transferred to Melbourne?
It ain't going to happen so don't worry about it.
>I still remember the cries of Fitzroy sympathisers who wanted Fitzroy's
>last game transferred to the MCG- so their supporters could 'pay their
>last respects'.
That was NEVER going to happen either.
Just as well it didn't come off, because there would have
>been 20,000 *very* angry Freo members, like me and Rob, who had already
>paid for our seats 8 months in advance.
You guys get easily worried by silly rumours in the media.
I don't know where the suggestion originated but it certainly was NEVER
seriously considered.
>>Comment on Fremantle instead.
<snip>
>> Do you think in long term Daniel Parker will develop into a better
>>option at Full Forward as opposed to Kinglsey Hunter?
>
>There are really only 2 options for FF longer term, Hunter and Micheal
>Brown. Parker is probably better suited to a CHF or pocket. Our main
>problem (besides kicking) has always been that there is only one target up
>forward; only one leading option. If we had the Likes of Loewe, or
>Plugger or even Dunstall, then it wouldn't be a problem. Most of the
>other teams have a combination of a stong-leading foward and a strong
>overhead forward for the packs. At the start of the year, Parker was left
>alone, and the opposition effort was concentrated on Peter Mann at CHF.
>By adding Clive ShitterHouse to the forward line, there has been another
>target to aim for, and forcing the opposition to spread its resources a
>little thinner. The combination of Parker, Mann, Leach and Shitterhouse
>as a base up forward worked well against Melbourne (not that it's any acid
>test).
Not even close :-)
White and Bandy could then float between CHF and CHB as required,
>leaving Toia, Wills, Dirty Harry and Winny to swoop on the loose balls.
>
When are Fremantle going to get some decent crowds?
Gary King
Richard Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> As far as the AFL goes and as far as they have been saying they want 16
> teams, so they won't get rid of any, only move them - more teams = more
> games.
>
> Now, as to crowds - if North vs some team with basically no supporters in
> town at a ground some people call bad gets 12,000 with other games an
> option for the weekend, and Fremantle versus a team that probably has a
> few more than none supporters around only gets 14,000 then by this logic
> either a) no-one wants to go to that ground or b) no-one wants to see
> Fremantle?
>
> Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
> --You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
> South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
> South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
>
> On 20 May 1997, Shaun wrote:
>
> > When are Fremantle going to get some decent crowds?
> > Something tells me the Dockers have not quite attracted the support they
> > expected from South & East Fremantle supporters.
> >
The weathermen screwed the game for them, we were expecting to be blown
away by some winter storm by Sunday. Otherwise crowds are usually
20,000+ which is better than most Victorian games with an interstate
team. (But not alot compared to Adelaide.)
And the bum thing is, the players are saying and some fan said so on the
radio - in Fremantle's short history, it was their best game ever. The
standard of play, the excitement and the emotion of the after the siren
winning goal.
--
Gary King
Michael Cullen
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob), far, far away from here, appears to
have written:
>In article <33a128b5...@news.m.iinet.net.au>, ti...@opera.iinet.net.au says...
>>I must have missed the capacity upgrade plan. Why bother? It's not full very
>>often.
>
>The 'upgrade' is to demolish the 2 pissy little stands at the north-eastern
>side of the ground and construct a 2 tiered stand from the current 2 tier
>stand to the Southern stand. I think the projected capacity will be
>just over 50000. I don't know where Herbie got the 65000 figure from.
Gotcha. Thought I'd missed something for a while there. Thanks for the info.
BWEVA1
her...@203.12.0.8 (Herbie) wrote:
>>
>>He can't do that.
>
>Oh? The AFL board has done a lot of things that punters have said they
>can't do, like extend the loan period for Sydney (which BWT I agree with),
>arrange the finals so that West Coast could hold their first 'home' final,
>and so on. I would suggest that the board, and Wayne Jackson in
>particular, would be more familiar with what they can and can't do than
>you or I.
>
Thats true enough, but the AFL CAN'T reshedule a Femantle, or whichever
non-victorian team it is, home game to Victoria. Even Mike Sheehan can
see the logic behind the fact Fremantle's home game must be in WA.
>>A question. Why would the AFL agree to play games at the Docklands,
>>given the contracts they have in place? They already have Waverley and
>>OO. Even without an obligation to play an extra 7 games at OO, they're
>>still in shit because of the Docklands, not OO. Games are going to be
>>played at OO regardless of how many other grounds there are. They should
>>never have joined the Docklands. It doesn't really bring any advantage
>>to the AFL. We don't need to play Indoor games.
>
>Look at deals this way. The MCG, WACA, SCG and 'Gabba are venues owned by
>sporting bodies, and the AFL indirectly leases these venues. It owns AFL
>Park in Victoria, while in WA the WAFC 'owns' Subiaco, and the SANFL
>Football park. All these organisations put their profits back into the
>game for the benefit of all. The Docklands will be jointly owned by the
>AFL who will have the controling share. Victoria Park will shortly cease
>to be a AFL venue, and Kardinia only hosts Geelong home games.
>
>That only leaves Carlton's home ground. It is the only ground where the
>home club directly benefits when it two *other* teams play. It is the only
>ground where other clubs have been forced to call home, have no control
>over pricing. It is the only ground where, in effect, the tennents are
>forced to pay rent to the 'owning' club. Not only is that unfair, it's
>immoral. Why should Carlton be in such a priveleged position?
>
>>
But they aren't. Western Bulldogs pay no rent and they control the
pricing for their home games at OO. Carlton probably do make a profit as
far as catering goes. As for Melbourne, Richmond, or whoever else plays
home games there, I'm not sure, but I would say they control pricing and
pay no rent.
Michael Cullen
her...@203.12.0.8 (Herbie), far, far away from here, appears to have written:
[major snips]
>The contract with the WACA is due to run out in the next few years. It
>doesn't have the capacity of Subi (35,000 compared to 42,000 and proposed
>65,000), Subi now has lights, and Subi is better suited for public
>transport, even if Rob doesn't agree.
I must have missed the capacity upgrade plan. Why bother? It's not full very
often.
>> Do you think in long term Daniel Parker will develop into a better
>>option at Full Forward as opposed to Kinglsey Hunter?
Having seen Kingsley play a few times, I would think that even Allen Jakovich
(currently) would be a better bet than him.
>There are really only 2 options for FF longer term, Hunter and Micheal
>Brown. Parker is probably better suited to a CHF or pocket. Our main
>problem (besides kicking) has always been that there is only one target up
>forward; only one leading option. If we had the Likes of Loewe, or
>Plugger or even Dunstall, then it wouldn't be a problem. Most of the
I don't think having Piggy would help much :-) Realistically though, I
suspect that most clubs wouldn't mind having any of the above. I wouldn't
mind....
Rob
>>The contract with the WACA is due to run out in the next few years. It
>>doesn't have the capacity of Subi (35,000 compared to 42,000 and proposed
>>65,000), Subi now has lights, and Subi is better suited for public
>>transport, even if Rob doesn't agree.
>
>I must have missed the capacity upgrade plan. Why bother? It's not full very
>often.
The 'upgrade' is to demolish the 2 pissy little stands at the north-eastern
side of the ground and construct a 2 tiered stand from the current 2 tier
stand to the Southern stand. I think the projected capacity will be
just over 50000. I don't know where Herbie got the 65000 figure from.
And its not so much the capacity, but the facilities need upgrading.
There are currently not enough undercover seats. I pay a hell of a lot
of money yet I still cant get an undercover seat. That sucks. And the
eagles apparantly just can't get enough seats period. Have you noticed
that there are now seats where standing room used to be that were put
in this year? Thats cause the eagles have more members than seats,
so they had to install more.
Herbie
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970520010454.10315B-100000@uhunix5>, Richard
Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>As far as the AFL goes and as far as they have been saying they want 16
>teams, so they won't get rid of any, only move them - more teams = more
>games.
>
>Now, as to crowds - if North vs some team with basically no supporters in
>town at a ground some people call bad gets 12,000 with other games an
>option for the weekend, and Fremantle versus a team that probably has a
>few more than none supporters around only gets 14,000 then by this logic
>either a) no-one wants to go to that ground or b) no-one wants to see
>Fremantle?
>
Isn't Melbourne a city of some 3 million persons? Perth is a third of that.
I was personally disappointed to see such a low crowd (but we made plenty
of noise), but even West Coast stuggled for crowds at some games when the
weather was poor along with their form (ie 87-91). The Bureau of Met
predicted Perth would be squeezed between a cold front and a cyclone, but
they fucked that up- otherwise the crowd could have been better. Also the
number of lion supporters in town can be counted on one hand, so you
wouldn't expect them to bolster the numbers, as you point out.
