Financial fragility of the game

[taipan]

He's a News Ltd man and sees it as competition to what they want. he thinks it won't survive. Which I think is the same with ours News will take control they have 7yrs to get it right.

Protect their interests.

I would be just as concerned about Foxtel surviving in the long run.They are losing money hand over fist as it is.
Whilst ever there are Commissions on board,I doubt any media organisation can or will take over the game.As long as there are other FTA stations and contract deals are not like the ones of the past bloated, there should be competitive tension by them.

IMO the clubs will have to be financed down the road (20 years)by private individuals, in order to survive.That may mean rationalisation ,which I dread, maybe it won't.

Who knows what the landscape will be after this virus catastrophe, almost certainly unemployment will be well up and that will impact clubs and codes.

 

[The Great Dane]

There are also massive population differences.

Look at the Cleveland Browns. Cleveland the city may only only be the size of Newcaste but the Browns area is all of north-east Ohio, which includes other cities like Akron, Canton, Toledo and dozens others. Their drawing area actually has a population of more than five million. This is true for basically every American sports team.

It’s easy to get a crowd when you’ve got a fan base bigger than the population of Sydney to yourself.

Also, American sports still have blackout rules. I wonder what the effect on crowds would be here if games weren’t televised into the local market unless sold out?

Once boiled down this is just an argument of scale, i.e. it totally misses the point that was being made.

If success is the only way to grow a fan-base, as was being argued, then the population in a market makes no difference, because no matter how hard you tried it'd be impossible to grow your fan-base if you were losing.

Obviously that isn't the case because the Cubs, Leafs, etc, were all successful in growing and maintaining passionate fan-bases despite there losing ways.

I also didn't argue that if Australian clubs had better marketing, community engagement, etc, that they would necessarily grow fan-bases as big in numbers as American or European clubs from huge markets.
However, in saying that I wouldn't say it's impossible, especially when considering that Clevelands' average attendance last year was 67,431 (which is middle of the road for NFL teams) and both Richmond and Collingwood are extremely close to that number on 65k and 64k respectively.

 

[mongoose]

Winning games and premierships begets a bigger fanbase. There is no other way. How do you think Souths, Canterbury, Parra and St George got their supporter bases? It is not a guarantee though. You have to have enough people identify with your brand, which explains the comparatively limited followings of Manly and the Roosters, considering the on-field success they've had.

It's the most important thing. If your team isn't doing everything it can to win a premiership then fans will not bother. What's the point in following a team that just wants to be a farm for the good of Rugby League?

 

[Timbo]

However, in saying that I wouldn't say it's impossible, especially when considering that Clevelands' average attendance last year was 67,431 (which is middle of the road for NFL teams)

It being ‘middle of the road’ probably has more to do with their stadium capacity being 67,500 than any other forces keeping numbers away.

 

[TheFrog]

It's the most important thing. If your team isn't doing everything it can to win a premiership then fans will not bother. What's the point in following a team that just wants to be a farm for the good of Rugby League?

Every team is trying, but only 50% of the teams in a game of footy can win. You've got teams that perennially win more than they lose, ie Broncos, Roosters, Storm, so this must be balanced by those that lose more than they win, ie Wests Tigers, Titans, Panthers traditionally, but we've done better recently, bang on 50% in the last decade. These teams have trouble increasing their fanbase and thus are under the most pressure financially. The NRL should be doing its utmost to make the comp even over a ten to twenty year period, but they seem to have given up on that. If the NRL feels that having strong and weak teams is in its interests, it needs to support the weak teams better.

It's kind of like pulling the economic levers so that there is always 5% unemployment, and then refusing to support those who end up in the 5%.

 

[big hit!]

It being ‘middle of the road’ probably has more to do with their stadium capacity being 67,500 than any other forces keeping numbers away.

HAHA!

Cleveland Browns fans are considered the most loyal and have filled 99.8% of seats in their stadium for the last seven overwhelmingly losing seasons.

What is marvellous though is a couple of AFL clubs in one city are able to hit 60k average, and competing with 7 other teams in the metropolitan.

 

[mongoose]

HAHA!

Cleveland Browns fans are considered the most loyal and have filled 99.8% of seats in their stadium for the last seven overwhelmingly losing seasons.

What is marvellous though is a couple of AFL clubs in one city are able to hit 60k average, and competing with 7 other teams in the metropolitan.

And its got nothing to do with those clubs having good front offices, or marketing or tidy annual reports, none of that shit. It's all to do with the culture of that city, nothing else.

