The Case for Adelaide.....

[Bring back John Fifita]

Perth Red is a curiosity. He bangs on about NRL clubs requiring $30 million a year to survive and death rides Sydney and Brisbane 3.

Where does he think an NRL team in a mid-sized fumbleball city that's as parochial to that game as it gets is going to get that dough?

Minor sports can do it as they don't require $30 million a year to field a team and aren't the arch nemesis of the biggest code in town.

An ARL Commissioner said unless Twiggy Forrest throws $200 million at it then no team for Perth. PVL is deadset against Perth and said as much.

Perth will not do for the NRL what Brisbane and Sydney have done for AwFuL.

Perth Red is the John Dunbar of the LU forums. He's there in his outpost, far away from familiar Rugby League Territory, and introduced to a people who's culture is very different from his...And flying the Rugby League flag in the face of adversity. Unlike Dunbar though, he hasn't become Dances with Wolves and converted fully to the locals' culture and ways..

I like what Red brings to the table. Maybe like myself now too, as I'm in an outpost as well. @Travitoh is another.. A bunch of John Dunbars...

And we see what others on the East Coast wont. Including myself when I lived there, which I did all my life until last year. There is definite opportunity in these parts. But putting together a strong, attractive business case is what's needed to be even be considered for an invite to the NRL table again.

It's a big cost no matter what - and ROI would come quicker in a League stronghold area. And I'm all for Brisbane Version2.

PVL would look to shore-up and bullet-proof the NRL. Make it the strongest finanically it can possibly be. And once it's absolutely humming, then you can consider outpost expansion, where the ROI will take longer to grow and sustain..... but the rewards are big. It's the same in any business...

Brisbane V2 makes sense to me. Beyond that, and with a thriving NRL "Business", the next logical step is expansion to "pioneer" areas. To have another "Melbourne Storm" in the Western areas. AwFuL had built up a bank account to fund the long term grind of setting up in the Northern States, and while its tough to admit to say, it's proving successful overall. NRL can do the same.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

If a team relocated to Adelaide would it work?

I think it could. The first preference of course would be set up their own. However relocation has the straight up advantage of guaranteeing an "away" fan base in Sydney when Adelaide come to town. I get that people's noses would be put out of joint if their team moved interstate, especially to a pioneer state like South Australia. But if it's a choice of extinction from the NRL or relocation, is may be a less bitter pill to swallow.

 

[MugaB]

I think it could. The first preference of course would be set up their own. However relocation has the straight up advantage of guaranteeing an "away" fan base in Sydney when Adelaide come to town. I get that people's noses would be put out of joint if their team moved interstate, especially to a pioneer state like South Australia. But if it's a choice of extinction from the NRL or relocation, is may be a less bitter pill to swallow.

Get ready Adelaide Rooster fans!

 

[The Great Dane]

I think it could. The first preference of course would be set up their own. However relocation has the straight up advantage of guaranteeing an "away" fan base in Sydney when Adelaide come to town. I get that people's noses would be put out of joint if their team moved interstate, especially to a pioneer state like South Australia. But if it's a choice of extinction from the NRL or relocation, is may be a less bitter pill to swallow.

That's not how successful relocations have worked in the past and many of the ones that fail do so because of ideas like this.

You can't be everything to everyone and in trying to actively represent both markets all you do is put both off. In your hypothetical, the majority of the potential fan base in Sydney will see the move to Adelaide as a massive betrayal, and the majority of the potential fan base in Adelaide will see the constant flirting with the old Sydney market as a refusal to commit to Adelaide and as if the team is only in Adelaide out of convenience, in other words you'll alienate everyone and leave yourself with a much smaller fan base than if you'd committed to one market or the other.

All the most successful relocations have worked by having a clean break, they move to the new market and they are all in on that new market. Any old fans that stick along for the ride is great, but the club doesn't try to pander to the old fan base to keep them around because no matter how much you pander the vast majority aren't interested unless the team is relocating back "home".