The hope is that as we find our feet, start winning consistently, and more
supporters become members, then more people will come along and watch,
(including eagle supporters). I feel it will be sooner rather than later.
The comparison to the Roo's is amusing, considering they won a premiership
last year. I would have thought a few more people that 12000 would have
liked to see how good/bad they are, as well has have a look at Port. Or
perhaps the exorbitant pricing is what really kept the punters away.
Rob
In article <5llig3$vrm$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>So where did you think the Dockers train and where its social facilities
>>are?
>
>Hawthorn train at Glenferie Oval, Melbourne at the Junction Oval,
>Richmond at Punt Road, Essendon at Windy Hill, Collingwood at Victoria
>Park and North Melbourne at Arden St. All up there are about 3 games
>played on those grounds.
So what?
>They just put a submission to the WAFC to spend $3 million there
>>to upgrade the facilities. Unfortunately it will be a long time and a great
>>deal of money would need to be spent to ever play AFL games down there.
>>And once again, it is a pity. The weather down there (particularily the
>>wind factor) really gives you a home ground advantage.
>
>Maybe when they take steps, such as Carlton have, to improve their
>facilities someone will let them play games there. I hope so, for
>Fremantle.
Its not about 'letting' them play games there. They could play games there
if they wanted to. There was talk of playing a couple of games there
a year against the shit clubs. But the corporate facilities in particular
were just nowhere near the standard. When a company buys a box for the
year, they expect a box for the year.
But you are really looking at 20-30 years down the track minimum. There
are no plans to renovate Fremantle Oval at the moment.
>>Which exposes the stupidity of signing contracts that lock you in.
>Did I see something about a contract to play 6 games at the WACA each
>season?
Nothing to do with the AFL. The contract was between the WAFC and the WACA.
And, unlike the AFL's moronic contracts, it was negotiable. A few years
ago, only 4 games had to be played there, with the condition that
the WACA had exclusive rights on WA football played at night. The WAFC
weren't happy with the latter condition, because they wanted to install
lights at Subi and play WAFL night games at Fremantle Oval and (now)
Rushton Park. So they went to the WACA, and *negotiated* a new contract.
It now allows night football to be played in places other than the WACA,
and the WACA gets 2 extra games a year. Pretty smart, huh? Not really.
But a bit too smart for the AFL though. The concept of negotiation is
obviously something they haven't quite grasped fully yet.
>>>Something which obviously escapes you Rob is that people aren't going to
>>>take a risk on building a new stand if they have no assurances that they
>>>will be able to pay for it.
>>
>>So was it worth the AFL taking the risk of signing a contract that locks
>>them in? They haven't done it in any other state. Why are Carlton so
>>priviliged? Try to look at it from a supporter of football stance instead
>>of carlton supporter stance.
>
>Fair enough, possibly from a supporter of football I can see your point,
>but try looking at it from the AFL and Carlton's viewpoint and not a
>Fremantle supporters.
>Subiaco really the only other ground to come out and spend the money of
>renovating their ground. Maybe if the AFL didn't have some silly
>contract to play 6 games at the WACA Subi could egt more games and pay
>off their debt sooner :-) Actually, I don't really know the full details
>of that agreement, so take that as jestful.
I will. The AFL had SFA to do with it. Thats why it was changed. If the AFL
was involved, we would probably still see no lights at Subiaco.
>>Unlikely, yes. But still possible. Even 7 teams only gives Victoria
>>77 games a year, which means there is only 20 games left to play with.
>>I can just see Wayne Jackson standing up there in 8 years rescheduling
>>Non-Victorian club home games to Melbourne because they have to fulfill
>>contracts signed with the MCG, Docklands and PP. After all, they did
>>it with the finals, why won't they do it in the H & A season?
>
>He can't do that.
Why not? He did it with the finals series, and will do it again if the
situation came up. Why won't it happen in the home and away season?
>>I wonder about Geelong. People keep telling me they have massive support
>>in Geelong, but their membership is down near the bottom, and you can
>>hardly say they have been losing. What if in 5 years, they finish in
>>the bottom 3, and membership plummets? Maybe they have a shitload of
>>cash in the bank.
>Reports are they're strong enough, don't assume things.
I'm just taking a worst possible stance here, which is what you should do
when looking at issues such as this.
>>Melbourne are in the shit, but while Gutnick is there, they will continue.
>>How much of a fan is he though? Apparantly he has put in 3 mil already
>>with no result. Will he continue to do so?
>I think Melbourne were never bad financially, just on field. That was
>their reason for looking to merge.
Yeah, they projected profits until about 1999(?) I think.
>>So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
>>North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
>>left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
>>and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
>>and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
>>hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
>Its pretty difficult to estimate any of this. You still underestimate
>the level of support in Victoria. Look how long it took for Fitzroy to
>die.
Keep in mind that costs are going up a lot faster than when Fitzroy was
battling to stay alive.
But yes, it is difficult to estimate. Maybe all the current teams will stay
in the league for 50 years. But you have to look at the worst case
scenario.
>Fans of other clubs have seen this and should rally behind their
>team now. Its also given the clubs a good kick up the backside to start
>running their club properly.
Possibly. But what if the support is not there, like in Westerns case?
They had some massive membership drive this year, yet still couldn't
draw any more members.
>>I just wonder about the intelligence about these contracts. Subiaco
>>just got a new stand and will build another soon without getting involved
>>with some bullshit AFL contract. Why is Victoria so different?
>
>Probably because there are 10 teams in Melbourne and 4-5 different
>grounds. The Grand Final is always going to be played here so you need
>the best stadium you can get for that. If that means signing a contract
>to ease the mind of the MCC and the govt then so be it.
The Grand Final I can understand. Even playing a minimum amount of games
at the MCG I can understand. But why not let the clubs get involved with
these contracts instead of the AFL in Vicoria? Thean at least if something
goes wrong, then its the clubs problem and doesn't affect the rest of
the league.
>A question. Why would the AFL agree to play games at the Docklands,
>given the contracts they have in place? They already have Waverley and
>OO. Even without an obligation to play an extra 7 games at OO, they're
>still in shit because of the Docklands, not OO. Games are going to be
>played at OO regardless of how many other grounds there are. They should
>never have joined the Docklands. It doesn't really bring any advantage
>to the AFL. We don't need to play Indoor games.
From what I know about the Docklands deal, it was bloody good. It looks
like a great place with great facilities, the option to play indoor
games is there, which despite what you say is damn good if it is pissing
down. You don't have to play every game indoors. But perhaps during
the week if the surface is not in use you close the roof at nights to
protect it, so you reduce the risk of muddy boghole shitheaps like at
the Western Oval and Kardinia Park. Thats an advantage in anyones language.
But anyway, all I have read is basically AFL propaganda, so maybe it
isn't as good as it is made out to be.
But the point is that if Carlton want to play games at PP, then good for them.
Let them sign the contracts and suffer any consequences that may arise
from it. (or benefits) If they want more than 8 or 9 games a year there,
then sign up deals with other clubs to play games there. Don't get the
AFL involved, it can affect every club when really, most clubs have
nothing to do with it. If Richmond or North want to play games there,
then let Carlton sign them up to do so. The current system is they
are *forced* to play home games there because of some contract the AFL got
into. IMO that is wrong, particularily as though they don't want to play
there.
Corey Popelier
On Tue, 20 May 1997 23:33:03 +0800, ti...@opera.iinet.net.au (Michael Cullen)
wrote:
>c.pop...@student.murdoch.edu.au (Corey Popelier), far, far away from here,
>appears to have written:
>
>>Reminds me of one game I played in Armadale at under 15 level. Armadale oval had
>>copped about 3 days of solid rain, and made Western Oval look like the surface
>>of Subiaco. Mum wouldn't let me in the house for about a week afterwards. :-)
>
>I'm surprised she does now :-)
You're telling me. I sneak in, most of the time...
>cheers,
>
>Mic. (http://netserv.net.au/tiger/) GO TIGERS!
>Cross Purposes Studios (Web & Graphic Design)
Cheers,
Corey Popelier
On 20 May 1997 01:12:48 GMT, kli...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Kathryn Linge) wrote:
> <s.malley.1...@bom.gov.au> <338346a3....@newsman.murdoch.edu.au>
>Distribution:
>
>Corey Popelier (c.pop...@student.murdoch.edu.au) wrote:
>: On Sun, 18 May 1997 12:52:09, s.ma...@bom.gov.au (steve) wrote:
>:
>: >Rob, the Victorian hater, wrote
>: >
>: >[lots of anti-victorian stuff snipped]
>: [lost of other bits snipped]
>:
>: >On another point: why do you keep sticking up for the Eagles when they
>: >continually kick Fremantle's butt, and only recently Mick Malthouse
>: >called the Fremantle players a bunch of faggots (as reported in the
>: >Herald-Sun).
