"West Sydney is AFL's Vietnam"

[gadj1976]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 12,00.html

West Sydney is AFL's Vietnam
James Phelps
April 28, 2009 11:38pm
EXCLUSIVE: RUGBY league boss Geoff Carr has warned the AFL its push into western Sydney could be its Vietnam War.

The warning came as the AFL's plan for a second Sydney team hit a major hurdle with the New South Wales Government withdrawing financial backing for the expansion.

The Government has told the AFL it will not help fund the $100 million redevelopment of the Sydney Showground at Homebush, where a second AFL side was set to be based from 2012.

NSW Premier Nathan Rees met AFL boss Andrew Demetriou three weeks ago to tell him of the decision.

With NSW in a parlous financial state, it is understood the Government decided pumping big money into AFL's expansion - in the heartland of rugby league - would risk a voter backlash.

Australian Rugby League chief executive Carr told the Herald Sun the AFL was wasting its money trying to win the hearts and minds of Sydney's "westies".

"It is a huge risk for them and a lot of people say it will be their Vietnam," Carr said. "If they want to fight out there, that is their call."

As rugby league bosses met yesterday in Penrith in Sydney's west and discussed strategies to combat AFL's push, an investigation has found:

RUGBY league is outspending the AFL by $6.5 million in Sydney's west.

RUGBY league boasts 20,204 registered club players in the area compared to AFL's 2929.

AFL club registrations in NSW dropped between 2005 and 2008, but school figures have risen by 30,000 in three years because of AusKick.

The AFL's ambition to spread the game into Sydney's west, largely at a junior level, has stirred plenty of debate.

Carr's strong comments came after he criticised the AFL for inflating the numbers of people playing the game in NSW to secure funding from the government and local councils.

Carr accused the AFL of counting all youngsters who come into contact with the game through the AusKick program at schools as "registered" players.

Forced to abandon its ambitious Homebush project, the AFL will now have to spend at least $33 million to set up the Showground as a no-frills home ground, something officials and key stakeholders are not prepared to do.

The addition of a Gold Coast side in 2011 was approved by the AFL only when it was given a $60 million grant by the Queensland Government.

The AFL's NSW/ACT general manager Dale Holmes said last night there was no other proposals before the NSW Government about venues for a western Sydney side.

Holmes said playing at ANZ Stadium was an option.

A spokesman for AFL boss Andrew Demetriou was last night adamant the league was on track for the proposed launch in 2012.

"The AFL Commission reiterated again yesterday its support for a team in western Sydney starting in the AFL in season 2012," he said.

While the Showground plans have been canned, the $30 million redevelopment of Blacktown's Olympic Park into a 10,000-capacity venue and training base was on schedule to be completed by June.

But the ground will be unsuitable for AFL matches unless there is a further multi-million dollar investment, something the NSW Government is reluctant to fund based on the AFL's current expansion case.


*** surely this will have to put a damper on the expansion bid by the AFL ***

[Sojourner]

So the NSW Goverment have pulled their funding? Maybe they realise there are few votes in it because the locals in the area despise AFL football as opposed to simply not being interested in it.....

Lets hope this is the fuel for the fire that the Tassie Goverment who are supporting and funding their bid need to succeed!

Maybe then a club that cant survive in the AFL can go shift to Penrith if its such a great idea - I think not!

Seems like Poetic Justice for Demetriou though and I cant say that I am overly unhappy about the news either!

[Magpiespower]

Seriously wonder if anyone from AFL House has been further west than Newtown?

Ten minutes up the road to Canterbury and you're in entrenched and hostile league territory.

The popularity of Aussie Rules in Sydney is strongest around the Eastern Suburbs, North Shore and Inner-West.

Basically anywhere convenient to the SCG...

[Booney]

When will the AFL back out of this ridiculous push to have a team out there?

Surely they will come to their sense sooner rather than later.

[Dirko]

When will the AFL back out of this ridiculous push to have a team out there?

Surely they will come to their sense sooner rather than later.

have the ever backed down before ? No way will they relinquish the chase for a West Sydney team....

[Hondo]

The AFL's response will be that they faced a bleaker situation when the Swans went up there in 1982. At least now there's AFL played there every second week.

They'll also say it's not about the level of support in 2012, but what can be achieved by 2020. The fact that AFL isn't strong in West Sydney is exactly the reason they are targetting it I expect.