I'd even suggest rebranding as part of the relocation, but that's a bit of mixed bag as teams that don't rebrand as part of their relocation have still been extremely successful, but it seems to me that the ones that do rebrand (assuming they come up with a good brand) ingratiate themselves into the new market quicker.

 

[reanimate]

That's not how successful relocations have worked in the past and many of the ones that fail do so because of ideas like this.

You can't be everything to everyone and in trying to actively represent both markets all you do is put both off. In your hypothetical, the majority of the potential fan base in Sydney will see the move to Adelaide as a massive betrayal, and the majority of the potential fan base in Adelaide will see the constant flirting with the old Sydney market as a refusal to commit to Adelaide and as if the team is only in Adelaide out of convenience, in other words you'll alienate everyone and leave yourself with a much smaller fan base than if you'd committed to one market or the other.

All the most successful relocations have worked by having a clean break, they move to the new market and they are all in on that new market. Any old fans that stick along for the ride is great, but the club doesn't try to pander to the old fan base to keep them around because no matter how much you pander the vast majority aren't interested unless the team is relocating back "home".

I'd even suggest rebranding as part of the relocation, but that's a bit of mixed bag as teams that don't rebrand as part of their relocation have still been extremely successful, but it seems to me that the ones that do rebrand (assuming they come up with a good brand) ingratiate themselves into the new market quicker.

It's worked well for the Swans and they run around with the initials for South Melbourne Football Club on the back of their jersey. They've balanced adopting their new city and retaining their old fans and branding quite well. I think part of what helped them retain their Melbourne fanbase is all of the Melbourne-based clubs lost their home grounds in the move to Docklands and the MCG, so if you're a South Melbourne supporter, you get to go and see the team play 9 (?) times a year in the same stadiums everybody else goes to when watching their team play at home. It'd almost feel like they never left.

 

[Travitoh]

travel cost wont in reality your talking around $400k, which for a code with over $500million revenue is chump change.

Hindmarsh looks from the pics like hbf park before it had $120mill spent upgrading it.

Unless Adelaide gets a Very rich backer behind a bid it is highly unlikely. Nrl are an incredibly risk averse organisation.

Before the Womens WC was announced, Adelaide United were desperate for a new stadium but couldn't get government support due to the fact it'd lay unused in the winter. An Adelaide based NRL club fixes that issue and i have no doubt that the state government would come to the party by either completely redeveloping Hindmarsh like they did Adelaide Oval or they would build a new rectangular stadium closer to the city, possibly even next door to Adelaide Oval and get some money in from the Casino too.

Funding for a new or redeveloped stadium will not be a problem.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

That's not how successful relocations have worked in the past and many of the ones that fail do so because of ideas like this.

You can't be everything to everyone and in trying to actively represent both markets all you do is put both off. In your hypothetical, the majority of the potential fan base in Sydney will see the move to Adelaide as a massive betrayal, and the majority of the potential fan base in Adelaide will see the constant flirting with the old Sydney market as a refusal to commit to Adelaide and as if the team is only in Adelaide out of convenience, in other words you'll alienate everyone and leave yourself with a much smaller fan base than if you'd committed to one market or the other.

All the most successful relocations have worked by having a clean break, they move to the new market and they are all in on that new market. Any old fans that stick along for the ride is great, but the club doesn't try to pander to the old fan base to keep them around because no matter how much you pander the vast majority aren't interested unless the team is relocating back "home".

I'd even suggest rebranding as part of the relocation, but that's a bit of mixed bag as teams that don't rebrand as part of their relocation have still been extremely successful, but it seems to me that the ones that do rebrand (assuming they come up with a good brand) ingratiate themselves into the new market quicker.

What are the relocations that have failed in Rugby League? Or other sports in Australia?

