Expansion plans cloudy: NRL

[bobmar28]

Don't worry, Nemesis. If Clod 9 loses the Storm, he'll just go and happily become a life long supporter of the next club.

On the other hand if your team fails I assume you will become an instant AFL supporter. Oh that's right, you already did.

 

[Loudstrat]

I don't see why expanding the NRL would have a negative impact on the other 16 teams.

No one has suggested that expansion will mean:
Less NRL grant
Less Fixtures
Culling of teams to make space
Loss of sponsors

so why would it have a negative effect? If anything surely the whole point of expanding will to be bring in areas that will lead to a bigger TV deal

Totally agree to that point. Well done - you do have a brain sometimes.

and better corporate sponsorship for the NRL which will lead to bigger grants and better sponsorship opportunities for clubs?

Disagree. Expansion will mean more sponsors only because of what a new team would glean through their existance. A team in Perth would not improve the corporate dollar available to, say, Canberra.

I wonder if we will have managed to drop behind soccer by then? AFL will probably be well out of sight.

Maybe in the 3 most obscure cities on earth. Certainly not in NRL heartland.

What ever Mr Semantics, I'll let you worry about the trivial stuff.

Can you imagine if Sydneysiders adopted your attitude of "It's my team or no team?"
RL would cease to exist in NSW.

Letr me get this straight. Being an ardent supporter of a Sydney side will mean the code would die?

HOW THE FRIGGIN HELL DOES THAT MAKE SENSE???????????:crazy:

Gallop and his team at the nrl = We know NOTHING, we do NOTHING!

Clearly we are going to be left far behind afl/soccer and even union.

Where? In Geelong? Port Pirie? Kangaroo Island????

As I said earlier Liverpool has never had a team but this area is solid league territory.

If people say they will switch codes if their suburbs team is no longer viable then they were never league fans to start with.

A market exists because of how people spend their money NOW, not for some stupid hypothetical in the future. Yes, if Coke closed down, people would drink Pepsi. So what?

Maybe they are League fans BECAUSE they have a passion for their club.

On the other hand if your team fails I assume you will become an instant AFL supporter. Oh that's right, you already did.

Umm - how is life in your rubber room?

My team never failed to begin with. I am not an AFL supporter. This is basic information - protozoa could understand that. You can't. Your lobotomy obviously worked.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

As I said earlier Liverpool has never had a team but this area is solid league territory.

If people say they will switch codes if their suburbs team is no longer viable then they were never league fans to start with.

 

[Nemesis]

There have been 2 mergers since 1999 yet there are MORE league fans (and juniors) today than there ever were.

That's BS... all you have to do is look at the crowd figures for the qualifying finals series in 1994 versus 2008...

P.S. and don't bother telling me that most of the 2008 series was played at smaller grounds, as none of the crowds reached the capacity of those stadiums.

RL Qualifying Finals Series Crowds 1994
Bears v Raiders (SFS) - 33,641
Sea Eagles v Broncos (SFS) - 34,891
Bears v Broncos (SFS) - 36,011
Bulldogs v Raiders (SFS) - 41,941

RL Qualifying Finals Series Crowds 2008
Roosters v Broncos (SFS) - 18,343
Sharks v Raiders (Toyota Stadium) - 18,252
Sea Eagles v Dragons (Brookvale Oval) - 19,227
Storm v Warriors (Olympic Park) - 15,193

 

[Nemesis]

Nemisis, if you are referring to me in the above post...let it be known I don't want any of the present clubs to die, especially in Sydney as its the heartland of rugby league. I have always posted that all clubs will survive if their supporters get behind them and hence my big push for memberships.

BUT what I would like to see is that the NRL has a plan on expanding the game outside of the cities where rugby league is already played, e.g. Perth/Adelaide or even PNG for its own survival otherwise rugby league is going to be left far behind other codes. Expansion means better fta and foxtel tv rights,etc. which means more money coming into the game. We are stuck in a hole atm and can't climb out of it.

MsStorm, I was responding to Cloud9.... but FTR, I totally agree with your sentiments.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

That's BS... all you have to do is look at the crowd figures for the qualifying finals series in 1994 versus 2008...

P.S. and don't bother telling me that most of the 2008 series was played at smaller grounds, as none of the crowds reached the capacity of those stadiums.