>: >
>: >Steve
>: >
>:
>: He said what ?? Surely that is not a direct quote... I've heard of trying to
>: instill a bit of rivalry, but I
>thought the Western Derby already had enough of
>: that, even if the result
>appears to always be a forgone conclusion. (Anyone in
>: any tipping comps tipping Freo next time ? :-)
>:
>:
>
>Yep! Apparently he called Fremantle "the fremantle faggots" at some
>eagles supporters breakfast in Melbourne - his later excuse was that thats
>what _everyone_ called the dockers in melbourne ( although this was the
>first i'd heard of that) and that they call west coast the "weak eagles"
>(boo hoo. how could they!) - which again i'd never heard and frankly, if
>that the best that melbourne can do to insult the eagles i would think
>they were pretty .... WEAK!
My impression is that most Melbourne people really couldn't give a damn about
either the Dockers or the Eagles, really. And if they do (or did) I am sure they
can come with something better and much more colourful than weak...
>Of course nothing was made much of it over here in the media - I faintly
>remember it being reported on the news but the angle they took was "Gosh
>that mick is a jokester - he'll do anthing for a laugh!"
Of course they would. Mind you, Mick Malthouse has come out with some *really*
stupid things in his time. Like the Ox comment a couple of years back. Or the
comment he made after the Richmond game, trying to quote some Chinese communist
from memory... Weird guy, that Mick. If you want him back Melbournites, please -
take him....
>GOCF
>Kathryn
Richard Scott
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Herbie wrote:
> Isn't Melbourne a city of some 3 million persons? Perth is a third of that.
>
A third of that, with one-fifth the teams and only one game on that
weekend?
> I was personally disappointed to see such a low crowd (but we made plenty
> of noise), but even West Coast stuggled for crowds at some games when the
> weather was poor along with their form (ie 87-91). The Bureau of Met
> predicted Perth would be squeezed between a cold front and a cyclone, but
> they fucked that up- otherwise the crowd could have been better. Also the
Yes, Perth people aren't used to footy in the rain?
> The hope is that as we find our feet, start winning consistently, and more
> supporters become members, then more people will come along and watch,
> (including eagle supporters). I feel it will be sooner rather than later.
>
Well, keep going this year and should win more games than either of
previous two, although it still looks dubious for the finals other
than fighting for 8th.
> The comparison to the Roo's is amusing, considering they won a premiership
> last year. I would have thought a few more people that 12000 would have
> liked to see how good/bad they are, as well has have a look at Port. Or
> perhaps the exorbitant pricing is what really kept the punters away.
>
Prices could certainly be a big factor at both grounds.
Gary King
Richard Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
> --You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
> South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
> South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
>
> On Wed, 21 May 1997, Herbie wrote:
>
> > Isn't Melbourne a city of some 3 million persons? Perth is a third of that.
> >
> A third of that, with one-fifth the teams and only one game on that
> weekend?
>
> > I was personally disappointed to see such a low crowd (but we made plenty
> > of noise), but even West Coast stuggled for crowds at some games when the
> > weather was poor along with their form (ie 87-91). The Bureau of Met
> > predicted Perth would be squeezed between a cold front and a cyclone, but
> > they fucked that up- otherwise the crowd could have been better. Also the
>
> Yes, Perth people aren't used to footy in the rain?
In a word, nope.
Outside of football, businesses in Perth generally go quiet during the
couple of months when there is heavy rain. Folks here are generally fair
wheather people. Probably because they are used to the ten months of
continuous fair weather. Also Perth people tend not to own much real
winter clothing, unlike Melbournians.
--
Gary King
beckert
Shaun <SDB...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote in article
<5ls574$udh$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
> Shaun <SDB...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> >enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
> >>In article <5l6ej4$9p4$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
> >
> ><big snip>
> >
Despite only 22k at last years finals, it was a great atmosphere & very
noisy. The AFL made certain of their pound of flesh by almost doubling
prices (including members seats)
The "gabba is supposed to be going through Upgrade - Stage 2 (or is it 3?)
shortly. I think the end result will see a capacity of 35 - 40,000. Mind
you if we dont get our bums into gear we wont be able to fill 10,000 seats
soon!
There is nowhere else to play footy up here. ANZ & Lang Park are rectangles
& far too small (plus full of bum sniffers)
Cheers,
Brenton
Rob
In article <s.malley.1...@bom.gov.au>, s.ma...@bom.gov.au says...
>>So, in a worst case scenario, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western all die,
>>North goes to West Sydney and Hawthorn goes to Hobart. 5 teams
>>left in Melbourne. The AFL would be in trouble. Even if, say, St Kilda
>>and Melbourne merge, Hawthorn goes to Hobart, Western goes to Homebush
>>and North stays as a single entity, thats only 7 teams left. And thats
>>hardly out of the question. And doubts still exist about Geelong.
>
>Geez Rob, when your not whingeing about some dreamed up pro-Victorian
>bias within the AFL, you're trying to kill off half the Victorian teams.
Trying to kill off teams? You twonk, I was looking at it as a worst
case scenario. And in the worst case, half the teams in Vicoria at
the moment could easily go down the gurgler. Probably you are only
looking at a couple in the short term, and maybe all will survive. I
don't know.
>You
>seem to think that membership numbers are the only thing that should
>be taken into account when determining if a team should remain in the
>competition.
Not the only thing, but it makes up a big part of it. Because membership
levels are what companies base their sponsorships on. If you wanted to
sponsor a football club and were prepared to give, say $1 million,
would you give that cash to a club with a membership of 10000 or
20000? Obviously the club with the more members, because it gives a pretty
good indication to how many people you are appealing to.
>Hawthorn have been the most successful team in the past 10 to 15 years
>and now have a large membership. It wasn't that long ago that Melbourne,
>St Kilda and Footscray were playing in finals.
Success on field is totally irrelevent. Get that through your head. You
ask any club if they would prefer to have 50000 members or win a premiership,
and most clubs would prefer the former. You can't survive on premierships
alone. Mind you, if you win premierships, it does help get new members.
>Your comment about
>Geelong's existence being in doubt shows how little you know about
>football in Victoria.
Does it? What do you know about Geelong? They have a low membership, despite
being one of the more successful clubs over the past 10 years. What
do you think their membership will be when they hit rock bottom? I'm
not saying they're gone, jsut I'm asking questions to get answers.
>I seem to recall North winning a premiership recently
>and now you're trying to shift them to Sydney.
Because they are not viable in Melbourne. 5 years ago they had the worst
membership in Victoria. (Yes, lower than Fitzroy) They have a reasonable
membership now due to recent on field success. But what will happen when
they start losing again? More that likely they will go back to shithouse
support levels and go broke.
>I get annoyed when supporters of a team that has only been in the AFL
>for a relatively short time start trying to kill off teams that have been
>in the competition for over a hundred years.
Ah, the tradition thing. I thought you morons would have learnt by now
that tradition doesn't make you money? Fitzroy had tradition to burn.
But it wasn't worth anything financially, or else they would have sold
it to stay afloat.
>It is the Victorian teams
>that have built this competition up over the years and have put much
>more money into the game than the 4 million dollars entry fee that
>the interstate teams had to pay. While the hell should these teams
>have to merge or relocate just because they are down a bit at the
>moment?
They don't while they are viable. But costs are rising. Revenue for a lot
of those clubs isn't. How will they be able to play their bills? If
they can't, then there are 3 options. Relocate, Merge or die. Take your
pick.
>On another point: why do you keep sticking up for the Eagles when they
>continually kick Fremantle's butt, and only recently Mick Malthouse
>called the Fremantle players a bunch of faggots (as reported in the
>Herald-Sun).
Keep sticking up for the Eagles? The only time I stick up for the eagles
is when I think what has been said about the club is bullshit. And thats
for any club, not just the boredom.
OK, except maybe Carlton.
BWEVA1
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5llig3$vrm$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>
>>>So where did you think the Dockers train and where its social facilities
>>>are?
>>
>>Hawthorn train at Glenferie Oval, Melbourne at the Junction Oval,
>>Richmond at Punt Road, Essendon at Windy Hill, Collingwood at Victoria
>>Park and North Melbourne at Arden St. All up there are about 3 games
>>played on those grounds.