The two major (and successful) examples are the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions (even though it was originally the Brisbane Bears). Both have a very large and established fan base in Melbourne from their origins. And of course, those fans would far prefer their team remain local but they'd otherwise have long disappeared. And the balance of building support in the new location and keeping many of the original fan base has been managed very well.

 

[The Great Dane]

It's worked well for the Swans and they run around with the initials for South Melbourne Football Club on the back of their jersey. They've balanced adopting their new city and retaining their old fans and branding quite well. I think part of what helped them retain their Melbourne fanbase is all of the Melbourne-based clubs lost their home grounds in the move to Docklands and the MCG, so if you're a South Melbourne supporter, you get to go and see the team play 9 (?) times a year in the same stadiums everybody else goes to when watching their team play at home. It'd almost feel like they never left.

Yeah no they haven't.

When they've talked about it publicly they've suggest that they have about 8-12ish thousand members in Melbourne depending on the season, that number may have grown or shrunk in the past few years, but let's use it as a rough guide. Only a percentage of those members would be active supporters, and only a percentage of those active supporters would be "South Melbourne" fans, so realistically you'd be lucky if there was more than a few thousand active "South Melbourne" fans supporting the club in any meaningful way.

That may seem like a lot in the context of the NRL but considering that in 2019 the Swans had 61,912 members and an average home attendance of just over 30k, roughly a few thousand is but a drop in the bucket for them, and is a tiny group in the context of the AFL more broadly.

On top of that their average away attendance has been about on par with comparable clubs from outside of Melbourne (West Coast, Adelaide, etc), which isn't what you'd expect if the South Melbourne fan base was still strong.

In the past I've also heard it argued that part of the reason that they struggled so much through the 80s and 90s was because people at the club were unwilling to fully forgo the clubs' connections to South Melbourne, but I don't really know enough about that to have an opinion.

 

[The Great Dane]

What are the relocations that have failed in Rugby League? Or other sports in Australia?

There aren't enough relocations in Australian sporting history (let alone RL history) to get a good picture of how and why relocation works and the best way to go about it.

In the USA and Canada however there're dozens of examples of relocations to look at, and it's not hard to learn about any individual case, or the broader picture of relocation, because both nations are significantly better at recording their "franchises" histories than Australian clubs have been.

The most current example of a failing relocation would be the LA Chargers. The main reason they are failing is because nobody in LA identifies with or wants the Chargers and nobody from San Diego is interested in following the team while it's based in LA.

The two major (and successful) examples are the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions (even though it was originally the Brisbane Bears). Both have a very large and established fan base in Melbourne from their origins. And of course, those fans would far prefer their team remain local but they'd otherwise have long disappeared. And the balance of building support in the new location and keeping many of the original fan base has been managed very well.

See my last post and just substitute Brisbane Lions for Sydney Swans where applicable lol.

The very large established fan bases from South Melbourne and Fitzroy simply aren't there when you actually look into, unless you are counting maybe 2-5k as "very large", which I would suggest is ridiculous considering that I could find you that many Swans fans, and maybe Lions fans as well, in Canberra let alone Melbourne.

 

[reanimate]

Yeah no they haven't.

When they've talked about it publicly they've suggest that they have about 8-12ish thousand members in Melbourne depending on the season, that number may have grown or shrunk in the past few years, but let's use it as a rough guide. Only a percentage of those members would be active supporters, and only a percentage of those active supporters would be "South Melbourne" fans, so realistically you'd be lucky if there was more than a few thousand active "South Melbourne" fans supporting the club in any meaningful way.

That may seem like a lot in the context of the NRL but considering that in 2019 the Swans had 61,912 members and an average home attendance of just over 30k, roughly a few thousand is but a drop in the bucket for them, and is a tiny group in the context of the AFL more broadly.

On top of that their average away attendance has been about on par with comparable clubs from outside of Melbourne (West Coast, Adelaide, etc), which isn't what you'd expect if the South Melbourne fan base was still strong.