RL Qualifying Finals Series Crowds 1994
Bears v Raiders (SFS) - 33,641
Sea Eagles v Broncos (SFS) - 34,891
Bears v Broncos (SFS) - 36,011
Bulldogs v Raiders (SFS) - 41,941

RL Qualifying Finals Series Crowds 2008
Roosters v Broncos (SFS) - 18,343
Sharks v Raiders (Toyota Stadium) - 18,252
Sea Eagles v Dragons (Brookvale Oval) - 19,227
Storm v Warriors (Olympic Park) - 15,193

WOW!

You convinced me

NOT!

' Rugby league's popularity is at a high and the NRL is certain to create crowd records this year - with numbers once thought unattainable. Attendance figures are up 10 per cent and the code is set to smash average crowd records by more than 1500 a game.
Season average crowds have never broken the 15,000 barrier - the record season average is 14,671 set last year - but the 16,000 mark is likely to be breached in 2005.'


http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/records-tumble-as-crowd-figures-soar/2005/08/13/1123353541122.html

'The average attendance of 15,595 was down one per cent on 2007, with three Sydney clubs in positive territory. Success sits well with Sydney fans; the Sharks (third this year, 11th in 2008) increased home crowds 21 per cent, the best gain in the NRL. The Roosters' return to finals football also worked, with the club claiming crowds are up 17 per cent.'

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...own-by-too-much/2008/09/08/1220857456186.html

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html

My biggest problem of you criticism is that you took the highest average attended playoff year (38,431) since 1972 and then equated this to falling supporter numbers and juniors.

Yeah way to manipulate stats

But wait i can do it to:

Playoff total crowds:
1994 - 230,583
2008 - 287,119

57,000 more attended 2008 playoffs then 1994. FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND!

Total crowds
1994 - 2,501,806 at an average of 14,215
2008 - 2,993,158 at an average of 15,591

But supporter numbers are down right??
Then why are the average crowds up by 1,300 since 1994

You just took one round to support your arguments but when you dig deeper your argument is proven to be TOTAL BULLSH!T!

2008 was the fourth best attended year since at least 1957
And the best four years have been 2005, 2007, 2006, 2008

So again how is supporter numbers dropping when the four best attendance years have been the previous four. Huh?

Idiot!

 

[Loudstrat]

So how the f**k is that because of the mergers??????

 

[Perth Red]

Totally agree to that point. Well done - you do have a brain sometimes.

Steady on, I prefer you when your abusive!

Disagree. Expansion will mean more sponsors only because of what a new team would glean through their existance. A team in Perth would not improve the corporate dollar available to, say, Canberra.

Lets take the CoffeeClub who sponsor Broncos. They have outlets in cities that currently have no NRL team and no FTA coverage in those large population centres. With an NRL team we could expect to see FTA NRL be shown in the cities, this gives companies like the Coffee Club much greater exposure to their markets and therefore it isn't unreasonable to expect they would pay more money for that.

The average club sponsorship in AFL is much greater that of NRL clubs. Taking poor NRL club admin aside the fact that AFL is shown FTA nationally and has a club presence in all the major capital cities has to play a part in that. If I'm a national company I want national exposure for my sponsorship $.
.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

So how the f**k is that because of the mergers??????

One guy said:
"There have been 2 mergers since 1999 yet there are MORE league fans (and juniors) today than there ever were."

You said that is a lie by using a non-arbitrary playoff round in 1994

I proved to you that since 1957 the four biggest attended years, in terms of numbers and averages, have been the previous four years absolutely proving you wrong.

Do you understand?

 

[Nemesis]

Attendance figures are up 10 per cent and the code is set to smash average crowd records by more than 1500 a game.

So you're basing your argument on a newspaper article... lol. Attendance figures are up 10% on what?... the previous year, 20 years ago? What I was illustrating numbnuts , is that Rugby League attendances have not grown at all in real terms since 1994. In 1994 Australia's population was was 17,000,000, now it's over 21,000,000 (an increase of 23%), yet in the same period RL attendance figures have only increased 10%. You can pull as many attendance figures out of your arse as you want tool, but it won't change the facts.

My biggest problem of you criticism is that you took the highest average attended playoff year (38,431) since 1972 and then equated this to falling supporter numbers and juniors.

No, the reason I used 1994 as an example is because that was the year before the start of the Super League fiasco, which set Rugby League back 20 years.

Then why are the average crowds up by 1,300 since 1994

Wow... it's only taken 18 years to increase average crowds by 1,300. Pretty poor really and down in real terms, considering Australia's population growth in that period (but you can thank SL for that).
I don't follow AFL, but their administrators would be rofl at those numbers.

