SA Footy

Jims a tad happy methinks

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Stupid thing crashed

am Bays wrote:Anyone know the population of Shanghi?

Just wondering if the ~9500 at Shanghi, is proportion to the 10634 that rocked up in Darwin out of the 150000 in the greater Darwin area?

I saw on Twitter that someone did the maths and the 9k at Shanghai is a comparable figure of 166 in terms of games in Oz against per capita of course. Not really a great figure to use unless your comparing the same national game. But it gives you an idea if how much of a **** the Chinese give about AFL, and that's very little **** at the moment.

Shanghai's population is 26mil. So that's about the population of Australia.

There was 9500 there?

Brodlach wrote:There was 9500 there?

That’s the bit I find most laughable.
I fully support their experiment in China but don’t spin us BS about the crowd.

stan wrote:

am Bays wrote:Anyone know the population of Shanghi?

Just wondering if the ~9500 at Shanghi, is proportion to the 10634 that rocked up in Darwin out of the 150000 in the greater Darwin area?

I saw on Twitter that someone did the maths and the 9k at Shanghai is a comparable figure of 166 in terms of games in Oz against per capita of course. Not really a great figure to use unless your comparing the same national game. But it gives you an idea if how much of a **** the Chinese give about AFL, and that's very little **** at the moment.

Shanghai's population is 26mil. So that's about the population of Australia.

so they can't fill a stadium with a population of 26mil... Interesting

Where are the Tarps?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Exciting untapped potential in China.. only need 1% of the Shanghai population to get invested and it would be a huge success.

Think China > Gold Coast

The Bedge wrote:Exciting untapped potential in China.. only need 1% of the Shanghai population to get invested and it would be a huge success.

Think China > Gold Coast

I think it is good for the state but doubt Port will see many $ out of it.
Guess we will find out when their next financial statement is released

woodublieve12 wrote:

stan wrote:

am Bays wrote:Anyone know the population of Shanghi?

Just wondering if the ~9500 at Shanghi, is proportion to the 10634 that rocked up in Darwin out of the 150000 in the greater Darwin area?

I saw on Twitter that someone did the maths and the 9k at Shanghai is a comparable figure of 166 in terms of games in Oz against per capita of course. Not really a great figure to use unless your comparing the same national game. But it gives you an idea if how much of a **** the Chinese give about AFL, and that's very little **** at the moment.

Shanghai's population is 26mil. So that's about the population of Australia.

so they can't fill a stadium with a population of 26mil... Interesting

Yep. They simply don't give a toss.

woodublieve12 wrote:so they can't fill a stadium with a population of 26mil... Interesting

UK Fan.. is that you?

If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

Booney wrote:If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

As I said, I agree with the venture and applaud you for it but why do the AFL/Port feel the need to lie about the crowd figures. All week in the lead up “It’s a sellout, blah, blah” and then they pan to a 3/4 empty stadium. Just tell it like it is or if the AFL is concerned about the look, give a stack of tickets away or even pay people to go

The Bedge wrote:Exciting untapped potential in China.. only need 1% of the Shanghai population to get invested and it would be a huge success.

Think China > Gold Coast

Gold Coast would be the obvious choice.

Port have initiated the experiment, it has moderate success and is great for putting it out there for the world to see but Gold Coast bear the Chinese colours and could generate a lot more money for their economy up there opposed to Melbourne or Adelaide, I'd sooner Port not go over there and concentrate on finishing off a season, I'd rather us have our bye in round 14 than 12.

Jim05 wrote:

Booney wrote:If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

As I said, I agree with the venture and applaud you for it but why do the AFL/Port feel the need to lie about the crowd figures. All week in the lead up “It’s a sellout, blah, blah” and then they pan to a 3/4 empty stadium. Just tell it like it is or if the AFL is concerned about the look, give a stack of tickets away or even pay people to go

Didn't they say they cant sell certain rows/bays? That's why they are empty.. also thought i heard something about 400 guests being taken to the wrong venue haha!