In the past I've also heard it argued that part of the reason that they struggled so much through the 80s and 90s was because people at the club were unwilling to fully forgo the clubs' connections to South Melbourne, but I don't really know enough about that to have an opinion.

8-12k paying members nearly 40 years after they moved away from Melbourne is pretty good going. I would think if you're paying for a membership, it would make you much more likely to be an active supporter. You're right in saying that only a percentage of the paying members in Melbourne would be original South Melbourne supporters, but quite a few of them would be their descendants who have been brought up to see the Swans/Bloods as their team.

The club clearly sees those members and fans (and the club's history) as worth engaging and keeping, as they added the initials for South Melbourne FC to their jersey long after they moved to Sydney and they maintain a Melbourne office for selling merchandise and memberships. Plus, the team takes the trophy to their old home ground when they win a premiership (and probably visit it other times when they're in Melbourne).

 

[reanimate]

What are the relocations that have failed in Rugby League? Or other sports in Australia?

The two major (and successful) examples are the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions (even though it was originally the Brisbane Bears). Both have a very large and established fan base in Melbourne from their origins. And of course, those fans would far prefer their team remain local but they'd otherwise have long disappeared. And the balance of building support in the new location and keeping many of the original fan base has been managed very well.

The two AFL relocations have obviously worked well enough. I think an NRL relocation could work just as well. If it didn't work, the reasons given would be just like Great Dane said- the locals rejected them as Sydney blowins, their Sydney fanbase hated them leaving etc. If it did work though, people would be saying that they leveraged their established and recognised brand to more quickly grow in a new market, they maintained their link with and support from their old fans when they played back in Sydney etc.

It would all come down to how well the club executes their approach in their new market.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

8-12k paying members nearly 40 years after they moved away from Melbourne is pretty good going. I would think if you're paying for a membership, it would make you much more likely to be an active supporter. You're right in saying that only a percentage of the paying members in Melbourne would be original South Melbourne supporters, but quite a few of them would be their descendants who have been brought up to see the Swans/Bloods as their team.

The club clearly sees those members and fans (and the club's history) as worth engaging and keeping, as they added the initials for South Melbourne FC to their jersey long after they moved to Sydney and they maintain a Melbourne office for selling merchandise and memberships. Plus, the team takes the trophy to their old home ground when they win a premiership (and probably visit it other times when they're in Melbourne).

And if you look at any NRL match in Sydney where interstate teams are are playing... these are matches with little "away" support, smaller crowds as a result (unless its a top of the table blockbuster and the like). They are also ones that can often get moved to a regional area in order to get a cash-injection.

If you had even 2,3k extra fans at these games - fans of the "away" team... that's a big boost. You'd expect more though based on the experience of the Swans etc - even given fans who'd be pissed off and "lost to the game".. I'd bet my left nut that if the Bears were resurrected and sent to Adelaide in full kit and recognising its roots, it'd attract loads of fans in both cities.

Again I'm not advocating relocation and far prefer "grow your own", but relocations would work if managed well.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

There aren't enough relocations in Australian sporting history (let alone RL history) to get a good picture of how and why relocation works and the best way to go about it.

In the USA and Canada however there're dozens of examples of relocations to look at, and it's not hard to learn about any individual case, or the broader picture of relocation, because both nations are significantly better at recording their "franchises" histories than Australian clubs have been.

The most current example of a failing relocation would be the LA Chargers. The main reason they are failing is because nobody in LA identifies with or wants the Chargers and nobody from San Diego is interested in following the team while it's based in LA.

See my last post and just substitute Brisbane Lions for Sydney Swans where applicable lol.

The very large established fan bases from South Melbourne and Fitzroy simply aren't there when you actually look into, unless you are counting maybe 2-5k as "very large", which I would suggest is ridiculous considering that I could find you that many Swans fans, and maybe Lions fans as well, in Canberra let alone Melbourne.

