What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

AFL to launch 2nd sydney team in 2012

Green Machine

First Grade
Messages
5,844
mightybears said:
Harms is a AFL-Geelong, horse racing and cricket tragic. Melbourne based now but his dad was a lutheran minister? and got posted to a number of se queensland churches-Harms spent much of this teens in Dalby [played junior rugby league there] and went to UQ -St Lucia before heading south again. He is not your usual blinkered AFL drone-realizes that other codes exist, melbourne not the capital of world football etc.

The offsiders show is very good, even if a bit too much ping pong talk at times.

That probably clears up why Harms has always got plenty of info on Queensland Rugby League. I don’t mind listening to what the enemy is up to. As Vito Corleone once said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
67,090
$'s!

At the end of the day every new professional sports team needs corporate backers. Also when it comes to media deals the media and corprates pay bigger $'s for sports that they perceive as growing and dominating the sporting scene.

I have no concerns that these new AFL teams will impact on the quality or number of players coming through to RL but they will (if succesful) impact on the money in the game and given the difficulties clubs are set to face in years to come with pokie revenue then that is a big worry that we need to counteract.

If the NRL has any plan to counter attack this bold media push by the AFL I would expect statements to be coming out in the next two to three weeks about the NRL's grand visions for the future. If it stays silent we can expect they are going to put up the barricades and we'll get the same old same old from them.
 

RL1908

Bench
Messages
2,717
Ziggy the God said:
Great article!

Thanks mate.

SUPERIORITY OF THE MELBOURNE GAME

SEAN FAGAN
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/afls-offensive-just-another-battle-in-a-long-long-war/2008/02/22/1203467387528.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
http://www.RL1908.com/blog/afl-1800s.htm

The AFL announces it intends establishing two more clubs in its “non-football states” – as they call NSW and Queensland in their lofty manner – and the other codes are portrayed as suddenly facing their ultimate hour of darkness and peril at the feet of the superior Australian game.

Hold hard fellow rugbyites (of either brand) and footballers of the round-ball kind, we've heard all this hot air before.

The AFL trumpeter's fanfare echoes all the way back to 1883.

Speaking at a meeting of the VFA (the forerunner of the VFL/AFL) in Melbourne, a Mr Stafford boldly announced that the Australian game had been taken up in Brisbane, following the earlier formation of clubs in Sydney (1880).

In continuing, Stafford told of “the strides which the Melbourne game had of late made in NSW, which was considered to be the stronghold of rugby in the colonies, and ventured to assert that before long the Melbourne game would assert its superiority over rugby, which would be eventually stamped out, and become a thing of the past in the Colonies.”
Several members of the Victorian clubs “also spoke in glowing terms of the superiority of the Melbourne game over that of rugby” and of “British Association” (soccer).

Such was their confidence of supremacy over all else in the colonies, the committee resolved to henceforth call their game “Australasian rules” football, and fired-off letters to the rugby union bodies throughout the NSW, Queensland and New Zealand, suggesting the immediate adoption of the Melbourne-born game on the grounds that everyone else was playing it.

According to the Otago Witness, in one example, “upon being read (the letter) caused considerable laughter.” Rebuffed by the Kiwis, the VFA adopted “Australian rules” instead.

Two years later, the English FA issued a tour invitation to its fledgling counterparts in Sydney. The idea, which ultimately failed, was to send to England a team of Australia 's best footballers, who would play soccer against the clubs of the FA.

Great offence was taken in Melbourne that the colonial football team would not “consist of men who represent the football strength of Australia ” as these “nearly all play the Australian game, and (they) will not be induced to discard it in favour of one which certainly does not possess equal attractions.”

The criticism against the tour was so pronounced that the Victorians argued that the Australian soccer team should never be permitted to leave our shores “for the sake of Australia's athletic prestige.”

Sports editors took note of the disdain. "I fancy the Australians will wait a long time before they will be asked to send Home a team to play the Victorian game," wrote one.

The years immediately after Federation quickly changed the focus of many - no longer colonial-Britons, but Australians. In 1903, a small group of men thought it was time Sydney football fully embraced the “the Australian game.”

Led by Test cricketer Victor Trumper and Edward O'Sullivan, a NSW politician and one of the prime movers of the Federation movement, an 11-club Australian football competition was formed.

Foresaking any arguments about the merits of the code itself over rugby or soccer, O'Sullivan declared that NSW should “support a game that was invented by Australians for Australia.”

