2 replies to this topic

[Amelia Jane]

What a huge win at the MCG yesterday. Our players were wonderful but unfortunately they had no opposition. I actually felt sorry for Melbourne. The media love knocking Footscray, North Melbourne, St kilda and Melbourne. Most other teams seem to escape the jeers. I am thrilled that we won but I also hope Melbourne starts to improve and becomes competitive again. I am probably biased as I have friends who follow the demons and they have suffered a lot over the years. Anyway, we deserve our big win and congratulations to all of our players who showed some great form.

[Lisbon]

A 95 point win against Melbourne is surely taking one step in the right direction. Last year it was really bizarre, there were wins against both grand finalists and losses to clubs like Carlton and Melbourne. Great to see that that flaw is beginning to be corrected.

I think you're right in complaining about some Melbourne clubs being singled out for rough treatment. I'm far away, but I see that the AFL is still after culling one or two Victorian sides and for one reason or another the media lap it all up. I don't know what you think about the football invective site (they can't be all bad, their "hero of the week" for round 1 was Brad Johnson), but they wrote a very good article about the folly of the proposed "Gold Coast/ West Sydney expansion" check it out at http://www.footballi...008/08pre1.html - here's a bit:

In a further attempt to boost the viability of this tin-pot franchise, the AFL has also appointed a Mr Dale Holmes to "develop" the Western Sydney "market". Yet even Holmes' realises that a team will not be viable:

"His grand ambition is that in 25 years, 1% of western Sydney's two million or so people will buy annual memberships for the new team."

Football Invective.com is no mathematical genius, but according to our calculations, 1% of 2 million is 20,000.



In any other city, 20,000 members is well below what is considered the viability threshold for a club. If a Melbourne team had that few members it would surely be put on death row or urged to re-locate by the AFL on the grounds that 'the market can't support it'. Yet this bloke Holmes reckons (in his best-case scenario) that it will take until 2037 (25 years after it enters the AFL) for his tin-pot team to build up a supporter base that is well below what is considered viable for every other team in 2008.



Football Invective.com does not know much about this bloke Holmes. He is described as "having worked in the financial-services industry for 15 years." Did he sell sub-prime home loans perhaps? Now he wants to set up a sub-prime footy team.

[Caveman]

The 26 years of Sydney as the Swans rather than South Melbourne who they were in 1981 before being rebranded as the Sydney Swans for season 1982, definitely has provided one constant if nothing else.

That is that the crowds can appear when they go well, however when they (the team) slip down, the Sydney public find something else to do.

So as for having two teams there in 'Steak and Kidney', well the AFL will need an infinitable amount of patience not too mention money for that to take off.