>
>So what?
So they don't play home games at the same venue as their social
facilities and training venue, just like Freamntle. yet they still call
the MCG or Waverley their home ground, just liek Freantle's home ground
is Subiaco and the WACA.
>>>Unlikely, yes. But still possible. Even 7 teams only gives Victoria
>>>77 games a year, which means there is only 20 games left to play with.
>>>I can just see Wayne Jackson standing up there in 8 years rescheduling
>>>Non-Victorian club home games to Melbourne because they have to fulfill
>>>contracts signed with the MCG, Docklands and PP. After all, they did
>>>it with the finals, why won't they do it in the H & A season?
>>
>>He can't do that.
>
>Why not? He did it with the finals series, and will do it again if the
>situation came up. Why won't it happen in the home and away season?
>
Finals are different to the H&A series. Note that H&A means HOME and
away. Home Finals are to be played at the home ground of the higher
ranked team, unless that team is Carlton, Geelong or Western, providing
that 1 final is played at the MCG each week of the finals series. Pretty
clear, even if you don't agree.
>>>I wonder about Geelong. People keep telling me they have massive support
>>>in Geelong, but their membership is down near the bottom, and you can
>>>hardly say they have been losing. What if in 5 years, they finish in
>>>the bottom 3, and membership plummets? Maybe they have a shitload of
>>>cash in the bank.
>
>>Reports are they're strong enough, don't assume things.
>
>I'm just taking a worst possible stance here, which is what you should do
>when looking at issues such as this.
Look at a worst case senario? WHY? Why not take a realistic viewpoint,
a most likely senario?
>>Probably because there are 10 teams in Melbourne and 4-5 different
>>grounds. The Grand Final is always going to be played here so you need
>>the best stadium you can get for that. If that means signing a contract
>>to ease the mind of the MCC and the govt then so be it.
>
>The Grand Final I can understand. Even playing a minimum amount of games
>at the MCG I can understand. But why not let the clubs get involved with
>these contracts instead of the AFL in Vicoria? Thean at least if something
>goes wrong, then its the clubs problem and doesn't affect the rest of
>the league.
>
Because the clubs don't schedule when finals will be played. From all
reports a major condition of the stand being built was ensuring that
enough crowd pulling games would be played at the MCG as possible, to
ensure they thing can be payed for.
But when you already have a commitment to play games at the MCG and OO,
and you have Waverley, why do you need the Docklands?
Brad
Herbie
In article <5ltt09$v2s$1...@opera.iinet.net.au>,
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>The 'upgrade' is to demolish the 2 pissy little stands at the north-eastern
>side of the ground and construct a 2 tiered stand from the current 2 tier
>stand to the Southern stand. I think the projected capacity will be
>just over 50000. I don't know where Herbie got the 65000 figure from.
There have been plans for some to convert the 2 tier to continue the 3
tier stand. Continuing around to the City end would provid for aprox 15
000 seat over the 2 tier 50 000 seats.
There is another option, that is to extend the eastern end of the Town and
Country to balance the western wing, and build the new stands as 3 and 2
tier stands to mirror the current stands. This would have a capacity of
about 55 thousand.
I'm disappointed none of the options see fit for a replay screen :^(
>
>And its not so much the capacity, but the facilities need upgrading.
>There are currently not enough undercover seats. I pay a hell of a lot
>of money yet I still cant get an undercover seat. That sucks. And the
>eagles apparantly just can't get enough seats period. Have you noticed
>that there are now seats where standing room used to be that were put
>in this year? Thats cause the eagles have more members than seats,
>so they had to install more.
>
There will never be enough undercover seats. Period.
Greg Forrester
beckert wrote:
>
> Despite only 22k at last years finals, it was a great atmosphere & very
> noisy. The AFL made certain of their pound of flesh by almost doubling
> prices (including members seats)
>
Brisbane could have played at the MCG but of course chose to
play at home and thus Prices had to go up to ensure that
the financial conditions were met.
GregF
FOOTY FACTS PC
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~statware
Rob
In article <5ls574$udh$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>>>>Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
>>>>>excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
>
>
>No!
> 1996 Bulldogs V Hawks at Western Oval crowd 16,804
>at Optus Oval a few weeks back was 18,860
Hmm....you really think that a valid comparison? This year both clubs were
in the 8 last year one of them was bordering on last, and the other club
(at that time of the year) was doing just as shit.
>Hawthorn v Bulldogs at Waverley in 1996
>14,914
Once again, the same 2 shit teams. You would think that both clubs
now have realistic chances of making the 8, the crowds would go up?
>>Looked pretty empty plenty of times Bulldogs played Freo.
>Yes! Because of tv angle and Legends stand too expensive at present
>so most people spread around other parts of ground not shown on tv.
>Footscray v Freo at Western Oval last year with crowd of 8,674
>Don't remember figure for their clash at Optus Oval but it certainly was
>bigger than Western Oval. I think 12,000 was around about the figuref or
>this year.
Under 10000 from memory.
>Neither crowd is good but certainly getting better crowd at
>Optus Oval than Western Oval.
Once again, last year they were doing shithouse at that time, you would
expect a small crowd. This year it was the 1st game of the year, with a
new name, new ground etc. And less than 10000 turned up.
But it should get bigger crowds anyway. PP is a far better ground than the
Western Oval.
>>The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>>>>>was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>>>>>that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
>1996 at Waverley 14,914 for those 2 teams.
>whilst 18,860 at Optus Oval over a week ago.
>Your 40,000 figure is way off as i previously pointed out.
So why did Hawthorn v Sydney and Hawthorn v North get just under 40000?
Was it all the Sydney and North supporters? Even St Kilda v Sydney got
near to 35000.
If that game was at Waverley it would have got 30-40000. It was two teams
in *very* different positions to what they were last year. Ever heard
of the bandwagon effect Shaun? The Hawthorn bandwagon is going along
a lot better this year than last year.
>>>>Probably go near the full capacity i imagine unless a dreary wet day.
>
>Around 31,500 with full capacity as 35,000.
>Note Legends stand was basically full except for one small area.
>So obviously when Carlton play there they are getting people to sit in
>Legends Stand despite the hefty prices.
You would expect that. You could have played that game on Ayers Rock and it
still should have got that many people.
>The stand itself holds about 14,400 so even in nobody is in it at
>Bulldogs game can still fit over 20,000 crowd into ground.
>
>Actaully i looked up Bulldogs v Adelaide crowd and it surprised me that
>quoted 24,670 which i find hard to believe considering Hawthorn game
>against Bulldogs was qouted 18,860
24,670? Where you you get your crowd figures, Dream World? The football
record the following week has the offficial crowd to the Western v
Adelaide game at 13,570. Youre way off.
>Hawthorn v Carlton in 1996 at Waverley was crowd of 28,670.
>On Sunday at PP there was about 31,500
>& certainly a crowd of that size has a better view and better atmsophere
>around the ground than Waverley with similar size crowd.
Once again, different circumstances. If I remember correctly, it was
a Saturday night game and it pissed down.
>>>> If they want to fork out 10 million for a
>>>>>shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
>>>>>But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
>>>>>clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
>>>>>Princes Park,
>Those figures i showed even surprised me. But they are showing you are
>wrong!
Perhaps you got those figures from the same place you got the figure for
the Western- Adelaide match. In that case, it aint me who is wrong.
And still, you have to look at the fact that there are different
circumstances. Hawthorns home games this year have all got over 30000,
at Waverley. What makes you think that there would have been a massive
fall that week?
Dugal Ure
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) writes:
>So why did Hawthorn v Sydney and Hawthorn v North get just under 40000?
>Was it all the Sydney and North supporters? Even St Kilda v Sydney got
>near to 35000.
>Hawthorns home games this year have all got over 30000,
>at Waverley. What makes you think that there would have been a massive
>fall that week?
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but there is a big campaign by the
Hawks to get 200K people to their first 5 home games. I have a feeling
it'll slacken off a bit after Dermie's radio ads stop nagging.
So if Western were playing one of those games, the crowd may have been up.
However, Waverley is really quite a long way from Footscray, and
this might explain why less Bulldog fans go to a Western v Hawthorn game there
than the scarce-but-more-evenly-spread North and Sydney supporters.
Dugal
# "My middle name is Luck!" said | Dugal Ure #
# Rincewind. "Unfortunately my | Department of Mathematics #
# first name is Bad..." | University of Melbourne #
Rob
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970520010454.10315B-100000@uhunix5>, rsc...@hawaii.edu says...
