Manuka hosting AFL into the future in doubt

toriness 28 July 2009 24

My god, is it really any wonder that next to no one could be bothered going to watch the Sydney v Melbourne game? I am amazed that nearly 7,000 turned up to watch it.

Are we supposed to be so very grateful to get any crappy old teams & game for our $366K of territory money. Why bother having Sydney Swans play here – not just because they are a dull and uninspiring stoppage-play footy team – but their game is on free-to-air tv (another pet hate of mine which I have ranted about before on RA) every week!! Why would you pay to sit at Manuka in the cold when you can watch it on your TV at home? Give us a real reason to get down to Manuka Oval and spend our bucks on a seat.

I, like Andrew Barr in The Age, demand better quality teams playing here from 2010 onwards for our $400K of territory money that will appeal to more than just the Sydneysiders who can be bothered coming down from Sydney for the day (so really, what injection of money would there really be into the ACT to justify buying the game in the first place??) to watch when their team happens to be playing well – because god knows as they enter the doldrums in coming years they won’t! Two quality Melbourne teams or a Melbourne team versus Adelaide or Brisbane is far more likely to have interstate fans flying in for the weekend to bring some real money and crowds here.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to Manuka hosting AFL into the future in doubt
Filter
Order
Ivan76 Ivan76 9:40 am 29 Jul 09

Forget about Canberra & AFL games….

When Sydney has 2 teams then your team will possibly be playing in Sydney twice a year.

Go & watch the games in Sydney live, better stadium, better atmosphere and no to damn cold.

& Go the mighty Saints!! Ill be at the SCG this Saturday night!!!

Skidd Marx Skidd Marx 8:56 am 29 Jul 09

Agreed A.K, going to an AFL game in Western Syd/Gold Coast will be like walking into a morgue.

Anna Key Anna Key 5:10 am 29 Jul 09

Sorry 2604, I did say I wasn’t there and was basing it on watching tv – some of the game not the WIN news report. I can’t speak for BD but I wasn’t having a go at RL, the Raiders or their supporters. Just the folks who do the crowd figures. The same seems to happen at the SFS, and ossibly other grounds but as I haven’t been to those I won’t comment.

The new AFL teams are a joke. The western sydney crowds in will make last weekend’s crowd at Manuka look impressive

2604 2604 12:08 am 29 Jul 09

bd84 said :

Anna Key said :

I still question whether there really was over 11,000 at Bruce. I wasn’t there, but that crowd would make the ground almost half full which it didn’t look like on tv. Admittedly I didn’t see a view of the Big Mal stand.

I figure the laws of mathematics don’t apply at NRL games

The crowd figures at the Raiders games never add up. Having been to a few and watching them announce 12,000 people then comparing it to the less than half empty stadium makes you wonder how good their counting skills are. I’m guessing they also count all the teams, security staff, police, paramedics, ground and catering staff into the total. Judging by what I’ve seen on TV of the game over the weekend there wouldn’t have been more than 8,000 odd there.

Have to laugh because neither of you was actually there and you both are basing your opinion on a five second grab on WIN News. FTR the stadium WAS nearly half full, including most of the Mal stand and most of the G-L stand, as well as a good proportion of the inner bowl. Both Tigers and Raiders fans will attest to that. The fact that such a good crowd showed up despite the crap weather shows the support that league enjoys in Canberra.

Anna, the NRL is doing fine and doesn’t need to fudge its figures as you suggest. Even if match attendances aren’t great at every match, it dominates live sport and TV ratings in the biggest (NSW) and fastest-growing (QLD) markets. Why else do you think the AFL is scrambling to establish a second Sydney team, and one on the Gold Coast – markets which the NRL has a complete lock on?

BD, if your criticisms weren’t so laughably effete and they might almost be offensive to Raiders supporters like myself. As it is, I think we’ll probably win another premiership before you make anyone laugh, or even take notice. Good luck with that.

WanniAss WanniAss 10:34 pm 28 Jul 09

bd84 said :

Anna Key said :

I still question whether there really was over 11,000 at Bruce. I wasn’t there, but that crowd would make the ground almost half full which it didn’t look like on tv. Admittedly I didn’t see a view of the Big Mal stand.

I figure the laws of mathematics don’t apply at NRL games

The crowd figures at the Raiders games never add up. Having been to a few and watching them announce 12,000 people then comparing it to the less than half empty stadium makes you wonder how good their counting skills are. I’m guessing they also count all the teams, security staff, police, paramedics, ground and catering staff into the total. Judging by what I’ve seen on TV of the game over the weekend there wouldn’t have been more than 8,000 odd there.

I’ve noticed this as well watching the games on foxtel. The ground looks at least two thirds empty yet 10,000+ crowds are reported. Tim Gavel said something similar on the radio on Monday morning.

bd84 bd84 9:57 pm 28 Jul 09

Anna Key said :

I still question whether there really was over 11,000 at Bruce. I wasn’t there, but that crowd would make the ground almost half full which it didn’t look like on tv. Admittedly I didn’t see a view of the Big Mal stand.

I figure the laws of mathematics don’t apply at NRL games

The crowd figures at the Raiders games never add up. Having been to a few and watching them announce 12,000 people then comparing it to the less than half empty stadium makes you wonder how good their counting skills are. I’m guessing they also count all the teams, security staff, police, paramedics, ground and catering staff into the total. Judging by what I’ve seen on TV of the game over the weekend there wouldn’t have been more than 8,000 odd there.

