21,818.

[dannyboy]

Are you deliberately being stupid or does it just come naturally.

Aza was pointing out that AFL defecates over the top of league when it comes to:
a) crowds AT games which helps bring money into the clubs
b) membership OF clubs which helps bring money into the clubs

As you rightly point out league 'number twos' on AFL when it comes to people sitting at home on their fat expanding butts watching the sport which GUESS WHAT, helps give even more money to AFL clubs....yes to AFL! While the AFL viewing audience is considerably less than league, they get a bucket load more $$$$. Ergo, league's media deal is relatively directing money towards a competitor sport.

If league in Australia is to 'dominate' (and face it - it is only this country that it will) then it needs more $$$ else it will end up being the poor busker on the corner. The player drain to OS will continue to the point where if you want to watch your favoutrite Aussie players you'll need to watch ESL.

In the short term, more $$$ means more people at games and joining clubs. When the media deal comes up for review it means negotiating for a considerably large slice of pie. Current NRL administration does not fill me with confidence that short and long term prospects are favourable.

 

[fanatique]

No don't you get it, cities that have populations that are tiny compared to Sydney should be able to get more people in. It is basic anti-maths.

ANY 30,000 NRL crowd is a blockbuster. ANT 20,000 plus NRL crowd is a big crowd. Souths V Wests was a big crowd comparable with the QLD derby. we a comp with averages about 16,000 a game. Souths outdid that by 6,000. That is a good crowd and anyone saying otherwise has an agenda.

 

[dallymessenger]

Are you deliberately being stupid or does it just come naturally.

Aza was pointing out that AFL defecates over the top of league when it comes to:
a) crowds AT games which helps bring money into the clubs
b) membership OF clubs which helps bring money into the clubs

As you rightly point out league 'number twos' on AFL when it comes to people sitting at home on their fat expanding butts watching the sport which GUESS WHAT, helps give even more money to AFL clubs....yes to AFL! While the AFL viewing audience is considerably less than league, they get a bucket load more $$$$. Ergo, league's media deal is relatively directing money towards a competitor sport.

If league in Australia is to 'dominate' (and face it - it is only this country that it will) then it needs more $$$ else it will end up being the poor busker on the corner. The player drain to OS will continue to the point where if you want to watch your favoutrite Aussie players you'll need to watch ESL.

In the short term, more $$$ means more people at games and joining clubs. When the media deal comes up for review it means negotiating for a considerably large slice of pie. Current NRL administration does not fill me with confidence that short and long term prospects are favourable.

as long as RL has more fans, be they on TV or at the ground im not fussed.

just because more people attend AFL live means i should worry about AFL.

and next time you talk about which countries RL is dominant in, make sure you know which ones you are talking about as there is a nation where it is the dominant sport and it isnt Oz.

 

[Johns Magic]

as long as RL has more fans, be they on TV or at the ground im not fussed.

just because more people attend AFL live means i should worry about AFL.

and next time you talk about which countries RL is dominant in, make sure you know which ones you are talking about as there is a nation where it is the dominant sport and it isnt Oz.

Let me guess...PNG?

 

[dallymessenger]

Let me guess...PNG?

wow, 10 points.

 

[Brownie.Kougari]

Let me guess...PNG?

Larger population than NZ and is similar to NSW, if you're going to say that the player talent in PNG isn't worth chasing then why should we bother defending Sydney?

 

[dannyboy]

as long as RL has more fans, be they on TV or at the ground im not fussed.

just because more people attend AFL live means i should worry about AFL.

and next time you talk about which countries RL is dominant in, make sure you know which ones you are talking about as there is a nation where it is the dominant sport and it isnt Oz.

For the sport to grow it needs $$$$. If AFL is sucking those $$$ out of media/sponsorship/hip-pockets then RL is poorer for it. That means - less chance of expansion, more player drain, more 'in-your-face' AFL promotions on TV and in schools.

Personally, I don't give a hoot about AFL either... I 'switch off' when it comes on the tv sport and skip the sections in the paper. I do care about the fact that RL is losing players OS because the $$$ aren't here, that RL is an eastern seaboard only game (and even then a predominantly 2 state one at that), that players cannot make additional $$$ outside of the cap through big endorsements like most aother sports allow which may just keep them in Oz, and that its is becoming as soft as lawn bowls.

As for another 'Rugby League First' nation, point taken but I was talking about nations where media coverage and $$$$ actually makes a difference not just a crack in the pavement.

 

[dallymessenger]

For the sport to grow it needs $$$$. If AFL is sucking those $$$ out of media/sponsorship/hip-pockets then RL is poorer for it. That means - less chance of expansion, more player drain, more 'in-your-face' AFL promotions on TV and in schools.