>Now, as to crowds - if North vs some team with basically no supporters in
>town at a ground some people call bad gets 12,000 with other games an
>option for the weekend, and Fremantle versus a team that probably has a
>few more than none supporters around only gets 14,000 then by this logic
>either a) no-one wants to go to that ground or b) no-one wants to see
>Fremantle?
Bit unfair Richard. It was the worst crowd in Fremantles history, and,
unlike North, they did not win a premiership the previous year and did not
have 2-3000 suporters of the other side there as well. And there was supposed
to be some big fucken storm come down and blow us to bits. It was only
a mind storm as it turned out, but the forecast scared a few people off.
It will be interesting to see what sort of crowd they get for the Monday
night game against Adelaide just to see what the reaction is. Mind you,
that Monday is the Foundation day holiday, so its a bit more like a Sunday
night game.
Rob
In article <5m10us$arv$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, BWE...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>So what?
>
>So they don't play home games at the same venue as their social
>facilities and training venue, just like Freamntle. yet they still call
>the MCG or Waverley their home ground, just liek Freantle's home ground
>is Subiaco and the WACA.
Yes, but still not the same HGA that Carlton has. Why do the AFL give
Carlton that advantage?
>>Why not? He did it with the finals series, and will do it again if the
>>situation came up. Why won't it happen in the home and away season?
>>
>
>Finals are different to the H&A series. Note that H&A means HOME and
>away. Home Finals are to be played at the home ground of the higher
>ranked team, unless that team is Carlton, Geelong or Western, providing
>that 1 final is played at the MCG each week of the finals series. Pretty
>clear, even if you don't agree.
Once again, whats to say they won't do it? If they have contractual
obligations to fulfill with Victorian grounds, the AFL have shown they come
ahead of being fair to non-victorian clubs. Just because you say they
won't doesn't mean they won't.
Their priorities came ahead of being fair in the finals series. There
is nothing to say the same won't happen in the regular season.
>>>Reports are they're strong enough, don't assume things.
>>
>>I'm just taking a worst possible stance here, which is what you should do
>>when looking at issues such as this.
>
>Look at a worst case senario? WHY? Why not take a realistic viewpoint,
>a most likely senario?
Because a worst possible stance, while still being realistic is what you
have to look at when signing medium to long term contracts because you
don't want it to come back and haunt you.
>>The Grand Final I can understand. Even playing a minimum amount of games
>>at the MCG I can understand. But why not let the clubs get involved with
>>these contracts instead of the AFL in Vicoria? Thean at least if something
>>goes wrong, then its the clubs problem and doesn't affect the rest of
>>the league.
>
>Because the clubs don't schedule when finals will be played. From all
>reports a major condition of the stand being built was ensuring that
>enough crowd pulling games would be played at the MCG as possible, to
>ensure they thing can be payed for.
Fair enough. When there is no chance that the contract could not be
broken at the expense of any club. A set number of matches could be played.
But the clause that says that 1 final a week *must* be played at the MCG is
ludicrous. Why couldn't it have specifies that one final a week must be
played should at least 1 Victorian club qualify for a home final?
The AFL will look really stupid when one week there will be 4 non-victorian
club playing in weeks 2 or 3 of the finals. An MCG quarter-full will
make the AFL a laughing stock for the rest of the country.
>>But the point is that if Carlton want to play games at PP, then good for them.
>>Let them sign the contracts and suffer any consequences that may arise
>>from it. (or benefits) If they want more than 8 or 9 games a year there,
>>then sign up deals with other clubs to play games there. Don't get the
>>AFL involved, it can affect every club when really, most clubs have
>>nothing to do with it. If Richmond or North want to play games there,
>>then let Carlton sign them up to do so. The current system is they
>>are *forced* to play home games there because of some contract the AFL got
>>into. IMO that is wrong, particularily as though they don't want to play
>>there.
>
>But when you already have a commitment to play games at the MCG and OO,
>and you have Waverley, why do you need the Docklands?
Because its a bloody good stadium, and the AFL got a damn good deal
to eventually aquire the freehold on it. It may have been a bit short
sighted to guarantee a certain amount of games should be played there,
but still, it looks like a really high tech bit of property. With
the roof, people can go there and not be afraid of getting wet.
Herbie
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.970521141904.20188B-100000@uhunix4>, Richard
Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
>--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
>South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
>South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
>
>On Wed, 21 May 1997, Herbie wrote:
>
>> Isn't Melbourne a city of some 3 million persons? Perth is a third of that.
>>
>A third of that, with one-fifth the teams and only one game on that
>weekend?
A collegue at work used to live in Mt Gambia (yeah, I know, poor thing)
and often went to Geelong for a game. Population density is pretty high
in and around Victoria compared to WA, Perth/Fremantle/Mandura included.
Perth Metro is about the same size as Melbourne Metro for example.
The point being, North Melb. should have had a bigger crowd than it did.
>
>> I was personally disappointed to see such a low crowd (but we made plenty
>> of noise), but even West Coast stuggled for crowds at some games when the
>> weather was poor along with their form (ie 87-91). The Bureau of Met
>> predicted Perth would be squeezed between a cold front and a cyclone, but
>> they fucked that up- otherwise the crowd could have been better. Also the
>
>Yes, Perth people aren't used to footy in the rain?
Well, no we're not. :^)
>
>> The hope is that as we find our feet, start winning consistently, and more
>> supporters become members, then more people will come along and watch,
>> (including eagle supporters). I feel it will be sooner rather than later.
>>
>Well, keep going this year and should win more games than either of
>previous two, although it still looks dubious for the finals other
>than fighting for 8th.
Neesham, love him or hate him (and most people I know don't like him at
all), is not stupid. He knows if we don't make the 8 he's out. I liked
his comment after last Saturdays' game- "We are sick of being credible but
not winning" or words to that effect. This year the performances have
been much better, but without a full time FF getting to the 8 will be like
pushing hot diarreorha up a steep hill with a knitting needle.
>
>> The comparison to the Roo's is amusing, considering they won a premiership
>> last year. I would have thought a few more people that 12000 would have
>> liked to see how good/bad they are, as well has have a look at Port. Or
>> perhaps the exorbitant pricing is what really kept the punters away.
>>
>Prices could certainly be a big factor at both grounds.
This is were the big difference is. The Price is fixed at the WACA and
Subi- there is no competition of prices- and both are higher than
Melbourne. The 'normal' price of $12.50 for members only won't get you a
seat in Perth, you need an extra $3.00 for that, and that's not even a
decent seat. I paid $280 for a year's seating at Subi only, and
standing at the WACA. I'll be glad to pay my $12.50 for Waverley in
July and get a seat.
Richard Scott
Fremantle's HGA *in points* is Bigger than Carlton's. They don't win as
many *games* there because they aren't as good. So, what are you talking
about? A quarter full MCG is still a good crowd for any other sport. :)
Unlike Perth people, Melbourne people aren't fair-weather fans afraid of
getting wet. :)
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
On 24 May 1997, Rob wrote:
> the roof, people can go there and not be afraid of getting wet.
>
Shaun
Richard Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Fremantle's HGA *in points* is Bigger than Carlton's. They don't win as
>many *games* there because they aren't as good. So, what are you talking
>about? A quarter full MCG is still a good crowd for any other sport. :)
>Unlike Perth people, Melbourne people aren't fair-weather fans afraid of
>getting wet. :)
Actually Gerard Neesham started to call Optus Oval Fremantle's homeground
because they have played 3 games there so far :-)
Beat the Bulldogs there in the first round actually.
Played 3 less games at WACA and same amount at Subiaco Oval i think...
>
>Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
>--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
>South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
>South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
>
>On 24 May 1997, Rob wrote:
>
>> the roof, people can go there and not be afraid of getting wet.
>>
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
>In article <5ls574$udh$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>
>>>>>>Yeah fair enough, but they have been getting better crowds at that fucked
>>>>>>excuse for a ground Western Oval. And I have been there.
>>
>>
>>No!
>> 1996 Bulldogs V Hawks at Western Oval crowd 16,804
>>at Optus Oval a few weeks back was 18,860
>
>Hmm....you really think that a valid comparison? This year both clubs were
>in the 8 last year one of them was bordering on last,
Hey! You're the clown who suggested they'd get 40,000 or so at Waverley.
I'm just pointing out how wrong your suggestions are.
and the other club
>(at that time of the year) was doing just as shit.
>
>>Hawthorn v Bulldogs at Waverley in 1996
>>14,914
>
>Once again, the same 2 shit teams.
Hmmm. Hawks made the finals.
Can't be too shit and they are in a postion where Bulldogs were last
year.
You would think that both clubs
>now have realistic chances of making the 8, the crowds would go up?
