@ said:@ said:@ said:@ said:In terms of win rate, Glenn is on the money here. 60% is a massive win rate for a team that normally clocks in around 42%. Maybe it would be whittled down if we played at LO every second week, but as an occasional event it typically works - we draw decent crowds and we have a good win rate.
Craig Bellamy has an all-time win rate of 67.9% as a coach, and he's considered possibly the best coach of all time. Bennett has win rate 61.5%. Anything in the realm of 60% is very meaningful in a two-horse race, where averages over sufficient time generally equalises win rates to 50% +/- 5%.
I'd say 60% is not a big enough win rate to overlook the money we lose there. And I'm not taking about one off 17k crowds. Ave of 12k in 19 sessions.
Storms win rate is 75% at Aami. But we won't measure ourselves against the best. We're the also rans.
You misunderstand the ANZ deal. WE ARE NOT LOSING MONEY at Leichhardt because under the current deal with ANZ, we would not receive a $ if the Leichhardt game was at ANZ. ANZ are happy for us to have low drawing games away from ANZ because they carry the risk and THEY lose money on small crowds. The FIRM LUMP SUM deal is worked out on this basis. Therefore we have the game at Leichhardt we make a small amount of $$ on these games and the punters are happy. Win/Win (except for on the field).
Storms win rate is 75% at AAMI because they win rate EVERYWHERE is high. Our win rate away from Leichhardt is around 40%.
You keep on talking about ANZ. I'm talking about LO. We lose money playing there despite what you think.
Repeating that we make a profit there over and over wont make it a fact.
It is not a matter of repeating - it is fact.
Crowds of approx. 11-12000 aT Leichhardt return a profit.
Crowds of less than that show a loss.
It is not difficult to comprehend this - or is it?