Talking Footy

Clearly the AFL continues to win in the popularity stakes outside of its heartlands. How pathetic is that membership figure for the Storm when you consider how many finals and grand finals they have played in and finished minor premiers last season. RL will never be embraced by the sports mad people of Victoria.

http://membership.sydneyswans.com.au/

http://membership.melbournestorm.com.au/

Certainly not to the extent they embrace AFL, Beaussie.

Beaussie wrote:

Clearly the AFL continues to win in the popularity stakes outside of its heartlands. How pathetic is that membership figure for the Storm when you consider how many finals and grand finals they have played in and finished minor premiers last season. RL will never be embraced by the sports mad people of Victoria.

http://membership.sydneyswans.com.au/

http://membership.melbournestorm.com.au/

2 AFL teams in Sydney .. just ova 18K members all up
Av 9K ish

Storm ova 6K

not too shabby at all ..

Not too shabby?? They're 33 percent behind, doofus! I call that embarrassing!

NSWAFL wrote:

Not too shabby?? They're 33 percent behind, doofus! I call that embarrassing!

and they'll finish up 33% ahead of the new AFL tusnami coming to a cricket oval near you .. the GWS midgits
tusnami .... a gentle zepher more like it
now thats embarrasing

Oh really? So where is the extra membership going to come from? Out of your arse, I suppose!

NSWAFL wrote:

Oh really? So where is the extra membership going to come from? Out of your arse, I suppose!

huh


what extra ... who'll need extra to wipe the AFL tsunami coming to a singlet outlet near you ... the GWS midgits .... off the park

Storm had 12K last year .. they'll have that many again .. probably more in 2012
that'll be 33% more then GWS ... hell it might be double

Storm: a single RL team in a sports mad city with years of recent success, and another likely succesful year, have 6k members

GWS: a second team in a city indifferent to most sports, are yet to play a game, and will likely finish bottom, have 4k members.

I think its a very unfair comparison beaussie makes here. Storm have not been established in melbourne anywhere near as long as the swans. I dont care how many premierships they've won, the swans have the time advantage (15-20years?) and the advantage of thousands of south melbourne members (5000?). I think my guesstimates are pretty close feel free to correct me on them.

So, quite poor comparative analysis beaussie. But in light of this shoddy comparison, I would now have to agree with Raider that the Storm are going not too shabby at all. Perhaps even better considering the time and previous membership advantage the swans have. Thanks beaussie and well done RL in what is an AFL mad city! :D =D>

King-Eliagh wrote:

I think its a very unfair comparison beaussie makes here. Storm have not been established in melbourne anywhere near as long as the swans. I dont care how many premierships they've won, the swans have the time advantage (15-20years?) and the advantage of thousands of south melbourne members (5000?). I think my guesstimates are pretty close feel free to correct me on them.

So, quite poor comparative analysis beaussie. But in light of this shoddy comparison, I would now have to agree with Raider that the Storm are going not too shabby at all. Perhaps even better considering the time and previous membership advantage the swans have. Thanks beaussie and well done RL in what is an AFL mad city! :D =D>

Yet the storm have years of success plus a 14 yr time advantage on the giants but only have 2k more members!

The swans have well over double the storm members!

King-Eliagh wrote:

I think its a very unfair comparison beaussie makes here. Storm have not been established in melbourne anywhere near as long as the swans. I dont care how many premierships they've won, the swans have the time advantage (15-20years?) and the advantage of thousands of south melbourne members (5000?). I think my guesstimates are pretty close feel free to correct me on them.

So, quite poor comparative analysis beaussie. But in light of this shoddy comparison, I would now have to agree with Raider that the Storm are going not too shabby at all. Perhaps even better considering the time and previous membership advantage the swans have. Thanks beaussie and well done RL in what is an AFL mad city! :D =D>

great points E

well said =D> =D> =D>
here endith the lesson

Xman wrote:

The swans have well over double the storm members!

The difference in the swans and storm members could almost be the amount of south melbourne members they had in the first year they moved location. Right? And thats without looking at the considerable time advantage the swans have had.

Xman wrote:

Yet the storm have years of success plus a 14 yr time advantage on the giants but only have 2k more members!

In respect to the storm vs giants membership comparison, this is not valid. Anyone who's studied stats and trends would tell you, the variables need to be able to be comparable and mediating factors accounted for. In the case of the giants very short time the mediating factor would be the 'buzz'/'excitement' of the initial establishment of the club, which would inevitably result in a rush of memberships followed by a plateua period. Sorry Xman, your comparison is also invalid and worthy of the wastepaper bucket also. Pm me if you would like more info on statistical analysis and comparison Xman. Or if you dont have the time/ or energy to bother learning, simply follow daves calculations and comparisons. I think he's only a layman in the stats field but his estimates and comparisons are usually freakishly accurate with sound validity.

King-Eliagh wrote:

The difference in the swans and storm members could almost be the amount of south melbourne members they had in the first year they moved location. Right? And thats without looking at the considerable time advantage the swans have had.

In respect to the storm vs giants membership comparison, this is not valid. Anyone who's studied stats and trends would tell you, the variables need to be able to be comparable and mediating factors accounted for. In the case of the giants very short time the mediating factor would be the 'buzz'/'excitement' of the initial establishment of the club, which would inevitably result in a rush of memberships followed by a plateua period. Sorry Xman, your comparison is also invalid and worthy of the wastepaper bucket also. Pm me if you would like more info on statistical analysis and comparison Xman. Or if you dont have the time/ or energy to bother learning, simply follow daves calculations and comparisons. I think he's only a layman in the stats field but his estimates and comparisons are usually freakishly accurate with sound validity.

Nice story.

6 v 4k members.

The storm should be miles ahead of 6k given recent history of success and a new stadium.

This comparison must really burn on two fronts. Firstly the swans being so far ahead, and secondly the giants not far behind.

King, you are completely ignoring the premiership factor. On the field on average the Storm have been more successful in their entire existence than the Swans since they've been in Sydney. Way more successful. And yet look at the membership figures. I call that shabby to a very high level. There's definitely something wrong in Camp Storm and you'd be a fool to deny it. (Decided not to change this after Xman posted while I was typing)

It may sound like a "story" to you Xman, but I'll let you know this is 'fact'. Your simple "6k vs 4k" and the "swans being far ahead" comparison would be laughed at by statisticians worldwide. Its simply has little statistical power and very low valididty. The mediating factors are clear to see. And I wont bother highlighting them again as you seem unable to learn this. I will ask though, are you able to get the number of south melbourne supporter memberships who are now sydney members? This would be interesting.