The VFL aided the campaign by sending Fitzroy and Collingwood north to play at the SCG. More than 26,000 Sydneysiders flocked to the ground. It was a spectacular result in terms of Sydney crowds. Australia's first home rugby union Test against New Zealand, held a few weeks later, attracted just 4,000 more.

The gate-money from the SCG match was used to employ “lecturers” to visit schools. They taught the boys the rudiments of the game, and left behind a football for their use - a substantial and highly-prized gift in those days.

The investment paid off. By the winter of 1905 rugby's hold on schools and juniors had been cut in half as youngsters embraced the alternative of Australian football - including Dally Messenger's two younger brothers. Some accounts even place “Dally M” himself playing first grade Australian rules for Easts in that same year.

NSWRU officials were startled by the trend, but could do little to prevent it. Tied to the RFU in England, rugby in Australia could do nothing to improve the playing rules to aid players and spectators. The popularity of rugby was on the wane, and the NSWRU were facing a real challenge to hold the support of the city. If Sydney fell, the rest of NSW and Queensland would quickly follow.

Worse still for rugby, being an amateur sport, it could not address the growing call for Sydney footballers to be paid a cut of the gate-money. The long term view was that Australian rules would establish professional football in the state capitals. In the face of such competition, as soccer and rugby had found in Melbourne, there was little hope for survival.

Ironically, the advent of professional rugby league in 1908 settled the dispute, leaving NSW and Queensland with the football landscape of today – where four football codes, each with their own coitre of enthusiastic players and followers, fight for supremacy.
In the century that has passed, rugby league has held the ascendancy above the other three codes, but each has enjoyed its large crowds and periods of popularity.

“Australia is a big paddock,” offered O'Sullivan back in 1903, “and there is room enough for all of us to play in it, whatever game we may prefer.”

Even perhaps in Melbourne.
 

RL1908

Bench
Messages
2,717
Lockyer4President! said:
Read that on Brisbane Times this morning but didn't even think to check who the author was. Well done.

Thanks mate. I must be making some impact - I got an email today from a RL fan re this AFL discussion about it http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=416870. Apparently I'm "The anti-Australian Football and now discredited author. Credibility = 0". I'd love to read where I've been "discredited" re the 1858 article ( http://www.rl1908.com/blog/afl-hoax.htm ), but can't find it anywhere.
 

ParraEelsNRL

Referee
Messages
27,694
RL1908 said:
Thanks mate. I must be making some impact - I got an email today from a RL fan re this AFL discussion about it http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=416870. Apparently I'm "The anti-Australian Football and now discredited author. Credibility = 0". I'd love to read where I've been "discredited" re the 1858 article ( http://www.rl1908.com/blog/afl-hoax.htm ), but can't find it anywhere.

Don't worry about them mate, they can't handle the truth when it paints AwFuL in the light we see in.

So the ARU banned VFL from playing on Sydney grounds huh, if they did, how did the game get a foothold in Sydney?

Wouldn't people need to see the game being played for them to want to change codes and start playing it?

1903 till 1908 there wasn't any RL, so if AwFuL couldn't be played on these grounds, how did it take over Union?
 

RL1908

Bench
Messages
2,717
ParraEelsNRL said:
Don't worry about them mate, they can't handle the truth when it paints AwFuL in the light we see in.

So the ARU banned VFL from playing on Sydney grounds huh, if they did, how did the game get a foothold in Sydney?

Wouldn't people need to see the game being played for them to want to change codes and start playing it?

1903 till 1908 there wasn't any RL, so if AwFuL couldn't be played on these grounds, how did it take over Union?

I suppose I should join their forum to respond. Someone styled as "huntos" is suggesting the NSWRU c.1908 leased all the major Sydney grounds, so they could then leave them to the use of rugby league and leave Australian rules out in the cold. The notion that RU & RL agreed to do anything in that period beggars belief - they hated each other. Aust rules had ground problems long before the NSWRL was born in 1907. The first NSWRL game (NSW v All Golds) in August 1907 put an Aust rules club game between the Newtown & Sydney clubs on the undercard. Giltinan had plans to merge RL with Aust rules, and met with the VFL in 1908. The bottom line was that both RL & Aust rules were kept off the best/biggest city grounds by the NSWRU leases. RL got the edge over Aust rules to get the next rung of grounds (such as the Showground) because the Sydney Aust rules was still an amateur sport, and didn't attract the crowds that RL did/could (so AR couldn't afford to hire them). Aust rules purchased its own ground at Rosebery in the early 1910s, but stuffed it up itself, and eventually had to sell it.

