Giants - what would be a successful first year?

[Xman]

I'm wondering what our RL fan members think would indicate a successful first year for the Giants off the field.

Look at the NRLs only real expansion in to AFL heartland, the Storm: they averaged 14k attendance in 2011, despite massive success and a brand new facility. However, they have significantly lower attendance and membership numbers (12k 2011) than EVERY AFL team in Melbourne. They are also the only NRL team in Melbourne, where as the Giants are the second team in Sydney.

But Sydney isn't Melbourne, it is a tougher sporting market. The Panthers only averaged just over 12k attendance last year, despite many of their games involving 2 teams from Sydney. they also only had around 6000 members last year.

So, what figures do the Giants need in their first year for it to be considered a successful expansion? If they get more crowds and members than penrith, a RL team in RL heartland, would that be considered a success? If they get more crowds and members than the storm, a single hugely succesful NRL team in sports loving Melbourne, would that be an indication of success?

[Xman]

Yoohoo, Raiderdope, Cooee and King Egghead, your opinions are sought here. :P

[NSWAFL]

Yeah I want something to take apart from Dave and Cooee.

[King-Eliagh]

Apart from your bias and untelligent monologue in para 3 you make a fair post here Xman.

Lets not fotget that Marngrook loses a lot as a televised sport. I was just speaking to my cousins last weekend about the sport, how i play and enjoy it etc and they said it simply looks like a mess when they watch it on the tele. This is fairly true as I felt the same before understanding the structure from seeing it live. So lets not bother comparing the ground attendance with RL, a much more tv friendly code.

So for GWS to be a success in their first year I'd think they need about 18-22k avg for their home games.

Membership of the sport has always been popular in Victorian rules culture. Not so in RL although there does appear to be a change occurring right now. In any case it is silly and old hat to be comparing apples with oranges, i.e. Victorian rules with RL on this one. So I'm not sure how many GWS members would be a success in their first year, i guess somewhere around or a touch below the AFL teams avg? I notice you didnt mention this. How much is that Xman?

[Xman]

Apart from your bias and untelligent monologue in para 3 you make a fair post here Xman.

Lets not fotget that Marngrook loses a lot as a televised sport. I was just speaking to my cousins last weekend about the sport, how i play and enjoy it etc and they said it simply looks like a mess when they watch it on the tele. This is fairly true as I felt the same before understanding the structure from seeing it live. So lets not bother comparing the ground attendance with RL, a much more tv friendly code.

So for GWS to be a success in their first year I'd think they need about 18-22k avg for their home games.

Membership of the sport has always been popular in Victorian rules culture. Not so in RL although there does appear to be a change occurring right now. In any case it is silly and old hat to be comparing apples with oranges, i.e. Victorian rules with RL on this one. So I'm not sure how many GWS members would be a success in their first year, i guess somewhere around or a touch below the AFL teams avg? I notice you didnt mention this. How much is that Xman?

Where do you start with this heap of shi.t?

1. What has the fact that NRL is perceived as a better sport for TV (by their own fans only) got to do with attendances??

2. The AFL easily wins the 5 city TV ratings comparison, which is an even count of 7 million viewers from each heartland city audience! There goes your "RL is better on TV" theory out the window.

3. So the Giants need a home attendance average of more than the entire NRL average, and more than almost every Sydney NRL team, to be considered succesful? WTF are you smoking??!! If they beat ANY NRL Sydney team in their first year they must be considered viable in this expansion market, since we are constantly told that all NR team in Sydney are perfectly viable.

4. Memberships are indeed an AFL culture, yes. But the Giants are playing in Sydney which isn't AFL heartland!!!!! The Giants are appealing to people who live in Sydney where memberships are NOT an established culture. How is it that they are going to get close to the AFL average of 36k?? Anything above a Sydney NRL team's membership numbers should be considered a succes, and they're already at that level.

[NSWAFL]

1. Dunce is admitting that TV coverage is harming gate attendances for the NRL in effect. I call that a bad thing because that's what the NRL needs to survive. Fans at games!

2. Amen!

3 & 4. Involving the Bronco's (in effect) is a smoke screen. Concentrate on the Sydney clubs alone and their average, which is lower IIRC than the NRL average.

[King-Eliagh]

So lemme get this straight. Xman you'll be happy if GWS beats any sydney RL attendance all year long?

Sheesh talk about scraping the barrel. There's something like 8 NRL clubs to 2 AFL clubs in Syd. And RL is made for tv, unlike Marngrook. Yes nsw it is a double edged sword, the fantastic RL tv coverage does harm gate attendances.

So Xman, are you saying a success for GWS would be average crowds of 8k? And a membership of somewhere around 8k? Are you saying this should be viewed as a success?

In the AFL I'd call that a flop. A massive flop, and yes I do know I'm highlighting that the AFL has higher crowd and membership participation than the NRL in this. But Xman, will you get real! When we talk GWS we're not talking about the NRL you silly silly twit Please Xman whatever you do, don't take up business management

[Xman]

So lemme get this straight. Xman you'll be happy if GWS beats any sydney RL attendance all year long?

