PDA

View Full Version : Jeff Wells response to Gibson



SWANSBEST
5th June 2003, 07:11 AM
Swans are everyone's scapegoat
COMMENT
By JEFF WELLS
05jun03
THE hypocrisy of the death-riding of the Swans both here and in Melbourne is breathtaking.

Certainly there has been mismanagement in administration, marketing and recruitment, for which chairman Richard Colless has squarely poked out his chin.

It is there for anybody to belt ? the same as the club has been belted by the sponsorship and corporate hospitality money being siphoned off to the World Cup ? and some of the usual suspects have leaped forward.

Yesterday we had Mike Gibson ? who is still harping back to the Dr Geoffrey Edelsten days ? with Gibbo's good old-fashioned pie and a tinny philosophy about why there is no room for Aussie rules, or indeed four codes, in Sydney.

The message seems to be that Aussie rules and soccer should crawl away and leave the market to the real pros of rugby league.

It is the same old deadening parochialism. As if Sydney is not part of Australia. As if Aussie rules hasn't been played in this state for 100 years. As if everybody who lives in Sydney was born here in a rugby league jumper sucking a Rex Mossop-autographed dummy.

Try telling that to the biggest city in America ? that there is no room for gridiron, baseball, basketball and ice hockey in New York.

Those bagging the Swans in Sydney might want to consider that this is a team not a league ? and they average bigger crowds than any Sydney rugby league team. And if they get back to the playing strength of their grand final year of 1996 the 40,000 mobs will be back at the SCG or at Telstra.

Unfortunately the Swans draw their crowds from the same areas as union ? which has a World Cup to flog this year.

Meanwhile the Melbourne media and talkback drones insist that Sydney is nothing more than a vampire on the neck of what should still be the Victorian Football League.

Colless calls this "the biggest furphy in football". First, he says, there is the myth about the Swans' extra salary cap money. That, he said, is funded by the Swans, not the AFL.

When the licence was sold twice, in 1985 and 1988, $8 million went towards propping up Victorian clubs instead of staying in Sydney as a capital base.

"It was a case of football colonisation," he said.

Twenty years ago the VFL commissioned its own research which concluded that not even fanatical Melbourne could continue to support 10 clubs.

Melbourne could never come to grips with it. But South Melbourne were shunted up to Sydney in 1982 and Fitzroy to Brisbane in 1996. And the addition of the SA and WA clubs was an admission that interstate money was needed to keep the Victorians afloat.

Thus the AFL, about 40 years after it should have, created a national league. When rugby league tried to do the same it cannibalised itself in the Super League war.

As late as 1996 the AFL was trying to merge Melbourne and Hawthorn and admitting that it wanted only eight Victorian teams by 2006. AND Colless says that 10 or 11 AFL clubs are on just as shaky financial ground as the Swans. If three of them had used the same accountancy practices as the Swans last season, they would have declared the same losses.

The Kangaroos and Western Bulldogs are already on financial lifelines ? the Swans have yet to ask for a cent.

To me common sense dictates that, for a genuine national league, four Melbourne teams ? not interstate teams ? need to be cut to bring it down to 12. The obvious candidates would be Kangaroos, Bulldogs, St Kilda and Melbourne. But Colless isn't buying that. He cites Souths as an example of a code losing followers when an old team is cut.

And the reaction of the AFL club presidents is interesting. Put them in the same room and they are a reasonable bunch, says Colless. Let them loose and you get Eddie McGuire ? the AFL's Maxi-Me ? running amok trying to sink Sydney.

Some basket cases are tut-tutting but between the lines they are saying they need Sydney to survive. There would be no $500 million TV contract without the biggest market, Sydney.

And any team with a temporary financial problem ? which is being addressed ? is entitled to ask why a cashed-up league with a $500 million TV contract would not be stepping in to help. The AFL cannot divorce itself from its clubs. There are very few football clubs of any code in this country which can support themselves without grants and TV money. Attendances and sponsorships won't cut it.

The NRL starts with a $40 million black hole each year which is filled by $2.5 million handouts to each club and the profits from that great NSW boon to Australian culture ? the poker machine.

And if Gibbo wants to keep yapping about the excesses of Dr Edelsten I will have to remind him of the great conquest of America when the ARL took its product to a California high school gridiron pitch and gave away tickets at McDonald's to get a crowd in 1987


http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6544904%255E2771,00.html

penga
5th June 2003, 11:20 AM
could anyone provide a link to "Gibbo's" article???

nicko18
5th June 2003, 11:29 AM
i must admit that article in todays paper was the first positive sporting article i have ever read from jeff wells (albeit an overall critisism of a fellow journalist).

yesterday i flicked right past gibsons article after the first two sentences where it started "my dear swannies.. dear? try broke" and the next sentence was along a similar vain.

having just read jeff wells' article, i ended up fishing yesterdays paper out of the bin to see what a twisted bitter git he really was.


gibbo's article was along the lines... "there is only room for one sport in sydney, and that's rugby league. the other sports can crawl up and die" he also said the swans are living on borrowed time (i dont know how he could possibly say that, being a league man and all, he'd be foreign to the term "self sustainable")

swan_song
5th June 2003, 12:18 PM
Gibbo, or Glibbo as he's more usually known, is a died-in-the-wool rugby leaguer and has had it in for the swans ever since I can remember. When he was on the box he used to have a go at tem as well. His comments, be they on sport or whatever are best left unread to become tomorrow's fish-and-chip wrapping...

bricon
5th June 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by penga
could anyone provide a link to "Gibbo's" article???

