18th club, whose next?

[Wb1234]

You’re right, they accepted the FA rules. The RFU, 1895 and the schism, 1907-1908, none of it happened.

It’s cute you think union decided to take on soccer and that’s how it expanded

In the early 1900 Manchester was a rugby city which the rfu allowed soccer to take over by letting their rugby club die

 

[The Great Dane]

More post-schism talk.

My point was that the early followers of Rugby rules, pre-schism, didn’t keel over in the face of Association Football and how ingrained it became in the UK and around the world. They spread the game, leading to us getting Rugby League and the NRL.

Rugby's rules were codified before soccer and pre-universal codification rule sets spread around the globe to British colonies quicker than soccer and it's predecessors initially.

It's actually posited by many sports historians that a large part of the reason why soccer has traditionally struggled in the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, and NZ) is because pre-codification forms of rugby were the more dominant game in England when they were colonised by the British, which lead to rugby becoming established in those cultures before soccer could get a look in. From there it then evolved into a bunch of different games because that's what rugby seems to be want to do.

The reason it's thought that soccer spread to mainland Europe over rugby is largely because European nations had a habit of hiring experienced British workers and engineers when they were industrialising, but by the time that started happening RU was already seen more as the game for wealthy public school educated people in England and soccer had started to dominate the working class (this is decades before the schism in Rugby). So you had an influx of working class Englishmen moving to European cities all over the joint and they took soccer with them. In multiple European nations the earliest soccer clubs and associations where started by those English immigrants.

There's also some pretty hilarious records of mainland Europeans impressions of rugby and proto rugby from those time periods (mainly French, German, and Dutch). They all find it abhorrent and take it as evidence of just how violent, uncouth, and inferior British culture is lol. From memory the Germans tended to be particularly hostile to all forms of football's immorality and were one of the last cultures to truly embrace it.

 

[reanimate]

It’s cute you think union decided to take on soccer and that’s how it expanded

In the early 1900 Manchester was a rugby city which the rfu allowed soccer to take over by letting their rugby club die

You’re right, they accepted FA rules. The RFU, 1895 and the schism, 1907-1908, none of it happened.

They didn’t give up on their rules in the face of competition from rival games, that’s the point I’ve been making. They put in the work that created the RFU and kept growing the game.

Same goes for soccer, the people who liked FA rules and the games that gave rise to it didn’t give up on areas where Rugby rules were popular, they ended up getting a slice of the market all throughout the UK, not just areas where games played with rules similar to theirs were popular.

 

[Wb1234]

You’re right, they accepted FA rules. The RFU, 1895 and the schism, 1907-1908, none of it happened.

They didn’t give up on their rules in the face of competition from rival games, that’s the point I’ve been making. They put in the work that created the RFU and kept growing the game.

Same goes for soccer, the people who liked FA rules and the games that gave rise to it didn’t give up on areas where Rugby rules were popular, they ended up getting a slice of the market all throughout the UK, not just areas where games played with rules similar to theirs were popular.

It wasn’t their rules lol

rugby union never stood up to soccer

north of Sheffield was all basically rugby they lost it all

you picked a bad example

 

[Wb1234]

Rugby's rules were codified before soccer and pre-universal codification rule sets spread around the globe to British colonies quicker than soccer and it's predecessors initially.

It's actually posited by many sports historians that a large part of the reason why soccer has traditionally struggled in the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, and NZ) is because pre-codification forms of rugby were the more dominant game in England when they were colonised by the British, which lead to rugby becoming established in those cultures before soccer could get a look in. From there it then evolved into a bunch of different games because that's what rugby seems to be want to do.

The reason it's thought that soccer spread to mainland Europe over rugby is largely because European nations had a habit of hiring experienced British workers and engineers when they were industrialising, but by the time that started happening RU was already seen more as the game for wealthy public school educated people in England and soccer had already started to dominate the working class (this is decades before the schism in Rugby). So you had an influx of working class Englishmen moving to European cities all over the joint and they took soccer with them. In multiple European nations the first soccer clubs and associations where started by those English immigrants.