Sheesh talk about scraping the barrel. There's something like 8 NRL clubs to 2 AFL clubs in Syd. And RL is made for tv, unlike Marngrook. Yes nsw it is a double edged sword, the fantastic RL tv coverage does harm gate attendances.

So Xman, are you saying a success for GWS would be average crowds of 8k? And a membership of somewhere around 8k? Are you saying this should be viewed as a success?

In the AFL I'd call that a flop. A massive flop, and yes I do know I'm highlighting that the AFL has higher crowd and membership participation than the NRL in this. But Xman, will you get real! When we talk GWS we're not talking about the NRL you silly silly twit Please Xman whatever you do, don't take up business management

OMG!

Idiot!

The Storm fail to match ANY Melbourne AFL club in attendances or members!

If the GWS match any of the Sydney NRL teams in Members or attendace, ie 6k membership and 12k attendance, would that be considered a success?

Don't give me this shi.t about 2 AFL teams in Sydney BS. The storm are the only NRL team in Melbourne and how do they compare?

You're an f'ing joke. The storm get 12k members and 14k attendances yet you think the Giants need 30k members and 20k attendances to consider their first year a success.

What an idiot!

By the way, Raiderdave's absence from this thread is a clear indication he doesn't like the hurt caused by the facts in this thread!

[King-Eliagh]

Xman we must compare GWS with AFL crowds and memberships, for crying out loud when will you understand we cant be comparing apples with turnips.

The melbourne storm are fairly successful in re to RL membership and crowds, which by the way are set to rise once again this season. So yes the melbourne storm could now be considered successful.

So for GWS to be a success in their first yr I'd be hoping they get not too far below the average AFL, yes AFL, thats right AFL (not NRL) crowds and membership. Wouldnt you think that would be successful Xman? Or would you be happy if GWS get crowds and membership well below the NRL avg, an avg you scoff and laugh at every chance you get?

My my my what a complex, contradictory, upside down, turnip like bumpkin you are Xman.

[Xman]

Xman we must compare GWS with AFL crowds and memberships, for crying out loud when will you understand we cant be comparing apples with turnips.

The melbourne storm are fairly successful in re to RL membership and crowds, which by the way are set to rise once again this season. So yes the melbourne storm could now be considered successful.

So for GWS to be a success in their first yr I'd be hoping they get not too far below the average AFL, yes AFL, thats right AFL (not NRL) crowds and membership. Wouldnt you think that would be successful Xman? Or would you be happy if GWS get crowds and membership well below the NRL avg, an avg you scoff and laugh at every chance you get?

My my my what a complex, contradictory, upside down, turnip like bumpkin you are Xman.

Where is the contradiction? The GWs need to be competitive with the other successful teams in their market, or their peers. These include other Sydney sporting clubs like the NRL teams, which average around 15k attendance, and have around 10-15k members. Their peers include the storm.

So if they get similar numbers they will be successful, right?

After all, you are surely not suggesting we judge AFL teams by a much much loftier standard compared to the NRL? That is no doubt conceding the NRl is the inferior product and inferior league, and to be judged that way in all comparisons. That's not very nice KE!

[NSWAFL]

Dunce is proving through Xman's quotes that he truly doesn't understand the point. A team's success is judged against it's competition in the same market. In the case of GWS, it's the Sydney based NRL clubs as well as the Swans, the Waratahs and Sydney United.

In the case of the Storm, it's the Melbourne based AFL clubs, the Rebels, the Victory and the Heart.

It should also be pointed out that Sydney is a harder sporting market to break into at the best of times than Melbourne. Melbourne's sporting mad. Sydney's not.

[Raiderdave]

the Giants won't 1/4 fill Skoda for most games

the opening round game will distort their eventual average
but it will still be lower then all 16 NRL clubs

at some stage this season they will be watched by the lowest number of veiwers in Sydney on TV ... in the last 30 years
I'm talking under 10K

they will finish 0-22

they will get the wooden spoon

they have 6K odd members ATM most of which don't live in Sydney
by this time in 2013
they won't have 3K

[NSWAFL]

They might get the wooden spoon as most first season clubs do but I think they will win games.

No big deal.

But they will get more than 1/4 of Skoda filled once it opens. Big hold back at Blacktown given it's small capacity.

[Raiderdave]

They might get the wooden spoon as most first season clubs do but I think they will win games.

No big deal.

But they will get more than 1/4 of Skoda filled once it opens. Big hold back at Blacktown given it's small capacity.

sorry what

the Titans didn't finish with the wooden spoon in their first year in 2007
nor did the Storm in 1998


nor did the Rams in 1997
nor did the Reds in 1995
nor did the warriors or cowboys in 1995 either

you get the wooden spoon if you are CRAP ... nothing to do with it being your first year or not

the Thuns were ... & still are ... utter crap
as are the Midgits

the VFL have F'd up their comp

that is all

[King-Eliagh]

Dunce is proving through Xman's quotes

.... ... ...


... ... ...

umm.. ... ...

ahhh.... ... ...

oh yeah thats right, you;re an AFL supporter on an internet site!

So Xman I've provided the figures of what i consider would be a successful first year, can you now answer your own question with some figures?