Yep, here (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6542766%255E23211,00.html) it is.

penga
5th June 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by bricon
Yep, here (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6542766%255E23211,00.html) it is.

cheers :D

nicko18
5th June 2003, 01:00 PM
i dont know why gibson is allowed to pass comment on AFL related matters when he hasn't got the faintest clue. his comments are about as insightful as a rugby league troll. he has no idea of what deals have and have not been made, his comments are all sweeping general statements and pretty piss poor analogies.

he probably doesn't realise the fact that every one of his critisisms could also be levelled at every rugby league club going around, all of which recieve more than $2m ANNUALLY from the NRL!

tabloid trash.

EMJ
5th June 2003, 01:23 PM
Wells article was fabulous, very well written and presented. Wells has been writing a few articles over the past two weeks on the Swans and have all been good.

bricon
5th June 2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by nicko18
he probably doesn't realise the fact that every one of his critisisms could also be levelled at every rugby league club going around, all of which recieve more than $2m ANNUALLY from the NRL!


Of course the NRL clubs all receive an annual dividend from the NRL; no different to all of the AFL clubs receiving their annual dividend from our head office (last year it was about $3.5 million per club).

tez
5th June 2003, 03:18 PM
Jeff Wells has always written a good article. his article on
Ryan O'keefe after the Richmond game was very good.

I have e-mailed him on several occassions and have always
received a response.

scurrilous
5th June 2003, 06:15 PM
Oh that's a GREAT article! :rolleyes: You could not get a more emotive piece of bulldust in all your life unless you asked me to write it!

Charlie
5th June 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by bricon
Of course the NRL clubs all receive an annual dividend from the NRL; no different to all of the AFL clubs receiving their annual dividend from our head office (last year it was about $3.5 million per club).

I'd say that'd be something to do with the fact that the AFL owns all the trademarks of each team. For the Swans, they'd own the name 'Sydney Swans', the logo, the guernsey, Cygnatious.... just about everything I'd say.

To compensate for the fact that the AFL gets the revenue from Swans' brand recognition, all the cash generated from merchandising etc is poured into the blender and we all get equal amounts.

bricon
5th June 2003, 10:40 PM
<b>Charlie:</b> I don?t understand what point you are trying to make. The fact is that the AFL effectively ?owns? the Swans lock-stock and barrel but what?s that got to do with the annual dividend that?s paid to <b>all</b> of the clubs?

The annual dividend is a distribution from the AFL to the clubs from the profit that the AFL makes from; TV/media rights, revenue from finals series and ?internationals?, marketing activities, tribunal fines etc; all clubs get the same annual distribution ? same deal with the NRL clubs. The annual dividend accounts for around 15-20% of a typical AFL/NRL club?s revenue; one of the largest sources of income that a club receives. The head office distribution is far higher (in percentage terms) for the Super 12 teams.

Damien
6th June 2003, 02:28 PM
I remember Mike Gibson writing a piece on the Swans 3 years ago. It was for the Sunday Telegraph and centered around him being invited to the swans match the night before and how the swans really turned on a show for him (in terms of hospitality) but the game was just plain ****e.

Opinion is fair enough - but I read this in the edition I brought from Oxford street on the way home from the scg in the early edition published at 8pm - (while the swans were barely in the first quarter) when he wrote the story, he hadn't even left his house to get the SCG yet lmao

He will never allow himself an unbiased look at our game. Thank god Jeff Wells had a good go at him with some reasonable facts

Ganjaman
6th June 2003, 02:55 PM
Mike Gibson is a die hard, or should I say WAS a die hard North Sydney Bears fan. Is it any wonder he is bitter. The bears were dumped for being crap and broke.

The bloke is way past it, a complete goose.

nicko18
6th June 2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by bricon
<b>Charlie:</b> I don?t understand what point you are trying to make. The fact is that the AFL effectively ?owns? the Swans lock-stock and barrel but what?s that got to do with the annual dividend that?s paid to <b>all</b> of the clubs?

The annual dividend is a distribution from the AFL to the clubs from the profit that the AFL makes from; TV/media rights, revenue from finals series and ?internationals?, marketing activities, tribunal fines etc; all clubs get the same annual distribution ? same deal with the NRL clubs. The annual dividend accounts for around 15-20% of a typical AFL/NRL club?s revenue; one of the largest sources of income that a club receives. The head office distribution is far higher (in percentage terms) for the Super 12 teams.

bricon, the NRL relies on money generated outside of the game to run the code. The AFL does not. i think it is pure hypocrisy that a league man can have a stab at the swans for recieving handouts. besides, in term of the AFL, the swans generate far more revenue than they recieve themselves.