There's also some pretty hilarious records of mainland Europeans impressions of rugby and proto rugby from those time periods (mainly French, German, and Dutch). They all find it abhorrent and take it as evidence of just how violent, uncouth, and inferior British culture is lol. From memory the Germans tended to be particularly hostile to all forms of football's immorality and were one of the last cultures to truly embrace it.

Soccer was established in nsw and qld well before rugby league

people just never took to the game preferring union over it

funnily enough vfl was more popular in sydney and Brisbane over soccer

 

[The Great Dane]

Soccer was established in nsw and qld well before rugby league

people just never took to the game preferring union over it

funnily enough vfl was more popular in sydney and Brisbane over soccer

Yeah no shit.

Soccer was first codified with a universal set of rules in 1863, and other rulesets had been around for decades before then. So soccer had been around for 30+ years before the RFL was formed and 50+ years before it made it to Australia proper in 1908. The first games that were recognisably soccer in Australia didn't occur until around the 1860s/70s.

It's debated when the first primitive forms of Rugby/rugby like football first arrived in Australia, but it was decades before soccer showed up. Certainly by the 1840s at least. The first formal games of what is now rugby weren't played here until the 1860s though.

Australian rules (then Victorian rules) was codified in 1859, and sporadic games were played all over the colonies in the second half of the 1800s. There were actually time periods in the 1800s when Aussie rules was more popular in Queensland and Rugby more popular in WA.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

This is fascinating stuff fellas.

 

[reanimate]

Rugby's rules were codified before soccer and pre-universal codification rule sets spread around the globe to British colonies quicker than soccer and it's predecessors initially.

It's actually posited by many sports historians that a large part of the reason why soccer has traditionally struggled in the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, and NZ) is because pre-codification forms of rugby were the more dominant game in England when they were colonised by the British, which lead to rugby becoming established in those cultures before soccer could get a look in. From there it then evolved into a bunch of different games because that's what rugby seems to be want to do.

The reason it's thought that soccer spread to mainland Europe over rugby is largely because European nations had a habit of hiring experienced British workers and engineers when they were industrialising, but by the time that started happening RU was already seen more as the game for wealthy public school educated people in England and soccer had already started to dominate the working class (this is decades before the schism in Rugby). So you had an influx of working class Englishmen moving to European cities all over the joint and they took soccer with them. In multiple European nations the first soccer clubs and associations where started by those English immigrants.

There's also some pretty hilarious records of mainland Europeans impressions of rugby and proto rugby from those time periods (mainly French, German, and Dutch). They all find it abhorrent and take it as evidence of just how violent, uncouth, and inferior British culture is lol. From memory the Germans tended to be particularly hostile to all forms of football's immorality and were one of the last cultures to truly embrace it.

Despite soccer’s rise, Rugby followers didn’t stop trying to establish clubs, run comps etc, that’s the point I was trying to make. Because of AFL’s growing popularity in NSW and QLD, even though it’s small compared to RL, we’re supposedly meant to be retreating into our shell and only starting new clubs here.

Or you can make the point from soccer’s perspective, despite Rugby rules being entrenched in many locations, time and effort (and decisions around pay etc) led to soccer being played all throughout the UK where Rugby rules were played.

The overall point is the attitude that we can’t make a Perth NRL team work because of AFL’s dominance there isn’t right. Rugby didn’t keel over to soccer and soccer ended up with market share throughout where Rugby rules were popular. We can get a slice of their traditional market as they’re doing here.

 

[Wb1234]

Yeah no shit.

Soccer was first codified with a universal set of rules in 1863, and other rulesets had been around for decades before then. So soccer had been around for 30+ years before the RFL was formed and 50+ years before it made it to Australia proper in 1908. The first games that were recognisably soccer in Australia didn't occur until around the 1860s/70s.

It's debated when the first primitive forms of Rugby/rugby like football first arrived in Australia, but it was decades before soccer showed up. Certainly by the 1840s at least. The first formal games of what is now rugby weren't played here until the 1860s though.

Australian rules (then Victorian rules) was codified in 1859, and sporadic games were played all over the colonies in the second half of the 1800s. There were actually time periods in the 1800s when Aussie rules was more popular in Queensland and Rugby more popular in WA.