Personally, I don't give a hoot about AFL either... I 'switch off' when it comes on the tv sport and skip the sections in the paper. I do care about the fact that RL is losing players OS because the $$$ aren't here, that RL is an eastern seaboard only game (and even then a predominantly 2 state one at that), that players cannot make additional $$$ outside of the cap through big endorsements like most aother sports allow which may just keep them in Oz, and that its is becoming as soft as lawn bowls.

As for another 'Rugby League First' nation, point taken but I was talking about nations where media coverage and $$$$ actually makes a difference not just a crack in the pavement.

a crack in the pavement eh? funny stuff. 6 million people who love RL and its worth nothing. :lol:

when the majority of australian people live on the eastern seaboard i couldnt give a sh*t if we dont have a mickey mouse team in adelaide.

regional nsw and queensland have larger viewing numbers than either perth or adelaide, and explain why RL gets so many more viewers.

AFL got lucky last time. when the contracts reflect the viewing numbers, RL will be in a very healthy position.

my guess is our next TV deal should be a $100 million increase.

that will mean big pay rises for our players

 

[dallymessenger]

Larger population than NZ and is similar to NSW, if you're going to say that the player talent in PNG isn't worth chasing then why should we bother defending Sydney?

he likes union.

mention places like argentina, georgia or japan and hell happily tell you RU has a massive international presence.

when it comes to RL, people just ignore the areas where the game is strong and growing

 

[Brownie.Kougari]

he likes union.

mention places like argentina, georgia or japan and hell happily tell you RU has a massive international presence.

when it comes to RL, people just ignore the areas where the game is strong and growing

:lol:

Ok, need I mention Serbia and the Czech Republic? These places have come from nowhere & are building up very well.
http://www.czechrugbyleague.com/
http://www.rugbyxiii.co.yu/

Oh and lol @ the split in Union

 

[Ziggy the God]

now ur getting all defensive about this. im just raising the simple point that AFL is sh*tting all over us in terms of crowds, even on our home turf. this is one of the many explainations for why so many sydney clubs r on the rocks. the fact that two more team are invading our patch is a scary prospect.

u r the one who is the stupid dope who is taking this personally, and not willing to bring up something to add to the disscussion.

and no, i hate AFL, im not making propaganda for them, im simply raising the facts.

now run along you stupid dope.

As I thought, you didn't try to take me on with any of my assertions. You can't because I am right.


I am sure you enjoy pushing the line like all the other mongs, that AFL is the #1 code in the land, when it is not even the #3 code in Australia's #1 city, let alone where it sits in Australia's fastest growing state.

Bring on the second side in Sydney, it will run their coffers down quicker than the ARU 'warchest' after 2003.

 

[little_aza]

As I thought, you didn't try to take me on with any of my assertions. You can't because I am right.


I am sure you enjoy pushing the line like all the other mongs, that AFL is the #1 code in the land, when it is not even the #3 code in Australia's #1 city, let alone where it sits in Australia's fastest growing state.

Bring on the second side in Sydney, it will run their coffers down quicker than the ARU 'warchest' after 2003.

im not going to argue my point any more..iv made it clear. i guess some wont realise that this isnt good for game until its too late.

maybe some people dont understand because they live where league dominates so much. I've lived in Greater Sydney, SE Queensland and now Victoria..it scared me when i first moved here how big the AFL is.

its wonderful that you have a love of the game - but to scoff at a new enemy team in sydney when sydney clubs are going broke isnt wise. in a few years time we might be wishing the AFL never came to western sydney. it's impact, no matter how big or how small will affect us. it will mean the AFL will get more money in TV rights - they'll have two teams there. it'll mean the AFL will get more crowds - one AFL game every week in sydney. surely you can see that will take SOME support away from us??

to scoff at the threat of AFL is foolish.


kudos to danny boy for backing me up, thanks mate :thumn

 

[Knightmare]

I agree with you, AFL is huge in Victoria, but that is only one state in a country that has only 20 million people in it. The difference between AFL expansion and NRL expansion is that the AFL put teams in Sydney and Brisbane (now Western Sydney and the Gold Coast) and arrogantly assume that everybody who followed the NRL is going to up and suddenly devote themselves to the Swans/ Lions etc because "our code is the greatest" or "our code is the Australian game".

The NRL puts a team in Melbourne knowing that the Storm will never take over from the AFL, but it exists as an alternative for people who want to see a code with more skill than getting points for missing and more toughness than elbows in backs and punches hidden under jerseys. The Storm have a presence in Melbourne, one which is increasing to the general public, and that's what matters most.