The SCG Trust (and indeed the NSWRU who held the lease) did allow the Aust rules to play major games on the SCG between 1903 and 1908. From 1908 to 1910, the Trust wanted to hold RL games, but the NSWRU refused to allow it (under its lease it could stop other users of the ground). In 1911, the RL got one game on the SCG on a Thursday public holiday when the Trust found a loophole in the NSWRU lease (it was only good for Saturdays and public holidays if they fell on a Monday).
 

ParraEelsNRL

Referee
Messages
27,694
RL1908 said:
I suppose I should join their forum to respond. Someone styled as "huntos" is suggesting the NSWRU c.1908 leased all the major Sydney grounds, so they could then leave them to the use of rugby league and leave Australian rules out in the cold. The notion that RU & RL agreed to do anything in that period beggars belief - they hated each other. Aust rules had ground problems long before the NSWRL was born in 1907. The first NSWRL game (NSW v All Golds) in August 1907 put an Aust rules club game between the Newtown & Sydney clubs on the undercard. Giltinan had plans to merge RL with Aust rules, and met with the VFL in 1908. The bottom line was that both RL & Aust rules were kept off the best/biggest city grounds by the NSWRU leases. RL got the edge over Aust rules to get the next rung of grounds (such as the Showground) because the Sydney Aust rules was still an amateur sport, and didn't attract the crowds that RL did/could (so AR couldn't afford to hire them). Aust rules purchased its own ground at Rosebery in the early 1910s, but stuffed it up itself, and eventually had to sell it.

The SCG Trust (and indeed the NSWRU who held the lease) did allow the Aust rules to play major games on the SCG between 1903 and 1908. From 1908 to 1910, the Trust wanted to hold RL games, but the NSWRU refused to allow it (under its lease it could stop other users of the ground). In 1911, the RL got one game on the SCG on a Thursday public holiday when the Trust found a loophole in the NSWRU lease (it was only good for Saturdays and public holidays if they fell on a Monday).

Give it a go, but I must warn you, they are Vic's, so they are stupid and you'll be called all sorts of things from a Thugby loving anti Australian game liar and a lot more. :lol:
 
Messages
42,632
Don't bother joining Sean, you'll last about as long as a bucket of KFC lasts at the Dunning household.

They don't want to hear that stuff. NSW is, was and always will be, AFL heartland.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,443
Father Jack said:
Why is everyone so ready to assume that the success of one code is always going to be to the detriment of the others? Have the Swans or the Lions really hurt RL? Have the Storm damaged the AFL? Maybe they are just bringing fans that never really cared for the only footy previously available to them.

What is everyone so scared of?


Ask yourself the question are Storm scouts,attending AFL junior competitions in Victoria ,by offering them a cash scholarship to change codes?.Doubt it.
The AFL is certainly doing that in Sydney.
The AFL are attacking the developed junior base of rugby league ,if that is not being detrimental to rl,then the SL war had no impact on the game.:roll:
 

RL1908

Bench
Messages
2,717
I see that my work has caused some comment on this Big Footy page. I've no problem with fair-minded debate, and happy to keep an open mind on the subject. A lot though have missed the point that the first article was in reference/context to the 1858 match - I don't dispute that Aust rules set off on its own path from 1859 onwards.

I think the bottom line is people reading the same material/rules, who are each coming at it from different "football" backgrounds (i.e. rugby v Aust football), will each reach different conclusions on some matters.

It doesn't mean each isn't entitled to articulate their particular view, or that they are right or wrong.

What the debate does do is enable each of us to understand the various views and opinions offered, and then hopefully we can be closer to coming to an agreed understanding of what happened in the Scotch College match of 1858.

I have considered the points raised and made some comments in response for anyone interested.

cheers
sf
 

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
I was just reading one of your articles... http://www.rl1908.com/History/crossbar.htm

And I was wondering what you thought of AFL really being a cross of Rugby and Soccer rules. The no offside rule like in soccer (well you know what I mean when I say no offside rule, no structure like rugby). Even the marking up on the field from that picture of the game, suggests that rugby and soccer both had a similar influence on AFL. Seems they just borrowed rules from both games to create there own.

You could probably retort the idiots on bigfooty with just this line..
Australian rules began in 1858, adopting the bulk of rugby's rules - with the notable inclusion of two soccer principles - no off-side and the absence of the crossbar.
 
Top