A very good article in todays SMH about finances -NRL-v-AFL.

[Cumberland Throw]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/club-figures/2007/05/02/1177788209144.html
That article seems to indicate that it's more like $12M+

What clubs earned (gross) in 2006

Membership
(Reserve seat income included)

1. West Coast $11.045m
2. Adelaide $7.917m
3. Collingwood $7.541m
4. Brisbane Lions $6.982m
5. Geelong $6.375m
6. Fremantle $6.279m
7. Essendon $6.13m
8. Port Adelaide $5.667m
9. Sydney $5.416m
10. St Kilda $4.957m
11 Richmond $4.108m
12. Carlton $4.072m
13 W Bulldogs $3.594m
14 Hawthorn $3.225m
15 Melbourne $3.181m
16 Kangaroos $2.981m

Football revenue
(sponsorship, membership, gate receipts, merchandise, fund-raising, marketing and AFL-sourced)

1. West Coast $34.529m
2. Collingwood $27.319m
3. Brisbane Lions $23.173m
4. Fremantle $21.445m
5. Sydney $19.661m
6. Essendon $19.389m
7. W Bulldogs 19.157m
8. Adelaide 18.022m
9. Geelong 16.109m
10. Hawthorn 15.907m
11. Melbourne 14.814m
12. Port Adelaide 14.758m
13. St Kilda 14.416m
14. Richmond 14.145m
15. Kangaroos 14.14m
16. Carlton 13.738m

Non-football revenue
(including gaming and other businesses)

1. Collingwood $12.119m
2. Essendon $6.787m
3. Richmond $6.356m
4. W Bulldogs $5.998m
5. Geelong $4.725m
6. Port Adelaide $4.714m
7. Hawthorn $4.02m
8. Melbourne $3.355m
9. Carlton $2.357m
10. Sydney $1.778m
11. St Kilda $1.464m
12. Adelaide $668,000
13. Kangaroos $448,000
=14. Fremantle, Brisbane Lions, West Coast $0

The NRL and the clubs really have to start start heavily promoting memberships.

http://www.panthers.com.au/default.aspx?id=645


So they AFL wanna spruik non footballing revenue, click on link above, Panthers group in 2006 turned over revenue of $186 900 000,

Makes Collingswoods 12m look like chicken feed,

 

[LeagueXIII]

The AFL had sides in each Mainland capital by 1990. They've always been ahead of us in that regard. We were certainly making ground up though. With a few clubs headed for the trap door of folding/relocation, I imagine Adelaide and Melbourne would have been covered by 2000 at the latest.

Not true, in 1994 before the SL war, RL was moving forward on the back of the extremely successful Tina Turner ads, it had played an Origin game at the MCG in front of 87,000, the Kangaroo Tour was massive, particularly on TV, we had Aukland, North Qld, Perth and another Brisbane club coming into the comp, sponsors were throwing themselves at the game. Any wonder Murdoch wanted RL for his pay TV.
In contrast AFL had virtually NO impact in Sydney and Brisbane, certainly on TV. Brisbane were still playing on the Gold Coast and the Swans were comming off their third year of average 9000 crowds. Nil international impact.

There's competition. The Victory have cracked Melbourne right open, and once the new Stadium is built, the Storm will start gathering momentum. Perth's important, and Adelaide is a smaller market than NNSW, SNSW and Regional QLD.

Yes but the AR has had no competition for 100 years. It's only now these cities are starting to mature sporting wise and realise it's OK to have more than one football code.

 

[t-ba]

Not true, in 1994 before the SL war, RL was moving forward on the back of the extremely successful Tina Turner ads, it had played an Origin game at the MCG in front of 87,000, the Kangaroo Tour was massive, particularly on TV, we had Aukland, North Qld, Perth and another Brisbane club coming into the comp, sponsors were throwing themselves at the game. Any wonder Murdoch wanted RL for his pay TV.

One match does not a summer make. The AFL had a full set of fixtures in Both Brisbane and Sydney. We had some very big events, but our national prescence wasn't as strong as theirs. Rugby League was poised to overhaul the AFL and there was nothing they were going to be able to do about it, but it wasn't there just yet.

