Hello there.
The main problem with this story is the headline.
The essence of the headline is not substantiated in the body of the text, with only a weak "understood" linking to anything even vaguely resembling a cash block - and no attempt to back that up any further. Disappointing for the sub as much as the writer.
My initial thoughts on the article: It's the sort of thing a journo knocks out when they've heard a bit of rumbling about an issue on their sports round and they feel the need for a "matcher", even though there is no actual news to report after they've wasted an hour ring-around the usual suspects, and they need to justify their time. So they bang out what is largely a non-story.
As a yarn it has a soft belly. The intro is particularly weak given the boldness of the headline. Indeed, if you only read the intro, you'd probably conclude: "So what?"
But I will say that I generally find Plumb's stories to have a bit more steel in them. I usually don't mind his work as much as most of you folk.
As a general rule conflict is always a valid news angle in media. (Though the problem often arises that hacks too often then go in search of it as a default mechanism, even if it is not there.)
On a related matter, I would seriously encourage those on high in Yellow Fever to put out their own media release about crowds in light of the recent publicity, a lot of which seems badly in need of context.
Declaration: I used to work for Fairfax as a journo up until mid-2011.