Booney wrote:If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

Despite the brevity of my post it doesn't assume Bums on seat are the be all and end all.

However to say the AFL and other stakeholders involved in this venture wouldn't like to se more Bums on seats is as equally misleading, if anything as an additional measure to validate the "cut-through" or awareness within this "new' market of this significant investment.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

The Bedge wrote:Exciting untapped potential in China.. only need 1% of the Shanghai population to get invested and it would be a huge success.

Think China > Gold Coast

Gold Coast would be the obvious choice.

Port have initiated the experiment, it has moderate success and is great for putting it out there for the world to see but Gold Coast bear the Chinese colours and could generate a lot more money for their economy up there opposed to Melbourne or Adelaide, I'd sooner Port not go over there and concentrate on finishing off a season, I'd rather us have our bye in round 14 than 12.

It's far more than a "moderate success" mate and it has nothing to do with putting our game out there for the world to see.

St Kilda has signed on for 3 years, so there's two more Port v St Kilda, it's likely in the distant future Port might not even participate in the game for a year, St Kilda already have sponsors on board from it, Tourism Victoria is backing it and Port may still make some money from St Kilda hosting another side.

Jim05 wrote:

Booney wrote:If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

As I said, I agree with the venture and applaud you for it but why do the AFL/Port feel the need to lie about the crowd figures. All week in the lead up “It’s a sellout, blah, blah” and then they pan to a 3/4 empty stadium. Just tell it like it is or if the AFL is concerned about the look, give a stack of tickets away or even pay people to go

The stadium "holds" around 20,000, around 8,000 are not sold as they have blocked or fully restricted views so a "sell out" is about 11,000.

Looked like a couple of thousand at each end, naff all on the outer side and all the tents full so probably 8-9000 or so I'd have guessed.

There was 1000 tickets given to the kids on the Power Footy program and their families so it's fair to say plenty of them didn't come along > "sell out" and 9000....again, not the KPI this hangs on.

am Bays wrote:

Booney wrote:If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

Despite the brevity of my post it doesn't assume Bums on seat are the be all and end all.

However to say the AFL and other stakeholders involved in this venture wouldn't like to se more Bums on seats is as equally misleading, if anything as an additional measure to validate the "cut-through" or awareness within this "new' market of this significant investment.

The "cut through" we're seeking went to the gala dinner on Friday night and have lanyards around their necks with a button up shirt, the ones waving the free flag on the outer aren't the money makers.

Agreed however, as the AFL put it, the "optics" aren't great. Then again neither is 14,000 at the MCG and Kennett crying foul that the Hawks are being hard done by. *sob*

Booney wrote:

am Bays wrote:

Booney wrote:If any of you think the success of the venture relies on bums on seats you need to pay closer attention.

Despite the brevity of my post it doesn't assume Bums on seat are the be all and end all.

However to say the AFL and other stakeholders involved in this venture wouldn't like to se more Bums on seats is as equally misleading, if anything as an additional measure to validate the "cut-through" or awareness within this "new' market of this significant investment.

The "cut through" we're seeking went to the gala dinner on Friday night and have lanyards around their necks with a button up shirt, the ones waving the free flag on the outer aren't the money makers.

Agreed however, as the AFL put it, the "optics" aren't great. Then again neither is 14,000 at the MCG and Kennett crying foul that the Hawks are being hard done by. *sob*

Few points there boon, I guess we don't really understand what is involved with the deal. The AFL will always be concerned with its optics no matter what.

Yes the 14k at the MCG the other week would also be a concern. What else would be a concern is the shit full standard of football at the moment. I mean having a massively attacking game where the score is 74 - 33 might crop up.

Anyway I did hear the Koch interview on MMM and it was a lot of spin and crap I guess but he was clear in saying it wasn't an up front cash grab and and long term prospect.

As Jim said it's good for the state and if Port can find there football department from it then I guess they'll be happy.