They want live AFL football in Sydney every week.

I am not 100% convinced myself but you'd have to assume some decent number crunching has been done in the background to make it look workable.

Final comment - we need to put the article that started this thread in context: "RUGBY league boss Geoff Carr has warned the AFL its push into western Sydney could be its Vietnam War". Did anyone expect that he would come out in full support of the AFL's plans?

[Booney]

No I didnt.

But look at the most recent of "expansion teams" to enter the AFL.

Fremantle and Port Adelaide. Despite both being set up in Aussie Rules states they both have major issues. Fremantle do well off field but are a joke on field and will be ( in most peoples eyes ) for some time. Port have been succesful on field ( the advantage of having some heritage and football smarts in the club ) but are struggling to compete with Big fish the Adelaide Crows in a small market off field. Surely a team bound for a Rugby League heart land is on a hiding to nothing as both of these issues ( off field $$ like Port on field like Freo ) could befall such a venture.

A major mistake IMO.

[JK]

Didn't the VFL avoid most of the major cost associated with the Swans venture to Sydney through having the club privately owned?

[Hondo]

Didn't the VFL avoid most of the major cost associated with the Swans venture to Sydney through having the club privately owned?

Possibly at the start, yes. I don't know TBH.

But, if they did avoid up front costs, I think it ended up being only a deferral because they then had to bail the club out once Eddelston sent it broke.

[JK]

Didn't the VFL avoid most of the major cost associated with the Swans venture to Sydney through having the club privately owned?

Possibly at the start, yes. I don't know TBH.

But, if they did avoid up front costs, I think it ended up being only a deferral because they then had to bail the club out once Eddelston sent it broke.

Yeah true, and it all came about at a time when the VFL was flat strapped IIRC .. My point was though that if they'd funded it themselves (as they are now going to do with West Sydney) it would have been a severe financial drain, between establishment costs, promotion and 15 years worth of operating losses .. I would have thought this was where government contribution came in, but I thought that had been scrapped in Sydney because of the current economic climate?

[Booney]

Should they not be stabalising the PAFC and other struggling clubs ( just like they did with Carlton and the North Melbourne clubs ) before going into such a venture? ( Put your dislike of the PAFC aside for the prupose of this debate )

Off topic a little, but is anyone else surprised by the AFL's stance on the PAFC / SANFL agreements? The way they have said sort yourselves out before we get involved?

[JK]

Should they not be stabalising the PAFC and other struggling clubs ( just like they did with Carlton and the North Melbourne clubs ) before going into such a venture? ( Put your dislike of the PAFC aside for the prupose of this debate )

Off topic a little, but is anyone else surprised by the AFL's stance on the PAFC / SANFL agreements? The way they have said sort yourselves out before we get involved?

Not really ... They've been eyeing off the $$ going into SANFL coffers for some time I reckon, and as the SANFL haven't bent to accommodate them, I think they were always going to be left to sort this one out at their own expense.

(As an aside, I read the other day that the Cats make $400k with a home ground crowd of 24,000 .. Puts into perspective a bit what the Power are up against)

[Hondo]

Should they not be stabalising the PAFC and other struggling clubs ( just like they did with Carlton and the North Melbourne clubs ) before going into such a venture? ( Put your dislike of the PAFC aside for the prupose of this debate )

Off topic a little, but is anyone else surprised by the AFL's stance on the PAFC / SANFL agreements? The way they have said sort yourselves out before we get involved?

Their answer to the first question would be that the best way to shore up the existing 16 teams is to increase the revenue streams across the comp even more - ie, 18 teams & associated TV rights deal

On your second point. What seems to be coming through from interviews I have heard is that there actually IS enough money generated by football in SA to have 2 profitable AFL clubs. It's just that the Stadium deal sees far more AFL money diverted off into the local comp than happens in other states. That, plus the fact that the 2 licenses are owned by the SANFL, mean that the AFL say to Port and the SANFL "sort out your own financial arrangements first then come back to us".

I guess the AFL don't want to effectively fund the SANFL comp (that same comp that sees its arguably cashed up clubs raiding players from the other state comps - + the whole "4 assistant coaches" debtate from earlier in the year) and want to see a stadium deal for Port that's more in line with everyone else. WCE & Freo make far more from their deals in Perth, for example.