Anna Key Anna Key 9:27 pm 28 Jul 09

I still question whether there really was over 11,000 at Bruce. I wasn’t there, but that crowd would make the ground almost half full which it didn’t look like on tv. Admittedly I didn’t see a view of the Big Mal stand.

I figure the laws of mathematics don’t apply at NRL games

vg vg 8:32 pm 28 Jul 09

farnarkler said :

If Bruce stadium hadn’t been squared off (was that the result of that cretin Paul Osborn? I’ve heard it was) then it could have been developed into a multi sport venue which could have accommodated AFL and might even have kept the athletics track.

Little thing called the 2000 Olympics made it rectangular.

I saw Hawks v Swans at Bruce many years ago prior to ‘rectangulation’. Way too small

farnarkler farnarkler 7:55 pm 28 Jul 09

If Bruce stadium hadn’t been squared off (was that the result of that cretin Paul Osborn? I’ve heard it was) then it could have been developed into a multi sport venue which could have accommodated AFL and might even have kept the athletics track.

Chop71 Chop71 7:50 pm 28 Jul 09

PS Watching the Essendon V Richmond game at midnight was a WASTE

Chop71 Chop71 7:49 pm 28 Jul 09

Indoor stadium and it would have been packed.
Why would StKilda give up playing at Docklands to play at Manuka? $400,000 wouldn’t even get them here. We’re better off building the stadium and then they will want to come for free.

I don’t even mind if the stadium is square. Anything that is warm to warch sport has got to be a good thing for Canberra.

Chilly Chop

MrPC MrPC 5:50 pm 28 Jul 09

@Comment 6 The NRL scheduling a game on the same day was stupid. Maybe even beyond stupid. But that’s what you would expect from the NRL.

The NRL crowd was substantially higher than the AFL crowd. The NRL got 11,150, that’s about 50% more than the AFL got. I’d say the NRL won the battle.

Further, since the NRL was always going to be more popular in Canberra than the AFL, and since it was obvious the NRL was not going to make way for an inferior competition, the AFL and its broadcast partners could have elected to reschedule the game at Manuka so that they would get a respectable turnout there. I know it rarely/never happens, but then, if the AFL wanted respect/a respectable turnout, they needed to blink.

As for the rest of your comment, remember, the NRL don’t schedule their own games. Foxtel and Channel 9 do.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 3:43 pm 28 Jul 09

Yeah, that may be true, but that still doesn’t make it even. 😛

AG Canberra AG Canberra 3:38 pm 28 Jul 09

HC – It’s more ‘even’ than the NRL that’s for sure!

Affirmative Action Man Affirmative Action Man 3:13 pm 28 Jul 09

Whats this about “crappy old teams”.

Nobody knows from year to year how a team is going to go. 2 years ago St Kilda was hopeless and 3 years ago Geelong was pretty crappy.

Melbourne is obviously tanking & the Swans can’t make the 8 so its not surprising that there was no enthusiasm from the teams or the supporters.

And surely the game should be played in April when the weather has a better chance of being decent.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 2:06 pm 28 Jul 09

AG if you reckon the AFL distributes free to air games evenly then you have a distorted view of reality.

AG Canberra AG Canberra 1:21 pm 28 Jul 09

The scheduling thing can be worked out if the NRL grows some big ones and stands up to Ch 9 next round of contract negotiation. The contract allows Ch9 to dictate when and what time each game is played six weeks in advance. This is supposedly to allow the best games to go free to air. What it actually does is discriminate against teams like the Raiders who then struggle to get air time for themselves and their sponsors. Yes this could be solved if they won a few more games but it shouldn’t matter.

The AFL publishes every date and time for the season in October each year. This allows every team to get a fair airing on TV – thus making it easier to get sponsorship from corporations. yes you get the occasional issue – like the Geelong StKilda game being held on a Sun arvo – but these are few and far between.

More even coverage for all teams is the goal as is avoiding clashes with code competitors in smaller centres like Canberra.

MrMagoo MrMagoo 12:43 pm 28 Jul 09

Growling Ferret said :

Magoo

FNF is LIVE every week. It just costs your hard earned but is worth every cent. You just need to convince the fun police that its worthwhile!

The NRL scheduling a game on the same day was stupid. Maybe even beyond stupid. But that’s what you would expect from the NRL.

Ahh the fun police, our lives are so guided by their earnest hand.

Growling Ferret Growling Ferret 12:23 pm 28 Jul 09

Magoo

FNF is LIVE every week. It just costs your hard earned but is worth every cent. You just need to convince the fun police that its worthwhile!

The NRL scheduling a game on the same day was stupid. Maybe even beyond stupid. But that’s what you would expect from the NRL.

toriness toriness 12:21 pm 28 Jul 09

maybe i’m wrong but the teams in question sell their home games for the money directly(ie whatever share of the $366k fee the ACT pays the AFL) or indirectly (trying to increase their member base – worked wonders for the hawks in tasmania) – so i’m guessing they reckon it’s worthwhile for them or they wouldn’t do it. but as for ACT choosing which teams they want to make a deal with to make it worthwhile for ACT residents (who are paying for it!) – that is what i am questioning!!

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site