In contrast AFL had virtually NO impact in Sydney and Brisbane, certainly on TV. Brisbane were still playing on the Gold Coast and the Swans were comming off their third year of average 9000 crowds. Nil international impact.

By 1995 the Bears had been at the Gabba for quite a while. We're discussing the Australian market aren't we? Australasian market at best. the NSWRL/ARL was still a touch behind on this continent.

Yes but the AR has had no competition for 100 years. It's only now these cities are starting to mature sporting wise and realise it's OK to have more than one football code.

That's not entirely true. Soccer clubs like SMH and Melbourne Knights have always drawn solid crowds since the 1950's (when the migrant communities came over), the only problem was that it was regarded as an ethnic battleground. Now that the Victory have sanitised soccer, they've begun to enhance a market that was already there with AFL fans.

 

[Dr Crane]

New Zealand - $9m - -10%

Thats not bad for a club thats been so far up the sh*tter in the last three years

 

[Tom Shines]

I can't find fault with any of those very valid points. I'd like to see you try to shoot holes in any of them.

But this isn't a bag-AFL's-skill-level thread.
It's about comparing the administration of the two games.

 

[t-ba]

But this isn't a bag-AFL's-skill-level thread.
It's about comparing the administration of the two games.

No contest...Jodie Rich and Rodney Adler are better administrators than standard RL fare...

 

[LESStar58]

I disagree RL was expanding quite nicely until the SL war, we were the leaders. The war put us back 20 years and gave rival codes their chance.

Agreed.

The one thing that Super League had "right" IMO was that it wanted a national competition with teams in Adelaide and Perth.

The one thing that I didn't like, but News Limited ended up getting, was less teams in Sydney. I think it's questionable that areas like Wollongong and Campelltown have half a team each and that the Central Coast does not have one.

We certainly had to go back to square one in 98.

 

[t-ba]

Sydney needed less teams, but they should have been allowed to die rather than just being arbitrarily cut when they still had some fight in them. That's what left the sour taste in peoples mouths imo.

 

[LESStar58]

I guess the one good thing to come out of it is that one of the joint ventures (Tigers) has won a premiership.

My uncle was a massive Balmain fan and I wasn't sure he'd stick with the Tiges when they merged but he did and was over the moon when they won the comp in 05.

If anything maybe the fact that the team was so successful coulda have got some of those old Balmain and Western Suburbs fans back to the game.

On the other hand.... poor old north Sydney got a shafting didn't they? I hope the NRL sees the light and lets them back into the comp as Central Coast Bears (along with Perth)when the next NRL rights deal gets revamped in 2011.

 

[LeagueXIII]

One match does not a summer make. The AFL had a full set of fixtures in Both Brisbane and Sydney. We had some very big events, but our national prescence wasn't as strong as theirs. Rugby League was poised to overhaul the AFL and there was nothing they were going to be able to do about it, but it wasn't there just yet.

This was the tip of the iceberg after a concerted push to bring awareness of RL to Melbourne. Have you forgotten the fullhouses at the SOO(1990), NZ(1991) and GB(1992) tests? League was expanding it's TV audience and had a massive feelgood factor, which is what is mainly missing today.
League was getting huge corporate support.

That's not entirely true. Soccer clubs like SMH and Melbourne Knights have always drawn solid crowds since the 1950's (when the migrant communities came over), the only problem was that it was regarded as an ethnic battleground. Now that the Victory have sanitised soccer, they've begun to enhance a market that was already there with AFL fans.

How much media coverage and corporate support did these clubs get. As I said AFL/VFL etc have always had a monopoly in their markets.

Sydney needed less teams, but they should have been allowed to die rather than just being arbitrarily cut when they still had some fight in them. That's what left the sour taste in peoples mouths imo.

Sydney did not need less teams. I would bet that alot of ex Bears supporters are now AFL and union followers. People are happy to put a team in Adelaide with a pop of a million and NO league culture yet ignore the north shore and CC area, pop 800,000 and offer league plenty.
I don't understand why we can not cultivate interest in the game, as the AFL do, rather than walk away and give up. We lose Sydney and you can forget RL. Never give a sucker an even break.

 

[t-ba]

This was the tip of the iceberg after a concerted push to bring awareness of RL to Melbourne. Have you forgotten the fullhouses at the SOO(1990), NZ(1991) and GB(1992) tests? League was expanding it's TV audience and had a massive feelgood factor, which is what is mainly missing today.
League was getting huge corporate support.