>
>>>Looked pretty empty plenty of times Bulldogs played Freo.
>
>>Yes! Because of tv angle and Legends stand too expensive at present
>>so most people spread around other parts of ground not shown on tv.
>
>>Footscray v Freo at Western Oval last year with crowd of 8,674
>
>>Don't remember figure for their clash at Optus Oval but it certainly was
>>bigger than Western Oval. I think 12,000 was around about the figuref or
>>this year.
>
>Under 10000 from memory.
Had a look in press and all it says is approximately 10,000
>>Neither crowd is good but certainly getting better crowd at
>>Optus Oval than Western Oval.
>
>Once again, last year they were doing shithouse at that time, you would
>expect a small crowd. This year it was the 1st game of the year, with a
>new name, new ground etc. And less than 10000 turned up.
>But it should get bigger crowds anyway. PP is a far better ground than the
>Western Oval.
>>>The crowd at Western v Hawthorn
>>>>>>was also pretty shit, looking at the amounts of empty space. If you played
>>>>>>that at Waverley it would have got 40000.
>
>>1996 at Waverley 14,914 for those 2 teams.
>>whilst 18,860 at Optus Oval over a week ago.
>>Your 40,000 figure is way off as i previously pointed out.
>
>So why did Hawthorn v Sydney and Hawthorn v North get just under 40000?
Because Hawks were playing top footy and North & Swans were the Grand
finalists from last year.
I even went to North v Hawks game as knew it would be a very good
contest.
>Was it all the Sydney and North supporters?
Nope!
Even St Kilda v Sydney got
>near to 35000.
>If that game was at Waverley it would have got 30-40000.
he-he! I see your dowmgrading your previos foolish suggestion of 40,000
crowd.
I'd say it would be lucky to even get 30,000.
It was two teams
>in *very* different positions to what they were last year. Ever heard
>of the bandwagon effect Shaun?
Yep! Richmond followers very good example :-)
The Hawthorn bandwagon is going along
>a lot better this year than last year.
Not so much a bandwagon as opposed to Hawthon fans changing their
lethargic support and become financial members realising the cold reality
they have to if they club is to survive.
>
>>>>>Probably go near the full capacity i imagine unless a dreary wet day.
>>
>>Around 31,500 with full capacity as 35,000.
>>Note Legends stand was basically full except for one small area.
>>So obviously when Carlton play there they are getting people to sit in
>>Legends Stand despite the hefty prices.
>
>You would expect that.
I would! Going by some of the stuff you've been going on with you'd think
it would be lucky to be half full!
You could have played that game on Ayers Rock and it
>still should have got that many people.
Really ? :-)
>>The stand itself holds about 14,400 so even in nobody is in it at
>>Bulldogs game can still fit over 20,000 crowd into ground.
>>
>>Actaully i looked up Bulldogs v Adelaide crowd and it surprised me that
>>quoted 24,670 which i find hard to believe considering Hawthorn game
>>against Bulldogs was qouted 18,860
>
>24,670? Where you you get your crowd figures, Dream World?
That figure i got out on Inside Football.
The football
>record the following week has the offficial crowd to the Western v
>Adelaide game at 13,570. Youre way off.
Nah! I'm not way off! Inside Football was and i did say above that ifound
the figure i found for game was hard to believe. Just had nothing else to
check up against. This figure you have above sounds more like it.
>>Hawthorn v Carlton in 1996 at Waverley was crowd of 28,670.
>>On Sunday at PP there was about 31,500
>>& certainly a crowd of that size has a better view and better atmosphere
>>around the ground than Waverley with similar size crowd.
>
>Once again, different circumstances. If I remember correctly, it was
>a Saturday night game and it pissed down.
& both sides made the finals!!!
Important game last year.
>>>>> If they want to fork out 10 million for a
>>>>>>shitty 1 tier stand that looks all warped then that's their problem.
>>>>>>But when the AFL are talking about getting rid of Waverley when it is as
>>>>>>clear as glass which ground most football followers prefer compared to
>>>>>>Princes Park,
>
>>Those figures i showed even surprised me. But they are showing you are
>>wrong!
>
>Perhaps you got those figures from the same place you got the figure for
>the Western- Adelaide match.
The figures i got were from either the newpapers, Football Record or
Inside Football. Obviously the Bulldogs v Adelaide figure was some tyoing
mistake in Inside Footy magazine but all the other rounds i had more than
i source to check whether they were right.
> In that case, it aint me who is wrong.
You are!
>And still, you have to look at the fact that there are different
>circumstances. Hawthorns home games this year have all got over 30000,
>at Waverley. What makes you think that there would have been a massive
>fall that week?
Bulldogs are not a typical attractor of crowds top Waverley!!
Rob
In article <5meet4$qkk$7...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>Hmm....you really think that a valid comparison? This year both clubs were
>>in the 8 last year one of them was bordering on last,
>
>Hey! You're the clown who suggested they'd get 40,000 or so at Waverley.
>I'm just pointing out how wrong your suggestions are.
Huh? All I was saying is that it was not a valid comparison, because of
2 factors: The bandwagon support Hawthorn has recieved this year and the
>>>Hawthorn v Bulldogs at Waverley in 1996
>>>14,914
>>
>>Once again, the same 2 shit teams.
>
>Hmmm. Hawks made the finals.
>Can't be too shit and they are in a postion where Bulldogs were last
>year.
Cut it out. At that stage Hawthorn were lying about 4th last and still with
little hope of making it.
>
> You would think that both clubs
>>now have realistic chances of making the 8, the crowds would go up?
>>
>>>>Looked pretty empty plenty of times Bulldogs played Freo.
>>
>>>Yes! Because of tv angle and Legends stand too expensive at present
>>>so most people spread around other parts of ground not shown on tv.
>>
>>>Footscray v Freo at Western Oval last year with crowd of 8,674
>>
>>>Don't remember figure for their clash at Optus Oval but it certainly was
>>>bigger than Western Oval. I think 12,000 was around about the figuref or
>>>this year.
>>Under 10000 from memory.
>Had a look in press and all it says is approximately 10,000
Footy record figure: 8,667. *Less* than the corresponding game at the Western
Oval last year, and at that time Footscray were 2nd last. Pretty good move
by the Footscray board wasn't it?
>>So why did Hawthorn v Sydney and Hawthorn v North get just under 40000?
>
>
>Because Hawks were playing top footy and North & Swans were the Grand
>finalists from last year.
And 80-90% would have been Hawthorn supporters.
>I even went to North v Hawks game as knew it would be a very good
>contest.
>>Was it all the Sydney and North supporters?
>Nope!
> Even St Kilda v Sydney got
>>near to 35000.
>>If that game was at Waverley it would have got 30-40000.
>he-he! I see your dowmgrading your previos foolish suggestion of 40,000
>crowd.
Still a hell of a lot better than the pathetic crowd at PP.
>I'd say it would be lucky to even get 30,000.
So why has every Hawthorn game got over 30000 this year at Waverley, except
the last one against Adelaide, and you would expect at least 8000 Western
supporters to show up.
> It was two teams
>>in *very* different positions to what they were last year. Ever heard
>>of the bandwagon effect Shaun?
>
>Yep! Richmond followers very good example :-)
>
>The Hawthorn bandwagon is going along
>>a lot better this year than last year.
>
>Not so much a bandwagon as opposed to Hawthorn fans changing their
>lethargic support and become financial members realising the cold reality
> they have to if they club is to survive.
Either way, its still bandwagon support that will fall off when they hit
rock bottom. And thats not too far away. They better hope Melbourne
doesn't merge in the near future. :)
>>>Around 31,500 with full capacity as 35,000.
>>>Note Legends stand was basically full except for one small area.
>>>So obviously when Carlton play there they are getting people to sit in
>>>Legends Stand despite the hefty prices.
>>
>>You would expect that.
>
>I would! Going by some of the stuff you've been going on with you'd think
>it would be lucky to be half full!
For Hawthorn-Carlton?
And looking at the crowds last weekend, once again PP shows how popular
it is. Carlton-Fremantle could only get about 18000, whereas Hawthorn-
Adelaide gets 23000. But hang on, aren't Carlton one of the power teams
in the comp? Don't they have 25000 members? It seemed like a fine day to
me, so if we be really conservative and say that all the people that showed
up were members, that means about 30% of the members couldn't be bothered
showing up.
And more than 50000 at St Kilda-Richmond. The same game at PP in 1995
got, surprise, surprise, 15,183. by gee, people love the place don't
they?