I did and disagree.

• No unsuccessful relocations comparable in Australia.
• Swans & Lions maintain a loyal and considerable fan base in their origin areas.
• USA has has loads of relocations, and successful ones... Rams, Colts, Ravens, Titans (the old Oilers) just to name a few in the NFL.
• The LA Chargers have attracted big crowds, and only in it's infancy. More time needed to see how this pans out and sustainable. There first season wasn't overly successful on the field.
• The LV Raiders haven't had their first season yet, which is a season absolutely bat-finked by Covid. I don't consider this as a case to gain any comparison out of yet. Previous moves between LA & Oakland have indeed been successful.

Can agree to disagree.

 

[Travitoh]

There aren't enough relocations in Australian sporting history (let alone RL history) to get a good picture of how and why relocation works and the best way to go about it.

In the USA and Canada however there're dozens of examples of relocations to look at, and it's not hard to learn about any individual case, or the broader picture of relocation, because both nations are significantly better at recording their "franchises" histories than Australian clubs have been.

The most current example of a failing relocation would be the LA Chargers. The main reason they are failing is because nobody in LA identifies with or wants the Chargers and nobody from San Diego is interested in following the team while it's based in LA.

LA is so well known for it's lakes...

 

[The Great Dane]

8-12k paying members nearly 40 years after they moved away from Melbourne is pretty good going. I would think if you're paying for a membership, it would make you much more likely to be an active supporter. You're right in saying that only a percentage of the paying members in Melbourne would be original South Melbourne supporters, but quite a few of them would be their descendants who have been brought up to see the Swans/Bloods as their team.

Because it's convenient to do so you are merging people from Melbourne that happen to be Swans fans into South Melbourne fans when they are two distinct groups.

If they were most/all South Melbourne fans you'd expect two things, A. there'd be a large group of them from the beginning and B. the Swans away attendance (particularly in Melbourne) would be significantly stronger than other similar teams. Neither of those things are the case as the Swans Melbourne membership have been growing over the years from less than 8k and their away attendance is roughly similar to other clubs like West Coast and Adelaide Crows.

An other thing that suggests that large parts of their Melbourne membership aren't/weren't South Melbourne fans is that their Melbourne membership numbers had two big jumps, once in 06 and once in 2013. Now what do you think could have happened in 2005 and 2012 that could have influenced that...

I also don't find 8-12k paying members that impressive and reckon that most of the larger AFL clubs would have roughly similar number of members based in Melbourne, just like the larger NRL teams have relatively large support bases outside of their main cities. I'd also suggest that not all memberships are equal and just because you are a member that doesn't make you an active supporter, as any quick glance at South Sydney's (or any AFL team's) membership numbers compared to their attendance will attest.

Source: http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=883

 

[reanimate]

Because it's convenient to do so you are merging people from Melbourne that happen to be Swans fans into South Melbourne fans when they are two distinct groups.

If they were most/all South Melbourne fans you'd expect two things, A. there'd be a large group of them from the beginning and B. the Swans away attendance (particularly in Melbourne) would be significantly stronger than other similar teams. Neither of those things are the case as the Swans Melbourne membership have been growing over the years from less than 8k and their away attendance is roughly similar to other clubs like West Coast and Adelaide Crows.

I’m not, I’ve already acknowledged there wouldn’t be many original South Melbourne fans left, mainly due to time at this point. Some of their descendants would have grown up as Sydney Swans fans, but see the Swans as their team due to their parents or relatives influence.

The Swans were one of Melbourne smaller and struggling clubs, it was always a smaller base to retain and grow from.

An other thing that suggests that large parts of their Melbourne membership aren't/weren't South Melbourne fans is that their Melbourne membership numbers had two big jumps, once in 06 and once in 2013. Now what do you think could have happened in 2005 and 2012 that could have influenced that...