Those matches were played at Olympic Park...The AFL was still ahead purely by virtue of the fact they had teams in their H&A comp based in Sydney and Brisbane.

In the Late 1980's the Swans drew some pretty impressive S.C.G crowds. As I said, one Match does not a summer make...nor for that matter, one season, as the Swans showed.

How much media coverage and corporate support did these clubs get. As I said AFL/VFL etc have always had a monopoly in their markets.

A fair bit in the Ethnic Newspapers, which combined have a circulation similiar to that of The Age. It's nothing to sneeze at. They didn't have a Monopoly because the sizeable ethnic communities drew great crowds to soccer matches. Corporate support in Australian sports was practically non-existant 12-15 years ago.

They had a Monopoly on the White Anglo-Celtic people of Melbourne. Big difference.

Sydney did not need less teams. I would bet that alot of ex Bears supporters are now AFL and union followers. People are happy to put a team in Adelaide with a pop of a million and NO league culture yet ignore the north shore and CC area, pop 800,000 and offer league plenty.
I don't understand why we can not cultivate interest in the game, as the AFL do, rather than walk away and give up. We lose Sydney and you can forget RL. Never give a sucker an even break.

Sydney needed less teams. Simple as that. 11 teams in Sydney was never going to work in a national comp. The AFL has axed sides from Melbourne too, and are ready to kill/relocate North Melbourne as we speak.

How was this possibly going to work?

11 Sydney
3 Regional NSW
4 QLD
3 AFL Cites
2 NZ

That's 23 sides...

 

[yosh64]

I can't find fault with any of those very valid points. I'd like to see you try to shoot holes in any of them.

Originally Posted by Raider_69
What the SMH failed to note was this very important point:

AFL is a sh*t house game, with little skill involved other than the rovers having to be super fit. Its a sport that even its fans struggle to comprehend at times, its a sport with ZERO international success, they play a hybrid game in order to get an international series, and even then they are often soundly beaten by amature dublin butchures.

Its a sport that relys on so called 'hard men' hitting from behind and off the ball and then running 40 yards away. Its a sport with a big culture of off feild indisgressions, including drugs resulting in rehab and death in one G.Abblett's case, players sleeping with the partners of team mates, links to the criminal world, along with countless other issues, which far out weigh the NRL in both magnatude of incident and number of incidents occuring.

Rugby League, put simply, is a harder, tougher, more skillful sport, with more resillience, a better international feel and more potential to grow

AFL is a sh*thouse game is a personal opinion. As its the number 1 code in Oz you'd find more people suggesting that it isnt. Personally i dont like it but i know many people do.

To suggest any sport requires little skill is naive. Every sport requires special skills. Some of our best go to union and still cant make an impact (lote got one try this year), so it can be difficult to pick up the skills of another sport even if your a top class athlete in another code. AFL requires certain skills that many of our players dont have. Our kickers get time to take a shot at goal whilst many times their players have to get a shot away with more pressure and less time. I just cant say that it has little skill just cause i dont like it.

Off field discretions is sooo stupid. He slept with a players partner. Our team gang raped a chick (if we believe the cops). Drugs are in our code to (sargent). Walker is constantly in trouble. There is currently a Panthers player facing charges of bashing a chick to the point of breaking her eye socket. We cant be stupid hypocrites when they have some dramas cause we have and will continue to have dramas. Society has dramas so that continues on to footy teams as they take people from society. Its not any footy codes fault, we have just had more time to learn and deal with it. They are going to learn alot from whats happened this year.

Rugby League, put simply, is a harder, tougher, more skillful sport, with more resillience, a better international feel and more potential to grow

Thats all fine, thats just personal opinion. I generally agree. But dont be naive to suggest AFL has no skill or has a culture of off-field discretions. Just figure if you want to do some AFL bashing come up with better arguments than that.

 

[steeden.]

i watched a bit of aussie rules today. it reminded me what a terribly boring sport it is to watch.

 

[t-ba]

McDonalds is the biggest and most succesful restaurant chain on the planet. It doesn't stopping it from being dross. Just well marketed dross...

...Analogous with the AFL methinks...