The AFL, on the other hand, wants to pour in countless millions in the delusion that with enough saturation that whole states will suddenly convert. Just because you try harder to push a turd into someone's face doesn't mean they will swallow it. And while the AFL goes on in this quest for a holy grail they will never reach, their traditional clubs in the games' true heartland are left out in the cold. Oh the irony.

 

[dallymessenger]

im not going to argue my point any more..iv made it clear. i guess some wont realise that this isnt good for game until its too late.

maybe some people dont understand because they live where league dominates so much. I've lived in Greater Sydney, SE Queensland and now Victoria..it scared me when i first moved here how big the AFL is.

its wonderful that you have a love of the game - but to scoff at a new enemy team in sydney when sydney clubs are going broke isnt wise. in a few years time we might be wishing the AFL never came to western sydney. it's impact, no matter how big or how small will affect us. it will mean the AFL will get more money in TV rights - they'll have two teams there. it'll mean the AFL will get more crowds - one AFL game every week in sydney. surely you can see that will take SOME support away from us??

to scoff at the threat of AFL is foolish.


kudos to danny boy for backing me up, thanks mate :thumn

tbf you are right about the AFL threat.

here is the AFL expanding in great britain :

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12196_3851281,00.html

 

[fanatique]

I agree with you, AFL is huge in Victoria, but that is only one state in a country that has only 20 million people in it. The difference between AFL expansion and NRL expansion is that the AFL put teams in Sydney and Brisbane (now Western Sydney and the Gold Coast) and arrogantly assume that everybody who followed the NRL is going to up and suddenly devote themselves to the Swans/ Lions etc because "our code is the greatest" or "our code is the Australian game".

The NRL puts a team in Melbourne knowing that the Storm will never take over from the AFL, but it exists as an alternative for people who want to see a code with more skill than getting points for missing and more toughness than elbows in backs and punches hidden under jerseys. The Storm have a presence in Melbourne, one which is increasing to the general public, and that's what matters most.

The AFL, on the other hand, wants to pour in countless millions in the delusion that with enough saturation that whole states will suddenly convert. Just because you try harder to push a turd into someone's face doesn't mean they will swallow it. And while the AFL goes on in this quest for a holy grail they will never reach, their traditional clubs in the games' true heartland are left out in the cold. Oh the irony.

Stop whining mate. The AFL don't "arrogantly assume" anything. What they do is aggressively compete with us and soccer and Union everywhere and in every way they can and truth is they cane us all over park. They are trying a second Sydney team because they know that their code is much bigger in Sydney than ours is in Melbourne and they have the guts and vision to go for it.

They know as we in our hearts do that they have what has been developed into a fantastically successful product on the back of vast matchgoing support and the biggest TV audience in the nation when proper comparison is made and we are not pretending that double counted regionals count. what AZA is saying is that we on LU can tell ourselves that we are bigger til we are blue in the face but that won't make it so. we are not and we know it and they are not arrogant. In fact they are a model for how to compete and aggressively front up to others. I admire them hugely.

I know i'll be bagged for this but i'll still be right.

 

[bobmar28]

nope, we tried that before and crowds went down

The Tigers are doing ok.

 

[bobmar28]

:lol:

Ok, need I mention Serbia and the Czech Republic? These places have come from nowhere & are building up very well.
http://www.czechrugbyleague.com/
http://www.rugbyxiii.co.yu/

Oh and lol @ the split in Union

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[bobmar28]

:lol:

tbf you are right about the AFL threat.

here is the AFL expanding in great britain :

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12196_3851281,00.html

:lol:

 

[The Gunner]

The major problem in Sydney is that "sitting at home" watching the game live on TV has become the very easy option.

Hardly anyone likes going to Homebush because it's so hard to get to and why would anyone battle the elements / traiffic on Friday night after work or on Saturday night at 7pm when you can sit in the comfort of your lounge room and watch 2/3 games virtually live.

 

[dannyboy]

a crack in the pavement eh? funny stuff. 6 million people who love RL and its worth nothing. :lol:

Silly me forgetting that advertising & commercial cash cow called PNG

when the majority of australian people live on the eastern seaboard i couldnt give a sh*t if we dont have a mickey mouse team in adelaide.

Many poster here disagree with such an insular view...but yes of course lets expand to CC, Bris Vegas and of course PNG...good concept of the word National

AFL got lucky last time. when the contracts reflect the viewing numbers, RL will be in a very healthy position.

my guess is our next TV deal should be a $100 million increase.

that will mean big pay rises for our players

At least this is a point I hope you're right on. the deal SHOULD be a $100m increase....the chances of it being so? - Is News still in control at the time?