It's all an inter-related, tangled web of money flows and I don't pretend to understand it all I posted this link in another thread on this topic, it's a great summary of stadium deals across the country. Warning: you need a spare half an hour to read it all!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554729&highlight=Stadium+deal

[Sojourner]

When will the AFL back out of this ridiculous push to have a team out there?

Clearly its a pride issue, one would hope that with the Goverment pulling their funding that it would provide them an out and a way to back away from it whilst saving face at the same time. I hope they take it rather than create a millstone for the existing 16 sides who will have to wear it when it has gone bad and the current AFL leadership are not there any more.

The other point that I suggest is perhaps people interested in this issue might at some stage like to call into the Penrith Panthers Club or even the Parramatta Eels club and get some idea of what they will actually be competing against, its hardly going to be a passive entry into NRL territory. The Panthers own in excess of 40 licensed venues and recently knocked down a perfectly good granstand and built another one just to have something to do with their excess funds. They are not going to even remotley allow an AFL side to have a foothold into their territory along with the other Western Suburbs clubs. Maybe the issue that the AFL needs to consider is not unlike politics, were imposing your culture on someone else isnt always wanted and the results can be quite catastrophic as no doubt the AFL will soon find out if they continue to disrespect the culture of the Western Suburbs of Sydney who by and large do not want them there.

[Magpiespower]

The AFL's response will be that they faced a bleaker situation when the Swans went up there in 1982. At least now there's AFL played there every second week.

They'll also say it's not about the level of support in 2012, but what can be achieved by 2020. The fact that AFL isn't strong in West Sydney is exactly the reason they are targetting it I expect.

They want live AFL football in Sydney every week.

Agreed.

But I reakon the AFL are looking further down the track - 2050 and beyond.

Know a few people who teach out West and their anecdotal evidence backs up what Carr says about Auskick.

The battle for Western Sydney will be much tougher than the first skirmish...

[The Jack]

By 2050, rugby league as a sport will more than likely be a memory in grandfathers' minds. They of the four football codes are the most vulnerable, and the AFL knows this. When rugby league finishes up or merges with union, the AFL want to be there to pick up the pieces. They aren't fools, they know what they're up against at present, but if they think they've got the coin to carry them for a while, then that's what they have to do to ensure the future of their sport. It's all about growth areas of the country (and Mabo, the vibe ) and having a presence in those areas. If all the kids growing up in West Sydney only want to play NRL, that's a massive portion of potential athletes the other sports are missing out on. And I for one, would like to see the talent pool for AFL as big as it can possibly be, as long as we find another Kewell or two to keep the Socceroos in the World Cup finals on a consistent basis!

Having said all that, I'd like to see a Tasmanian team also! Then we'd need another team from somewhere to avoid the bye. Or one of the Melbourne teams will go down there. The Kangaroos would be shattered if they could have gone to the Gold Coast, and ended up in Tassie!!!!

[doggies4eva]

Whatever you think about the politics or the way the AFL manage the game the one thing they have been successful at is the $s.

I suspect that the extra revenue from one more game a week to sell to TV plus the gaming revenue will be far more important that crowd revenue. After all the NFL survives with much smaller crowds that AFL due to pokies. I would think a ground sharing exercise like the other 2 team states makes more sense anyway.

[Psyber]

Agreed.
Such is the public demand for AFL in Sydney that, this weekend, only the Sydney match is live on free-to-air TV, and one match is on at 10.30pm.
Only two matches are on radio at all - I was checking because I'll be in Sydney airport waiting for my connection to the Gold Coast while the Crows match is on and hoped it may be on radio.

ESS v HAW: TV 4 hr delay on LIVE ME Ch 518 Fox Sports Plus (518) - Radio ABC630
GEEL v SYD TV Ch 10 LIVE - Fox Sports 1 - Radio Triple M ABC702
RICH v BL LIVE ME Ch 518, Fox Sports Plus (518)
CARL v FRE Ch 10 at 10.30pm LIVE ME Ch 518, Fox Sports Plus (518)
NMFC v PORT Fox Sports 1
ADEL v WB Fox Sports 1
WCE v MELB Fox Sports 1
COLL v STK 4 1/2 hr delay LIVE ME Ch 518, Fox Sports Plus (518)

I assume another Sydney team would mean they would drop the other match, still leaving it at 2 matches on air.
Of course that is fine with Fox, milking the expatriates living in Sydney...