*northern rugby football union not rfl

 

[Wb1234]

Despite soccer’s rise, Rugby followers didn’t stop trying to establish clubs, run comps etc, that’s the point I was trying to make. Because of AFL’s growing popularity in NSW and QLD, even though it’s small compared to RL, we’re supposedly meant to be retreating into our shell and only starting new clubs here.

Or you can make the point from soccer’s perspective, despite Rugby rules being entrenched in many locations, time and effort (and decisions around pay etc) led to soccer being played all throughout the UK where Rugby rules were played.

The overall point is the attitude that we can’t make a Perth NRL team work because of AFL’s dominance there isn’t right. Rugby didn’t keel over to soccer and soccer ended up with market share throughout where Rugby rules were popular. We can get a slice of their traditional market as they’re doing here.

Soccer took over all of England lmao

google premier league to get a clue

 

[blue bags]

Despite soccer’s rise, Rugby followers didn’t stop trying to establish clubs, run comps etc, that’s the point I was trying to make. Because of AFL’s growing popularity in NSW and QLD, even though it’s small compared to RL, we’re supposedly meant to be retreating into our shell and only starting new clubs here.

Or you can make the point from soccer’s perspective, despite Rugby rules being entrenched in many locations, time and effort (and decisions around pay etc) led to soccer being played all throughout the UK where Rugby rules were played.

The overall point is the attitude that we can’t make a Perth NRL team work because of AFL’s dominance there isn’t right. Rugby didn’t keel over to soccer and soccer ended up with market share throughout where Rugby rules were popular. We can get a slice of their traditional market as they’re doing here.

Rugby Rules ??? ,

 

[blue bags]

Yeah no shit.

Soccer was first codified with a universal set of rules in 1863, and other rulesets had been around for decades before then. So soccer had been around for 30+ years before the RFL was formed and 50+ years before it made it to Australia proper in 1908. The first games that were recognisably soccer in Australia didn't occur until around the 1860s/70s.

It's debated when the first primitive forms of Rugby/rugby like football first arrived in Australia, but it was decades before soccer showed up. Certainly by the 1840s at least. The first formal games of what is now rugby weren't played here until the 1860s though.

Australian rules (then Victorian rules) was codified in 1859, and sporadic games were played all over the colonies in the second half of the 1800s. There were actually time periods in the 1800s when Aussie rules was more popular in Queensland and Rugby more popular in WA.

Rugby school club England was before all other sports clubs. 1830s I believe

 

[The Great Dane]

Despite soccer’s rise, Rugby followers didn’t stop trying to establish clubs, run comps etc, that’s the point I was trying to make. Because of AFL’s growing popularity in NSW and QLD, even though it’s small compared to RL, we’re supposedly meant to be retreating into our shell and only starting new clubs here.

Or you can make the point from soccer’s perspective, despite Rugby rules being entrenched in many locations, time and effort (and decisions around pay etc) led to soccer being played all throughout the UK where Rugby rules were played.

The overall point is the attitude that we can’t make a Perth NRL team work because of AFL’s dominance there isn’t right. Rugby didn’t keel over to soccer and soccer ended up with market share throughout where Rugby rules were popular. We can get a slice of their traditional market as they’re doing here.

I don't disagree, I'm just trying to keep the discussion grounded and I like reading and talking about this stuff.

 

[The Great Dane]

*northern rugby football union not rfl

It's the same organisation and some times it's easier and clearer just to refer to them as the RFL.

It's okay to use the terms interchangeably so long as everybody understands what's being refered to.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Despite soccer’s rise, Rugby followers didn’t stop trying to establish clubs, run comps etc, that’s the point I was trying to make. Because of AFL’s growing popularity in NSW and QLD, even though it’s small compared to RL, we’re supposedly meant to be retreating into our shell and only starting new clubs here.

Or you can make the point from soccer’s perspective, despite Rugby rules being entrenched in many locations, time and effort (and decisions around pay etc) led to soccer being played all throughout the UK where Rugby rules were played.

The overall point is the attitude that we can’t make a Perth NRL team work because of AFL’s dominance there isn’t right. Rugby didn’t keel over to soccer and soccer ended up with market share throughout where Rugby rules were popular. We can get a slice of their traditional market as they’re doing here.

What if the Perth bid is weaker than its competitors from other cities?