>>>Actaully i looked up Bulldogs v Adelaide crowd and it surprised me that
>>>quoted 24,670 which i find hard to believe considering Hawthorn game
>>>against Bulldogs was qouted 18,860
>>
>>24,670? Where you you get your crowd figures, Dream World?
>
>That figure i got out on Inside Football.
>
> The football
>>record the following week has the offficial crowd to the Western v
>>Adelaide game at 13,570. Youre way off.
>
>Nah! I'm not way off! Inside Football was and i did say above that ifound
>the figure i found for game was hard to believe. Just had nothing else to
>check up against. This figure you have above sounds more like it.
Inside football must be full of shit.
>>>Hawthorn v Carlton in 1996 at Waverley was crowd of 28,670.
>>>On Sunday at PP there was about 31,500
>>>& certainly a crowd of that size has a better view and better atmosphere
>>>around the ground than Waverley with similar size crowd.
>>Once again, different circumstances. If I remember correctly, it was
>>a Saturday night game and it pissed down.
>& both sides made the finals!!!
>Important game last year.
And different circumstances. It certainly wasn't pissing down a couple of
weeks ago.
>>Perhaps you got those figures from the same place you got the figure for
>>the Western- Adelaide match.
>The figures i got were from either the newpapers, Football Record or
>Inside Football. Obviously the Bulldogs v Adelaide figure was some tyoing
>mistake in Inside Footy magazine but all the other rounds i had more than
>i source to check whether they were right.
>> In that case, it aint me who is wrong.
>You are!
Eh?
>>And still, you have to look at the fact that there are different
>>circumstances. Hawthorns home games this year have all got over 30000,
>>at Waverley. What makes you think that there would have been a massive
>>fall that week?
>Bulldogs are not a typical attractor of crowds top Waverley!!
Because lately in particular, they have been doing shithouse. They came 2nd
last in 96, so all the bandwagon support dropped off. This yeay they
have been winning a few, and while I still wouldn't expect them to make
the 8, they will probably be in contention until at least the final 2 rounds.
Michael Cullen
her...@newton.dialix.com.au (Herbie), far, far away from here, appears to have
written:
[snips]
>Neesham, love him or hate him (and most people I know don't like him at
>all), is not stupid.
Debatable :-) However, I agree with the first comment. And the reason most
people don't like him, (the older ones, anyway :-), is that they remember him
from when he was a player.
Shaun
<snip most>
>> It was two teams
>>>in *very* different positions to what they were last year. Ever heard
>>>of the bandwagon effect Shaun?
>>
>>Yep! Richmond followers very good example :-)
>>
>>The Hawthorn bandwagon is going along
>>>a lot better this year than last year.
>>
>>Not so much a bandwagon as opposed to Hawthorn fans changing their
>>lethargic support and become financial members realising the cold reality
>> they have to if they club is to survive.
>
>Either way, its still bandwagon support that will fall off when they hit
>rock bottom. And thats not too far away. They better hope Melbourne
>doesn't merge in the near future. :)
I don't know about this Rob. I certainly get the feeling that it is
actaully a *change* of attitude in a lot of Hawthorn fans from being just
a follower to a *committed supporter* for long term future to keep club
alive. This as opposed to usual bandwagons of going missing when tough
times come on for a club. I think a lot of these Hawthorn fans that
signed up as *members* to *support* the club have done so with not just
this year in mind.
>>>>Around 31,500 with full capacity as 35,000.
>>>>Note Legends stand was basically full except for one small area.
>>>>So obviously when Carlton play there they are getting people to sit in
>>>>Legends Stand despite the hefty prices.
>>>
>>>You would expect that.
>>
>>I would! Going by some of the stuff you've been going on with you'd think
>>it would be lucky to be half full!
>
>For Hawthorn-Carlton?
>And looking at the crowds last weekend, once again PP shows how popular
>it is. Carlton-Fremantle could only get about 18000, whereas Hawthorn-
>Adelaide gets 23000. But hang on, aren't Carlton one of the power teams
>in the comp? Don't they have 25000 members? It seemed like a fine day to
>me,
This is where you are wrong! It was a shocking day and even i thought i
was a bit silly outside waiting in cold dreary weather to catch public
transport to the game. Would have been very easy to stay in nice warm
house listen to match on radio & watch 1 hour of highlights of game on tv
around tea time. The game was played in very overcast conditions with
very bad light and not very warm to be outside.
so if we be really conservative and say that all the people that showed
>up were members, that means about 30% of the members couldn't be bothered
>showing up.
& decided Freo against Carlton was worth skipping to see live.(actually
it ended up being well worth going even with the poor weather conditions)
Yes!
Even i've done that over the years. (not last week though) Sometimes
we've been playing lowly teams like Fitzroy etc. and you know your teams
going to win. You'll only be really satisfied with a 20 goal win so
keeping warm and listening to game on radio can be an appealing option on
the odd occassion.
<more snipping>
>>Bulldogs are not a typical attractor of crowds to Waverley!!
>
>Because lately in particular, they have been doing shithouse. They came 2nd
>last in 96, so all the bandwagon support dropped off.
Give it a break!
Bulldgos have NEVER been a well supported club in Melbourne.
This yeay they
>have been winning a few, and while I still wouldn't expect them to make
>the 8, they will probably be in contention until at least the final 2 rounds.
On this matter your expectations are a bit off. They'll be more than
contenders! I'm sure they'll be in the 8 come September. If you'd see
enough of the way Grant, Johnson, Smith ,Wynd, Libba, Ellis, West,
Darcy & Minton-Connell are playing you could not imagine them missing
unless a a fair few of these got injured. I don't think you watch a lot
of teams play other than games in Perth. It shows up in so many thing you
say in different threads. What's the full coverage of AFL footy over
there?
We get to see enough of atleast 6 or 7 games a week to know how well each
team is travelling.
Friday night games , Saturday replays & highlights between 5pm & 7-30
Saturday night games & atleast 2 Sunday games live aswell as usually
seeing an hours replay of games on Sunday arvo in Melbourne a little
later. If you have a video recorder it's not to hard to get to see enough
of how each team is going. Optus Vision coverage is even better
apparently.
Greg Forrester
> >in the comp? Don't they have 25000 members? It seemed like a fine day >
It was frigid and as black as shit by the end of the game!
Rob
In article <5moccm$mr5$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, SDB...@student.monash.edu.au says...
>>Either way, its still bandwagon support that will fall off when they hit
>>rock bottom. And thats not too far away. They better hope Melbourne
>>doesn't merge in the near future. :)
>I don't know about this Rob. I certainly get the feeling that it is
>actaully a *change* of attitude in a lot of Hawthorn fans from being just
>a follower to a *committed supporter* for long term future to keep club
>alive. This as opposed to usual bandwagons of going missing when tough
>times come on for a club. I think a lot of these Hawthorn fans that
>signed up as *members* to *support* the club have done so with not just
>this year in mind.
Will be very interesting to watch, particularily if Hawthorn finish in
the bottom 4 this year. You might be right, but its really hard to
believe that so many supporters just come out of nowhere and then be
expected to keep on supporting a club through all the defeats.
>This is where you are wrong! It was a shocking day and even i thought i
>was a bit silly outside waiting in cold dreary weather to catch public
>transport to the game. Would have been very easy to stay in nice warm
>house listen to match on radio & watch 1 hour of highlights of game on tv
>around tea time. The game was played in very overcast conditions with
>very bad light and not very warm to be outside.
So why did Hawthorn-Adelaide get a better crowd in the same conditions.
Probably worse, since Waverley is apparantly in a rain belt.
>so if we be really conservative and say that all the people that showed
>>up were members, that means about 30% of the members couldn't be bothered
>>showing up.
>
>& decided Freo against Carlton was worth skipping to see live.(actually
>it ended up being well worth going even with the poor weather conditions)
>Yes!
>Even i've done that over the years. (not last week though) Sometimes
>we've been playing lowly teams like Fitzroy etc. and you know your teams
>going to win. You'll only be really satisfied with a 20 goal win so
>keeping warm and listening to game on radio can be an appealing option on
>the odd occassion.
Fair weather fan. :)
>>>Bulldogs are not a typical attractor of crowds to Waverley!!
>>
>>Because lately in particular, they have been doing shithouse. They came 2nd
>>last in 96, so all the bandwagon support dropped off.
>
>Give it a break!
>Bulldgos have NEVER been a well supported club in Melbourne.
Never claimed they were. It looked as though on Sunday against Essendon
they only has 20% of the support. But the Hawthorn bandwagon was rolling
along nicely, and certainly would have exceeded the shithouse numbers
that were prepared to turn up to PP.
