Hey, not a troll. Dont follow rugby now, used to be a fan when I lived in Auckland, but moving to Melbourne I never quite got caught up by the Storm.
My views are coming from a general sports fan, and as someone who enjoys rugby league when they do eventually air it on TV in Melbourne (last night early start at 11:50!).
The thing that makes rugby league the most unattractive, in my mind,
are empty seats. Not low crowds...but empty seats. The suburban grounds look great on TV. No doubt about it. Im sure this wont any revelation, but 10,000 in a 12,000 seater looks much better than 10,000 in a 45,000. For me, and Im sure there are other people out there aswell, find stadiums that are filled as a big attraction.
That may sound insane, and completely moronic, but its true; Ill be much more invested in a game of any sport if there is a good crowd - because that suggests that there is passion, real support, and a real attraction to the game. English Premier League teams dont kid themselves. Manchester fills out 75,000 19 times a year in the regular season. Portsmouth on the other hand, fill out there 20,000 seater capacity 19 times a year. But what you get there is the sense that its very desirable to be following these teams. Despite there being a 55,000 difference. If Portsmouth had a 75,000 seater, and could only hit 30,000, then that would automotically take some of the gloss off. Visually, its appealing on television, and for the people in the stadiums who are as a result encouraged, and who cannot wait to attend again.
I realize the NRL clubs get money from SFS and whatnot, but its a big problem - on one hand they need to maximize money like any sporting club, and on the other they want their suburban atmospheres, capacity stadiums, and whatnot.
I dunno what the solution is, but a regular person who doesnt have any personal investment in league would look at last nights game and form a negative perception of the game, despite the product on the field.
