f**k me you gibber on with some moronic BS. Most of this is just nonsense or you attempting to branch off onto irrelevant tangents.
Pot. Kettle. Black. The bulk of your verbose posts are filled with misused terminology and baseless claims that you pretend are facts.
Your posts don't say anything meaningful: they're just an attempt to sound intelligent and bore the shit out of everyone.
Here are the only relevant bits-
Then they'll stagnant and eventually be outcompeted by growing competition.
When you stop growing, you start dying.
What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
RU expanded into Perth and Melbourne. They've never been weaker.
Super Rugby was at its peak with teams in Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney. Attendances were better than the NRL during this period.
The Australian broadcast rights for Super Rugby have declined in value since the game expanded into Perth and Melbourne.
RU's decline blows your argument apart.
A-League expanded, too. It's never been more irrelevant.
At one stage both competitions were drawing crowds similar to the NRL. Now they're worthless to Foxtel.
Because whether you like it or not they're examples of expansion franchises. The VFL/AFL expanded into those markets with those teams, just like the NSWRL/ARL/NRL expanded into e.g. Brisbane with the Broncos. You can say that they aren't relevant, but that'd just be you missing the point.
Eagles had to be bailed out by Indian Pacific.
Power have struggled at times.
Lions were mired in debt a decade ago.
Swans ratings on TV are mediocre.
None of those "expansion" teams are equal to the Broncos. There's no NRL team that can draw bigger TV ratings than the Broncos.
The Western Australian AwFuL clubs draw horrible ratings in the world's second largest fumbleball market.
Firstly, the Swans don't rely on on-field success and have been independently sustainable off it for an extended period now.
Secondly, it's because of the long term financial growth that having teams in those markets provides. Hundreds of millions invested now = billions in revenue over the long term. Besides they would have more than paid for themselves in increased broadcast and sponsorship value alone, and both were necessary for the decade on decade increase in growth that the sport has seen in both Sydney and Brisbane, and NSW and Qld more boardy.
You don't have any evidence that these "expansion" teams provide AwFuL with more money from sponsorship and broadcast deals.
You're assuming the revenue AwFuL generates is due to expansion. The fact is the VFL always had a larger membership base than the NSWRL and drew higher attendances.
The NSWRL added four expansion teams in 1995 when it became the ARL.
The broadcast deal with Packer did not increase.
Can you tell me how much extra money the AwFuL expansion clubs have added to sponsorship and broadcast deals?
Same as above really. They're just more examples of franchise/license systems that're comparable to the NRL system.
Their methods and reasons for expansion are broadly analogous to the industry standards in the Australian professional sports industry, unlike the European football pyramids for example. We're ever increasingly emulating the Americans in this regard BTW, and for good reason as well, whatever we may think of them, they are the most successful at it in the world.
Do the American leagues have a variable funding scheme like AwFuL to fund expansion?
If not then it's an irrelevant comparison.
It's dumb to compare a relatively small, fragmented and oversaturated market with America.