South Melbourne were one of the struggling clubs on the field when they were based in Melbourne, their victories would have brought out a lot of that latent support in Melbourne that had more or less given up hope of them winning a premiership again and may have drifted away even more after the move to Sydney. Those premiership wins probably re-engaged and reinvigorated the Melbourne base, leading to those jumps in Melbourne memberships.

I also don't find 8-12k paying members that impressive and reckon that most of the larger AFL clubs would have roughly similar number of members based in Melbourne, just like the larger NRL teams have relatively large support bases outside of their main cities. I'd also suggest that not all memberships are equal and just because you are a member that doesn't make you an active supporter, as any quick glance at South Sydney's (or any AFL team's) membership numbers compared to their attendance will attest.

Source: http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=883

Fair enough, I think it’s pretty impressive given they’ve been out of the city for decades now and were one of the smaller Melbourne clubs. It suggests they’ve done a good job of keeping that Melbourne base engaged with the club and they did an especially good job of converting latent support in Melbourne into paying members after their premiership wins.

 

[The Great Dane]

I did and disagree.

No unsuccessful relocations comparable in Australia.

So what?!

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen, and the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because there have only been two notable relocations in Australian sporting history, and both were well handled.

Do one poorly here and it will crash and burn just like it would in other countries.

Swans & Lions maintain a loyal and considerable fan base in their origin areas.

Absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true.

USA has has loads of relocations, and successful ones... Rams, Colts, Ravens, Titans (the old Oilers) just to name a few in the NFL.

I'm not arguing against relocation, I'm arguing against bad practices when it comes to relocation, such as trying to maintain both fans bases.

Relocation can work wonderfully, but only if you do them well.

BTW, Notice something about all those successful examples you've compiled there, they all had clean breaks from their old markets when they relocated.

The LA Chargers have attracted big crowds, and only in it's infancy. More time needed to see how this pans out and sustainable. There first season wasn't overly successful on the field.

That's just wrong lol...

Before they announced their relocation the Chargers average attendance was normally somewhere in 60k range.The Chargers average attendance halved from 57k in 2016 to 25k in 2017 (BTW there's good reason to believe that they are inflating their attendance, but we won't go into that) when they moved from San Diego, but here's the problem more often than not the vast majority most of that 25k are away fans.

Now to be fair when they moved they moved to stubhub arena as a temporary home, which only seats 27k, however they were expecting to sellout all their seats at the stubhub and to have a long list of season tickets already sold for their eventual move to SoFi Stadium this year, neither of which has come close to happening and from day dot at stubhub they have had to sell their home supporters allocation to away fans just to get a reasonable amount of people through the door, hence why it's become a home away from home game for most visiting teams.

The loss of income from ticket sales is hammering their business and they aren't coming anywhere where they were expecting to be when they first relocated. Basically unless they can turn it around real soon (i.e. literally pull something like 50k new paying customers out of their arse in the next few years) they'll lose hundreds of millions of dollars and be forced to relocate again or risk financial disaster, though the NFL will force their hand or maybe even strip their license before they let them go bankrupt.

TL;DR, the Chargers relocation back to LA has been an unmitigated disaster so far, and it doesn't look like they are going to be able to pull it out of the fire.

The LV Raiders haven't had their first season yet, which is a season absolutely bat-finked by Covid. I don't consider this as a case to gain any comparison out of yet. Previous moves between LA & Oakland have indeed been successful.

Can agree to disagree.

We can't really agree to disagree because you haven't really brought anything to back your point (at least not things that address the point I was making), so if we agree to disagree you are basically accepting that you take your point as an article faith in spite of the evidence that contradicts it.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

So what?!

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen, and the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because there have only been two notable relocations in Australian sporting history, and both were well handled.

Do one poorly here and it will crash and burn just like it would in other countries.

Absolutely no evidence to suggest that's true.

I'm not arguing against relocation, I'm arguing against bad practices when it comes to relocation, such as trying to maintain both fans bases.