And another big game at PP this week. Top of the table clash. What is your
expectation for the crowd Shaun?
> This yeay they
>>have been winning a few, and while I still wouldn't expect them to make
>>the 8, they will probably be in contention until at least the final 2 rounds.
>On this matter your expectations are a bit off. They'll be more than
>contenders! I'm sure they'll be in the 8 come September. If you'd see
>enough of the way Grant, Johnson, Smith ,Wynd, Libba, Ellis, West,
>Darcy & Minton-Connell are playing you could not imagine them missing
>unless a a fair few of these got injured. I don't think you watch a lot
>of teams play other than games in Perth. It shows up in so many thing you
>say in different threads. What's the full coverage of AFL footy over
>there?
Really? Probably watch more than you. We get a full game on Friday, live
game on Saturday afternoon, 1 hours highlights of another game later
at 5pm Saturdays, about half the time we get a Saturday night game live at
6:30, the other half it is shown at a shithouse time at about 10:30 (I'll
be buggered if I know why). On Sunday we get at least a full game live,
but mostly 2 full games, like yesterday, where the Brisbane game was live,
and then after that we got the Essendon-Western game in full, but delayed.
As far as how well the Western Bulldogs are going, most of the time I have
seen them this year they have been pretty ordinary. In round 1 they were
shite, the game against Melbourne they were even shittier, the game against
West Coast they were OK, but they still seemed to make a lot of errors,
yesterday they were bloody good though.
But keep in mind they have still got to make a few interstate trips,
and a few clubs like Sydney and Adelaide have a pretty good run home, and
you would expect at least 3 of the teams currently in the 8 to drop out
by the end of the year.
All in all, they are by no means certainties. This week will be a *big*
test.
>We get to see enough of atleast 6 or 7 games a week to know how well each
>team is travelling.
Full games or highlights?
>Friday night games , Saturday replays & highlights between 5pm & 7-30
>Saturday night games & atleast 2 Sunday games live aswell as usually
>seeing an hours replay of games on Sunday arvo in Melbourne a little
>later. If you have a video recorder it's not to hard to get to see enough
>of how each team is going. Optus Vision coverage is even better
>apparently.
We don't have Optus vision anyay over here. That Foxtel cable is down
past our door, but Rupertball doesn't interest me all that much.
Shaun
enich...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Rob) wrote:
<snip>
I wrote :
>>Even i've done that over the years. (not last week though) Sometimes
>>we've been playing lowly teams like Fitzroy etc. and you know your teams
>>going to win. You'll only be really satisfied with a 20 goal win so
>>keeping warm and listening to game on radio can be an appealing option on
>>the odd occassion.
>
>Fair weather fan. :)
he-he! :-)
Does not help that i used to live over 50km from Melbourne and it would
take atleast 1.5 hours to get to Princes Park.
>And another big game at PP this week. Top of the table clash. What is your
>expectation for the crowd Shaun?
Depends on weather conditions and alos how many people in Melbourne
support the Lions now that Fitzroy are gone.
I'd expect 24 to 29 thousand. Obviously if a nice warm sunny day it would
get closer to 30 thousand. It's a must win game for both sides so it's a
big game in that sense.
This would be interesting actually. Having a crowd tipping competition
each season :-)
Anyway for this game i'll guess about 25,000 for a resonable weather day.
Brisbane being an interstate team are not going to attract too many i
would think.
>> This yeay they
>>>have been winning a few, and while I still wouldn't expect them to make
>>>the 8, they will probably be in contention until at least the final 2 rounds.
>
>>On this matter your expectations are a bit off. They'll be more than
>>contenders! I'm sure they'll be in the 8 come September. If you'd see
>>enough of the way Grant, Johnson, Smith ,Wynd, Libba, Ellis, West,
>>Darcy & Minton-Connell are playing you could not imagine them missing
>>unless a a fair few of these got injured. I don't think you watch a lot
>>of teams play other than games in Perth. It shows up in so many thing you
>>say in different threads. What's the full coverage of AFL footy over
>>there?
>
>Really?
Yep! :-)
> Probably watch more than you.
I dunno, i probably see about 10 hours worth of football on tv a week.
Half of it i record on video and watch at a later stage.
Actually it's about all i watch on tv come to think of it.
Just about everything else is garbage except for Frontline & sometimes
Sienfeld.
We get a full game on Friday, live
>game on Saturday afternoon, 1 hours highlights of another game later
>at 5pm Saturdays, about half the time we get a Saturday night game live at
>6:30, the other half it is shown at a shithouse time at about 10:30 (I'll
>be buggered if I know why). On Sunday we get at least a full game live,
>but mostly 2 full games, like yesterday, where the Brisbane game was live,
>and then after that we got the Essendon-Western game in full, but delayed.
Actually it's not too different to here then.
Sunday we had Brisbane v Swans live, Essendon v Bulldogs 1 hour
highlights.
Saturday night had Richmond v Melbourne on 1 hour delayed telecast.
Saturday had Winners highlights show that showed a bit of games for
Geelong v St.Kilda, North V Eagles & Hawks v Colliwobbles.
Friday night was Port V Carlton live and Monday night was Freo v Camry
Crows live.
So 4 games shown in full, 1 game of 1 hour highlights and 3 games with a
bout 20 to 30 minutes of each game.
>As far as how well the Western Bulldogs are going, most of the time I have
>seen them this year they have been pretty ordinary. In round 1 they were
>shite,
against Freo! That figures you were watching :-)
the game against Melbourne they were even shittier, the game against
>West Coast they were OK, but they still seemed to make a lot of errors,
>yesterday they were bloody good though.
They were excellent that night. Probably best performance by any team
this year.
>But keep in mind they have still got to make a few interstate trips,
>and a few clubs like Sydney and Adelaide have a pretty good run home, and
>you would expect at least 3 of the teams currently in the 8 to drop out
>by the end of the year.
Yeah! Not Bulldogs though! They seem too committed to let it slip.
Port will drop out eventually and probably St.Kilda.
Collingwood look a bit wobbly but should still make it.
Eagles, Bulldogs, Geelong , North & Crows i would think very likely to
make it now.
I think Sydney & Carlton will probably make it aswell.
Brisbane probably just to miss out thanks to bad start.
Actually this brings us back to Carlton v Brisbane game.
In the light of both clubs aspirations for this season this will be
a real decider on where they are heading.
>All in all, they are by no means certainties. This week will be a *big*
>test.
I'll be tipping Bulldogs to beat Geelong.
>
>>We get to see enough of atleast 6 or 7 games a week to know how well each
>>team is travelling.
>
>Full games or highlights?
usually about 4 or 5 games in full and enough highlights of the remaining
games to get a good idea of how a team played.
(actually the odd time their is a game that is basically only shown on
Optus Vision such as Carlton v Hawthorn in Melbourne)
>>Friday night games , Saturday replays & highlights between 5pm & 7-30
>>Saturday night games & atleast 2 Sunday games live aswell as usually
>>seeing an hours replay of games on Sunday arvo in Melbourne a little
>>later. If you have a video recorder it's not to hard to get to see enough
>>of how each team is going. Optus Vision coverage is even better
>>apparently.
>
>We don't have Optus vision anyay over here. That Foxtel cable is down
>past our door, but Rupertball doesn't interest me all that much.
Naturally! It's a pretty shit game.
Gee! We agree on something :-)
Richard Scott
Hey, don't turn into one of those fair weather scared of rain Fremantle
types. ;) Make more sense to go when they will win, doesn't it, if you
are going to be a fair weather fan? Rather than chucking on the jumper
and scarf and standing around Waverley in winter with a couple of tinnies
for solace. As far as that goes, you should try a few games when the high
for the day is around -2. That would sort out the nancy boys. ;)
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
On 3 Jun 1997, Shaun wrote:
Rob's bit :-
Michael Cullen
Shaun <SDB...@student.monash.edu.au>, far, far away from here, appears to have
written:
[snips]
>he-he! :-)
>Does not help that i used to live over 50km from Melbourne and it would
>take atleast 1.5 hours to get to Princes Park.
A pathetic excuse :-)
>This would be interesting actually. Having a crowd tipping competition
>each season :-)
Dockers - 5,000 :-) (Average, of course :-)
>Actually it's about all i watch on tv come to think of it.
>Just about everything else is garbage except for Frontline & sometimes
>Sienfeld.
The Club!! The Club!! (Actually, it's not as good this year; I think they're
taking it a bit seriously :-(
>Yeah! Not Bulldogs though! They seem too committed to let it slip.
Yep, they're playing great. We still should have beaten them, but it was the
beginning of the slide :-)