www.talkingfooty.com
https://www.talkingfooty.com/forums/
ParraEelsNRL wrote:
You're pathetic because you just don't get it. Olympic Park sucked. Etihad would have worked except that the venue did their best to make sure it didn't. AAMI hasn't worked because the original plans, which included better roofing along with the extra 20,000, f---ed up the place and made it wide open! Not to mention Par's point about competition either across the road or across town!Xman wrote:The storms low numbers have been at 3 stadiums! Therefore irrespective of the stadium the following just isnt there. Making stadia as the excuse is pathetic!
Hasn't worked in your ******** opinion because you're trying to defend the Storm's shit crowds. The vast majority of reviews from Storm fans say it's an excellent venue. The only problem is that there's not enough die hard Storm fans to get over 15,000 each home game.Striker wrote:You're pathetic because you just don't get it. Olympic Park sucked. Etihad would have worked except that the venue did their best to make sure it didn't. AAMI hasn't worked because the original plans, which included better roofing along with the extra 20,000, f---ed up the place and made it wide open! Not to mention Par's point about competition either across the road or across town!Xman wrote:The storms low numbers have been at 3 stadiums! Therefore irrespective of the stadium the following just isnt there. Making stadia as the excuse is pathetic!
So theyve had 3 venues and all werent good enough to grow their following. I wonder what the common denominator is?Striker wrote:You're pathetic because you just don't get it. Olympic Park sucked. Etihad would have worked except that the venue did their best to make sure it didn't. AAMI hasn't worked because the original plans, which included better roofing along with the extra 20,000, f---ed up the place and made it wide open! Not to mention Par's point about competition either across the road or across town!Xman wrote:The storms low numbers have been at 3 stadiums! Therefore irrespective of the stadium the following just isnt there. Making stadia as the excuse is pathetic!
so the storm have a big following but they dont attend games because their stadiums have so far been or too small, or too wet, or too cold, or too old, or too unfriendly....Striker wrote:No. The following is much larger than the attendances show. Give us the right venue of the right size without gung ho league hating venue ownership and council, and we'll pack them in. The SOO this past season proves me right.
SOO proves nothing. It was a big event. People form QLD and NSW flooded into Melbourne, and many Victorians attended to see the big spectacle. Do you honestly believe that a one off event is a more accurate sample of support than 182 games over 15 years?Striker wrote:No. The following is much larger than the attendances show. Give us the right venue of the right size without gung ho league hating venue ownership and council, and we'll pack them in. The SOO this past season proves me right.
You had access to it and the crowds still didnt go, unlike other sports like ARs and A league. Your anti RL agenda theory is lunacy.Striker wrote:Melbourne is an AFL town that put up with it because there was nothing better. Now there is. It's called Etihad Stadium. AND WE WANT ACCESS TO IT!!
Every sport has had issues with the security staff at the docklands. Get used to it or go elsewhereStriker wrote:SOO is league, Drac! And where's your evidence that the crowd was boosted by that match because of tourists?? Our biggest crowd at Etihad would have been a lot bigger had it not been for the Nazi Storm Troopers at the gate!!
It's NOT! You weren't there in 2001 when Collins made security cut the crowd back!! He wanted it to fail! It was WORSE than what you're talking about. WAY worse!Xman wrote:You had access to it and the crowds still didnt go, unlike other sports like ARs and A league. Your anti RL agenda theory is lunacy.Striker wrote:Melbourne is an AFL town that put up with it because there was nothing better. Now there is. It's called Etihad Stadium. AND WE WANT ACCESS TO IT!!
Strange, I coulda swore the Storm played Parramatta at Etihad in front of 33,000.Drac wrote:SOO proves nothing. It was a big event. People form QLD and NSW flooded into Melbourne, and many Victorians attended to see the big spectacle. Do you honestly believe that a one off event is a more accurate sample of support than 182 games over 15 years?Striker wrote:No. The following is much larger than the attendances show. Give us the right venue of the right size without gung ho league hating venue ownership and council, and we'll pack them in. The SOO this past season proves me right.
Your biggest crowd at Etihad was 25k, which would comfortably fit inside AAMI. But here's the rub; you're not getting into Etihad, so if you genuinely believe that your crowds can't grow without access to this stadium, the Storm are destined to remain a niche mediocrity.
Explain to me how security at Etihad "cut the crowd back"Striker wrote:It's NOT! You weren't there in 2001 when Collins made security cut the crowd back!! He wanted it to fail! It was WORSE than what you're talking about. WAY worse!Xman wrote:You had access to it and the crowds still didnt go, unlike other sports like ARs and A league. Your anti RL agenda theory is lunacy.Striker wrote:Melbourne is an AFL town that put up with it because there was nothing better. Now there is. It's called Etihad Stadium. AND WE WANT ACCESS TO IT!!
SOO is League, but it's not nRL. Much like a Socceroos WC Qualifier is soccer but not the A-League, and the Boxing Day test is cricket, but it's not the Sheffield Shield.Striker wrote:SOO is league, Drac! And where's your evidence that the crowd was boosted by that match because of tourists?? Our biggest crowd at Etihad would have been a lot bigger had it not been for the Nazi Storm Troopers at the gate!!