You just took one round to support your arguments but when you dig deeper your argument is proven to be TOTAL BULLSH!T!

Keep digging your hole Electric Airhead... You just wrote about 15 paragraphs of total sh*t.

So again how is supporter numbers dropping when the four best attendance years have been the previous four. Huh?
Idiot!

Once again, what I was illustrating is that Rugby League attendances haven't grown in real terms in the last 18 yrs. Show me where I said they were dropping, imbecile (although in real terms they have).

 

[ElectricEelMan]

So you're basing your argument on a newspaper article... lol. Attendance figures are up 10% on what?... the previous year, 20 years ago? What I was illustrating numbnuts , is that Rugby League attendances have not grown at all in real terms since 1994. In 1994 Australia's population was was 17,000,000, now it's over 21,000,000 (an increase of 23%), yet in the same period RL attendance figures have only increased 10%. You can pull as many attendance figures out of your arse as you want tool, but it won't change the facts.

No, the reason I used 1994 as an example is because that was the year before the start of the Super League fiasco, which set Rugby League back 20 years.

Wow... it's only taken 18 years to increase average crowds by 1,300. Pretty poor really and down in real terms, considering Australia's population growth in that period (but you can thank SL for that).
I don't follow AFL, but their administrators would be rofl at those numbers.

Keep digging your hole Electric Airhead... You just wrote about 15 paragraphs of total sh*t.

Once again, what I was illustrating is that Rugby League attendances haven't grown in real terms in the last 18 yrs. Show me where I said they were dropping, imbecile (although in real terms they have).

And you have wrote a total bullsh!t reply

You said total supporters have DROPPED!

No where did you mention this in 'real terms'

But since i proved you wrong now you invoke 'real terms' in your argument

Simply there are more supporters now then there have even been and that was the whole basis of the argument.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

Once again, what I was illustrating is that Rugby League attendances haven't grown in real terms in the last 18 yrs. Show me where I said they were dropping, imbecile (although in real terms they have).

Are u drunk or high or do you have amnesia?

A guy wrote that there are more supporters now than ever before

Yet you wrote that was BS and tried to use a playoff round in 1994 - 5 years before any mergers to prove your point

So in effect you DID SAY SUPPORTER NUMBERS HAVE DROPPED!

Or don't you understand logic either?

 

[Iafeta]

For the record, you are both right.

Nemesis is talking about percentage changes in attendances versus percentage changes in population. He's correct that the growth in crowds do not match population changes. Also, its worth considering in 1994 teams such as the Warriors, North Queensland, Melbourne Storm, did not even exist. Unbelievably, during that interim period Adelaide Rams, Western Reds, North Sydney Bears, Hunter Mariners, South Queensland Crushers have all fallen by the way side, South Sydney and Gold Coast have been, gone and come back, Illawarra and St George have lost their seperate identities as has Western Suburbs Magpies and Balmain Tigers. We had the bitter war in that period too. All in all, it's been an era with much revolution and there is a lot of problems that have arisen from it. Some will have long term advantages strategically, such as the Warriors, Cowboys and Storm opening up new advertising sub markets for sponsors to put their money into the NRL for.

ElectricEelMan is talking about nominal percentage changes in attendances. This is also correct. It doesn't take into consideration though the change in population.

However, change in population also does not take into consideration change in demographic trends. A large reason for Australia's population boom is due to globalisation and the ensuing immigration of either people looking for a better life or labour's demand for qualified specialists. Most of these people who come to Australia probably have not heard a lot about rugby league before they arrive here. Also, when they come to Australia, even if they are sports motivated, there are now an abundance of different options for them to spend their money on - as sad as it sounds, AFL is nationalised, the A-League has set up well geographically if not in a sparse manner, 20/20 cricket is pouring ticket money into cricket while test cricket in particular still stays very strong in Australia, rugby union since 1994 has expanded and become more professional with the advent of Super 12/14 and the SANZAR Tri-Nations, etc. So one should not expect a 23% increase correlating over this period. Without referring to figures, aside from start up competitions or complete overhauls of competitions, I doubt 23% increases have been felt across the codes.

The other massive aspect since 1994 to 2008 and now 2009 is the improvement of media broadcasts. Nowadays, you can watch 5 or so games live in the comfort of your own home. I would suggest trends would show a stark increase in non-free TV subscriptions and it would probably be with some trade off to attending games.