 

[steeden.]

but seriously, its almost like comparing apples to oranges. the only bit that really worries me in it is the amount being spent on Game Development. The amount of money the AFL is pouring in up here is staggering and could turn scary if the NRL/QRL doesnt counter this soon.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Those matches were played at Olympic Park...The AFL was still ahead purely by virtue of the fact they had teams in their H&A comp based in Sydney and Brisbane.

In the Late 1980's the Swans drew some pretty impressive S.C.G crowds. As I said, one Match does not a summer make...nor for that matter, one season, as the Swans showed.

Also played at Princess Park, I was there with 33,000 others. AFL had virtually zero impact in Sydney and Brisbane at the time, it's about TV ratings and corporate $$$$ not how many are in the ground. How can you be ahead of RL when more than half the country wasn't interested? The Swans may have drawn good crowds in the mid 80's but by the 90's they averaged 9000, and as I said NO ONE was watching on TV.

A fair bit in the Ethnic Newspapers, which combined have a circulation similiar to that of The Age. It's nothing to sneeze at. They didn't have a Monopoly because the sizeable ethnic communities drew great crowds to soccer matches. Corporate support in Australian sports was practically non-existant 12-15 years ago.

They had a Monopoly on the White Anglo-Celtic people of Melbourne. Big difference.

I'm talking mainstream. Sure the soccer results were in the paper AFTER the 16 pages on AFL.
I've lived in Melbourne since the 80's and for anyone to think that until recently AFL didn't have a complete monopoly on this city is in disneyland. RL has always competed with other sports.

Sydney needed less teams. Simple as that. 11 teams in Sydney was never going to work in a national comp. The AFL has axed sides from Melbourne too, and are ready to kill/relocate North Melbourne as we speak.

How was this possibly going to work?

11 Sydney
3 Regional NSW
4 QLD
3 AFL Cites
2 NZ

That's 23 sides...

League can handle 18 teams in Australia. Sydney is a growing city and can easily handle 10 clubs minimum. If the game is developed properly in the city. We do NOT need Adelaide it offers very little, leave it to AFL, what we lose there we more than make up for in NZ. Let clubs die naturally or relocate.

 

[t-ba]

Also played at Princess Park, I was there with 33,000 others. AFL had virtually zero impact in Sydney and Brisbane at the time, it's about TV ratings and corporate $$$$ not how many are in the ground. How can you be ahead of RL when more than half the country wasn't interested? The Swans may have drawn good crowds in the mid 80's but by the 90's they averaged 9000, and as I said NO ONE was watching on TV.

They were well marketed one off events...Show me where the ratings for RL in Melbourne were consistently awesome for the H&A season. Show me the ratings for SoO and the Tests at the time even...

It's not all about TV Viewership and Corporate $$$ (of which there was virtually nothing in the early 1990's compared to today). The AFL were content to plug away with teams on their outposts, and that's what had them ahead. Ultimately, it was their selling point to advertisers and TV executives.

I'm talking mainstream. Sure the soccer results were in the paper AFTER the 16 pages on AFL.
I've lived in Melbourne since the 80's and for anyone to think that until recently AFL didn't have a complete monopoly on this city is in disneyland. RL has always competed with other sports.

It wasn't a complete monopoly. A monopoly is when there is NO competition. There was competition, no matter how out of the mainstream it was. Heidelburg fans wouldn't touch Australians Rules Football with a ten foot clown pole and traditionally the ethnic clubs were capable of drawing low range four figure crowds. In the mainstream media yes, but on the ground it wasn't total. Certainly stronger than RL's position in Sydney though.

A monopoly was what the VFL had before the post-war migration kicked in.

League can handle 18 teams in Australia. Sydney is a growing city and can easily handle 10 clubs minimum. If the game is developed properly in the city. We do NOT need Adelaide it offers very little, leave it to AFL, what we lose there we more than make up for in NZ. Let clubs die naturally or relocate.

Umm, if you've bothered to read what I've written, that's what I'm arguing. Attrition was the ARL policy. at least three clubs were set to roll over and die very soon in 1995.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Have you forgotten, Channel Ten at the time showed RL match of the day live into Melbourne as was the ABC game, also got late night league on Sundays. All rep games were live or shown at a reasonable hour. Infact CH10 coverage at the time was excellent and really helped push the game.