Do we take the affirmative action route of accepting it over better bids?

That's what Perth Rat, @mongoose and @The Great Dane want.

Can you name one metric that places Perth's bid ahead of its competitors?

Which bid has the potential to generate the most money from football operations?

Which bid will pull the largest crowds?

Which bid will create the most interest from the broadcasters?

Which bid will have the largest nursery?

Which bid will play out of the best stadium?

Which bid will have the most assets?

Perth is well behind its competitors on all of these metrics, yet the old soapdodger from Perth thinks it should be parachuted to the front of the queue. If he believes in affirmative action then he won't have a foot to stand on when he's sacked from his job and replaced by a "woman of colour" in the name of diversity.

 

[oval]

You know what? f**k it. Give Perth a team and see what happens. Yes the bitter teamless blowin from Britain leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and makes one wish to see them forever unsatisfied. But I am fortunate enough to be able to stand on the same grass hill I stood on nearly 50 years ago as a kid (the mighty Brookvale Oval), and my attachment to that place runs deep. Maybe kids from Perth (the offspring of imports from NSW, QLD, NZ and UK) could experience that same lifelong connection if given a chance, and maybe a real league culture will emerge. Or maybe it'll fail again, in which case it's time to move on. Only one way to find out really.

 

[MugaB]

This is fascinating stuff fellas.

Its just all about waaaaaaangs

 

[Canard]

What if the Perth bid is weaker than its competitors from other cities?

Do we take the affirmative action route of accepting it over better bids?

That's what Perth Rat, @mongoose and @The Great Dane want.

Can you name one metric that places Perth's bid ahead of its competitors?

Which bid has the potential to generate the most money from football operations?

Which bid will pull the largest crowds?

Which bid will create the most interest from the broadcasters?

Which bid will have the largest nursery?

Which bid will play out of the best stadium?

Which bid will have the most assets?

Perth is well behind its competitors on all of these metrics, yet the old soapdodger from Perth thinks it should be parachuted to the front of the queue. If he believes in affirmative action then he won't have a foot to stand on when he's sacked from his job and replaced by a "woman of colour" in the name of diversity.

What bid has the best chance to grow the game outside its traditional base? And ultimately increase every metric that we already have.

As for the rest of your imported American culture wars bullshit, no-one in Australia cares about it.

 

[mongoose]

What if the Perth bid is weaker than its competitors from other cities?

Do we take the affirmative action route of accepting it over better bids?

That's what Perth Rat, @mongoose and @The Great Dane want.

Can you name one metric that places Perth's bid ahead of its competitors?

Which bid has the potential to generate the most money from football operations?

Which bid will pull the largest crowds?

Which bid will create the most interest from the broadcasters?

Which bid will have the largest nursery?

Which bid will play out of the best stadium?

Which bid will have the most assets?

Perth is well behind its competitors on all of these metrics, yet the old soapdodger from Perth thinks it should be parachuted to the front of the queue. If he believes in affirmative action then he won't have a foot to stand on when he's sacked from his job and replaced by a "woman of colour" in the name of diversity.

which bid will cannibalise existing clubs?

which bid will continue to push NRL as a NSW and QLD only competition?

which bid will make the AFL collectively laugh at NRL cause it will have little impact on their business?

which bid has a low ceiling for support and will probably always be in the shadow of its neighbouring clubs?

 

[The Great Dane]

What if the Perth bid is weaker than its competitors from other cities?

Do we take the affirmative action route of accepting it over better bids?

That's what Perth Rat, @mongoose and @The Great Dane want.

Can you name one metric that places Perth's bid ahead of its competitors?

Which bid has the potential to generate the most money from football operations?

Which bid will pull the largest crowds?

Which bid will create the most interest from the broadcasters?

Which bid will have the largest nursery?

Which bid will play out of the best stadium?

Which bid will have the most assets?

Perth is well behind its competitors on all of these metrics, yet the old soapdodger from Perth thinks it should be parachuted to the front of the queue. If he believes in affirmative action then he won't have a foot to stand on when he's sacked from his job and replaced by a "woman of colour" in the name of diversity.

It’s proper insane to try and compare expansion of a professional sports league to affirmative action, especially when you clearly don’t understand what it actually is.