Overall, while ticket numbers are useful, the main thing to take into consideration for the health of the game is actual real dollars spent. Not only on tickets, but also the media contracts, advertising, merchandise et al in contrast to the increase in cost expenditure over this period. We need to analyse player participation across the levels, and also we need to look at the long term impact of the state government reforms on pokie tax to understand their impact on various clubs who are heavily reliant on these revenue streams. Put simply, pure crowd numbers only give half the picture of where the game is at.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

For the record, you are both right.

However, change in population also does not take into consideration change in demographic trends. A large reason for Australia's population boom is due to globalisation and the ensuing immigration of either people looking for a better life or labour's demand for qualified specialists. Most of these people who come to Australia probably have not heard a lot about rugby league before they arrive here.

I should have mentioned this
2008 saw one of the largest increases in the population of Australia of which 59% were immigrants. Those who immigrant won't support local sports such as rugby league or AFL for a while if ever, in fact it is their children who will support rugby league.

So if we assume that of that 4 million population increase since 1994 only 50% comes through births then that 23% falls to near 10% which is equal to the percentage increase in the crowd numbers since .... is it a coincidence?

 

[mightybears]

The North Shore was never rugby league territory. Also the Swans have the whole of Sydney and yet they are going downhill.

Never RL territoty my arse, it had more juniors in the 90's than easts or balmain, produced internationals up to Florimo, still throws up the mitchell pearce's and the foran's with no nrl team!

 

[ElectricEelMan]

So if we assume that of that 4 million population increase since 1994 only 50% comes through births then that 23% falls to near 10% which is equal to the percentage increase in the crowd numbers since .... is it a coincidence?

By the way, population was 17.2 million in 1991 so the increase from 1994 to 2008 would have been closer 3 million so that population percentage increase is only around 17%

So now we can say between 1994-2008:
a) population increase around 17%
b) population increase through births around 9%
c) rugby league crowd increase around 10%

That sounds about right.

So in the ultimate 'real terms' when taking into account changing demographics, the increase in rugby league supporters is about the same as the increase in births. RL support is not 'dropping'.

 

[Nemesis]

You said total supporters have DROPPED!

So where's the quote where I said it?

But since i proved you wrong now you invoke 'real terms' in your argument

The only thing you've proven is that you're a dickwad with the intelligence of a toad.

Simply there are more supporters now then there have even been

Not in real terms there isn't.

 

[Perth Red]

I should have mentioned this
2008 saw one of the largest increases in the population of Australia of which 59% were immigrants. Those who immigrant won't support local sports such as rugby league or AFL for a while if ever, in fact it is their children who will support rugby league.

So if we assume that of that 4 million population increase since 1994 only 50% comes through births then that 23% falls to near 10% which is equal to the percentage increase in the crowd numbers since .... is it a coincidence?

Not sure I agree. Alot of people when moving to here look for ways to become "Australian" this often includes following the local sport.

Indeed Sheedy was in the paper here the other day suggesting the AFL should get adverts into immigration newspapers etc and have stands at citizenship ceremonies to sign up new immigrants as members of their local AFL club.

Whilst many retain the interst in their original countries sport, such as Europeans and soccer, my experience is many do look to assimiliate and take on a local club to follow.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

Not sure I agree. Alot of people when moving to here look for ways to become "Australian" this often includes following the local sport.

Indeed Sheedy was in the paper here the other day suggesting the AFL should get adverts into immigration newspapers etc and have stands at citizenship ceremonies to sign up new immigrants as members of their local AFL club.

Whilst many retain the interst in their original countries sport, such as Europeans and soccer, my experience is many do look to assimiliate and take on a local club to follow.

Well, it is good to go after the immigrants but in reality it takes a LOT of time and EFFORT and isn't assured of success.

I work with and know a lot immigrants, some of them have been here 30 years. None of them are into Australian sports. But their children are.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

So where's the quote where I said it?

The only thing you've proven is that you're a dickwad with the intelligence of a toad.

Not in real terms there isn't.

Do you understand what the word 'imply' means?
You implied it dickhead
F*ck you are geniused!
Go back and you will see how you implied. I have already pointed out yo you at least 10 times, but i suppose your geniusation can only make you understand the simplest of things. So here it is again:

One dude said 'crowds are up'
You said that is 'bullsh*t' - see definition of 'imply'
I said you are wrong

Do you understand now, dipsh!t?

You just may the first person in the world with a negative IQ