Mate, it was SL that gave AFL the push in Sydney it needed, if the war didn't come along AFL would still be hitting it's head against a wall.

Of course it's about corporate dollars why do you think the AFL is pumping millions into NSW and QLD. What is going to fund their game if it isn't the corporate dollar?

It wasn't a complete monopoly. A monopoly is when there is NO competition. There was competition, no matter how out of the mainstream it was. Heidelburg fans wouldn't touch Australians Rules Football with a ten foot clown pole and traditionally the ethnic clubs were capable of drawing low range four figure crowds. In the mainstream media yes, but on the ground it wasn't total. Certainly stronger than RL's position in Sydney though.

A monopoly was what the VFL had before the post-war migration kicked in

Absolute garbage, soccer could not compete with AR. Once again, AR had NO competition, a monopoly.

Umm, if you've bothered to read what I've written, that's what I'm arguing. Attrition was the ARL policy. at least three clubs were set to roll over and die very soon in 1995.

Name them.

 

[Red Bear]

We dont compete with the AFL in terms of expansion. For example the afl have cut one club completely since 1897 (Uni). Every other club that has been in the VFL/AFL exists in some form. South Melbourne moved to Sydney, Fitsroy merged with Brisbane and Nth Melbourne and Fotscray changed their trading names to Kangaroos FC and Western Bulldogs respectively, whiulst essentially remaining the same club. The result? The rivalries are still alive, the game still thrives and shows its possible to maintain the heartland teams whilst running a successful national competition. Note they also have massive crowds still, they murder us in crowds eg Carlton vs Colliungwood today got 77 000 at the MCG.

Now rugby league on the other hand. Since 1908 we have 1 team play every season, 2 teams from 1908 still exist, whilst 2 others are merged. We have a whole bunch of teams who have been cut, merged etc which souldnt have had to happen. The rot started about 40 years ago.
No offence to cronulla fans because i dont want your club to be cut now(unless you went broke), but cronulla should never have been introduced. This was a very short sighted move. Illawarra should have been introduced for the 67 season, they could well have got some great players early, combined with being able to establish themselves well in the area, unlike they 1982 version. Canberra was a perfectly reasonable addition.
Then the ontroduction of 3 teams at once in the 88 followed by 4 at once in 95 was chaotic. This could certainly have been staggered alot differently.

Ultimately the problems with our expansion have created some of the issues i personally have with the game today (ack of atmosphere, loss of tradiiton etc) and we can just look at the AFL to see how it could have been done.

 

[t-ba]

Have you forgotten, Channel Ten at the time showed RL match of the day live into Melbourne as was the ABC game, also got late night league on Sundays. All rep games were live or shown at a reasonable hour. Infact CH10 coverage at the time was excellent and really helped push the game.

Show me the ratings. Ch7 broadcasted the VFL/AFL into the Northern Markets for an eternity as well in case you forgot.

Mate, it was SL that gave AFL the push in Sydney it needed, if the war didn't come along AFL would still be hitting it's head against a wall.

There was a difference in approach. Whereas Doc Edelstein didn't bother trying to convert the 25,000 people coming through the gates in the mid-late 1990's into full time Australian Rules fans, the AFL worked very hard to turn the people who went to Swans matches into full time fans. Sure, Super League helped, but it was part of a strong campaign that the NRL could learn a lot from.

Of course it's about corporate dollars why do you think the AFL is pumping millions into NSW and QLD. What is going to fund their game if it isn't the corporate dollar?

And how much corporate money was the NSWRL earning compared to the AFL? Enlighten me.

Absolute garbage, soccer could not compete with AR. Once again, AR had NO competition, a monopoly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Monopoly

Seven definitions, and it fails to fit under any of them...It wasn't exclusive...and they still haven't to this day made substantial inroads into the Slavic communities of Melbourne. It's operating in near monopoly conditions, but not quite. Macquarie and Oxford, and the Butterworths Concise Legal Australian Dictionary also aren't reconciled to your statement.

Now, if you were saying something like 'A monopoly in the Mainstream media' rather than just a plain 'monopoly,' you'd be on the money.

Name them.

Souths
Cronulla
Balmain