Relocation can work wonderfully, but only if you do them well.

BTW, Notice something about all those successful examples you've compiled there, they all had clean breaks from their old markets when they relocated.

That's just wrong lol...

Before they announced their relocation the Chargers average attendance was normally somewhere in 60k range.The Chargers average attendance halved from 57k in 2016 to 25k in 2017 (BTW there's good reason to believe that they are inflating their attendance, but we won't go into that) when they moved from San Diego, but here's the problem more often than not the vast majority most of that 25k are away fans.

Now to be fair when they moved they moved to stubhub arena as a temporary home, which only seats 27k, however they were expecting to sellout all their seats at the stubhub and to have a long list of season tickets already sold for their eventual move to SoFi Stadium this year, neither of which has come close to happening and from day dot at stubhub they have had to sell their home supporters allocation to away fans just to get a reasonable amount of people through the door, hence why it's become a home away from home game for most visiting teams.

The loss of income from ticket sales is hammering their business and they aren't coming anywhere where they were expecting to be when they first relocated. Basically unless they can turn it around real soon (i.e. literally pull something like 50k new paying customers out of their arse in the next few years) they'll lose hundreds of millions of dollars and be forced to relocate again or risk financial disaster, though the NFL will force their hand or maybe even strip their license before they let them go bankrupt.

TL;DR, the Chargers relocation back to LA has been an unmitigated disaster so far, and it doesn't look like they are going to be able to pull it out of the fire.

We can't really agree to disagree because you haven't really brought anything to back your point (at least not things that address the point I was making), so if we agree to disagree you are basically accepting that you take your point as an article faith in spite of the evidence that contradicts it.

Please yourself Dane..

 

[The Great Dane]

I’m not, I’ve already acknowledged there wouldn’t be many original South Melbourne fans left, mainly due to time at this point. Some of their descendants would have grown up as Sydney Swans fans, but see the Swans as their team due to their parents or relatives influence.

The Swans were one of Melbourne smaller and struggling clubs, it was always a smaller base to retain and grow from.

South Melbourne were one of the struggling clubs on the field when they were based in Melbourne, their victories would have brought out a lot of that latent support in Melbourne that had more or less given up hope of them winning a premiership again and may have drifted away even more after the move to Sydney. Those premiership wins probably re-engaged and reinvigorated the Melbourne base, leading to those jumps in Melbourne memberships.

Fair enough, I think it’s pretty impressive given they’ve been out of the city for decades now and were one of the smaller Melbourne clubs. It suggests they’ve done a good job of keeping that Melbourne base engaged with the club and they did an especially good job of converting latent support in Melbourne into paying members after their premiership wins.

I'm sorry but most of this is just totally baseless conjecture.

Every club has jumps in support when they are successful, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that the Swans jumps in memberships since the late 90s, and particularly after their GF wins, had anything to do with latent support from South Melbourne.

Any team that has similar periods of success see's similar growth in support as the Swans have, and nobody in their right mind would suggest that it's for any reason other than their success, and using Occam's razor there's no reason to believe that it's any different for the Swans.

Also South Melbourne were a small club by AFL standards, but by general standards they were relatively strong, I mean take their average attendance in the ten years proceeding their relocation:

1972 - 14263
1973 - 12602
1974 - 12369
1975 - 13306
1976 - 16331
1977 - 18139
1978 - 20060
1979 - 16936
1980 - 18434
1981 - 16849

Sure they were struggling financially and struggling on the pitch, but were they a small club. . . I don't think so. I mean, by NRL standards today they'd be one of the biggest...

 

[The Great Dane]

LA is so well known for it's lakes...

Again I'm not arguing against relocation, just stupid ways of attempting to relocate... Like trying to actively support both fan bases, thus trying to be everything to everybody, thus alienating everybody.

For every Lakers there's a Cleveland Barons, and we can learn just as much from the Barons failure as we can from the Lakers success.