 

[Perth Red]

And its got nothing to do with those clubs having good front offices, or marketing or tidy annual reports, none of that shit. It's all to do with the culture of that city, nothing else.

You might have a point if it wasnt being repeated in Sydney, Adelaide and Perth as well.
A positive media, decent stadiums, not giving up fan friendly Ko times and significant investment in membership growth, ticket prices for kids etc etc are more likely the reason than any "culture" of one city. Id also have to say RL is still seen as the blue collar game whilst afl (from what I've seen in the West) is seen as a more classless game (some might say lacking class ) and attracts a broader spectrum of Australians generally.

The thing that gives me hope is our TV audiences and social media are on par or better than afl so that would suggest there are people out there interested in the game, they are just not following a team with any conviction. How we convert them like AFL has done is the multi million $ (quite literally!) question!

 

[mongoose]

Well every city is different. The Brisbane Lions were enjoying 30k plus crowds during their premiership winning years 2002-2004. By the end of the decade it had fallen well below 20k, which isn't terrible but it was all because they were losing and didn't have attractive players.

 

[Perth Red]

Well every city is different. The Brisbane Lions were enjoying 30k plus crowds during their premiership winning years 2002-2004. By the end of the decade it had fallen well below 20k, which isn't terrible but it was all because they were losing and didn't have attractive players.

I think we've established sustained success or sustained failure will impact crowds. Its to what level. so if your success crowds are 16k then your bad crowds are going to be 10k. If they are 30k in good times they are 20k in bad times etc. Some clubs do have more resilient fans though who turn up regardless, Knights and Dockers being two examples in respective codes.

 

[hrundi99]

The Leafs scenario is a bit more complicated than fans just backing a club regardless of results.

The biggest city in Canada and the sport they're most passionate about.

An extended period over the 53 years with an owner who had no interest in running a successful team - the fans loyalty was to the club and the hope that a new owner would do things right.

There have also been good eras (early 90s', early 00s') where the club made conference finals, so they got close.

The current era is the most optimistic perhaps since '67, with an ownership group committed to winning (media company who understands the ratings/merch value of a successful team), a great front office and a highly talented young team albeit with a top-heavy salary cap.

 

[big hit!]

And its got nothing to do with those clubs having good front offices, or marketing or tidy annual reports, none of that shit. It's all to do with the culture of that city, nothing else.

culture of the city, or culture of the sport?

I'd say it's the later that affects attendance to rugby league. Money conceived the sport. Today, decisions focused only on quick $$$ have led to stagnant crowd growth and clubs reliant on the comp admin, or pokie dens, to get any coin.

As PR said, and I've been banging on about it forever, the NRL have turned rugby league in Australia into a lounge-room sport. 8 stand-alone time slots predominantly at TV friendly times in winter benefit the broadcasters rather than the attending fan. It means the game relies predominantly on TV money, and clubs hold out their hand for their cut as soon as the broadcasters quarterly payment hits the NRL account.

It's been detrimental to any case rugby league clubs have for government to improve game-day facilities. No one attends, so why spend any money on it.

See the cycle it propagates?

 

[TheFrog]

And its got nothing to do with those clubs having good front offices, or marketing or tidy annual reports, none of that shit. It's all to do with the culture of that city, nothing else.

The nature of the game as well. It's not the same on TV, whereas our game comes damn close.

 

[Perth Red]

The nature of the game as well. It's not the same on TV, whereas our game comes damn close.

That is largely a myth evidenced by the fact their TV figures are on par with ours.
Not sure if you've been to a live AFL game but you end up watching half of it on the big screen if your at either end as you are so far away from whats going on.

 

[Quicksilver]

Every team is trying, but only 50% of the teams in a game of footy can win. You've got teams that perennially win more than they lose, ie Broncos, Roosters, Storm, so this must be balanced by those that lose more than they win, ie Wests Tigers, Titans, Panthers traditionally, but we've done better recently, bang on 50% in the last decade. These teams have trouble increasing their fanbase and thus are under the most pressure financially. The NRL should be doing its utmost to make the comp even over a ten to twenty year period, but they seem to have given up on that. If the NRL feels that having strong and weak teams is in its interests, it needs to support the weak teams better.

It's kind of like pulling the economic levers so that there is always 5% unemployment, and then refusing to support those who end up in the 5%.

If the NRL were serious about growing the game they'd eliminate losing.

 

[hrundi99]

That is largely a myth evidenced by the fact their TV figures are on par with ours.
Not sure if you've been to a live AFL game but you end up watching half of it on the big screen if your at either end as you are so far away from whats going on.

But at the same time AFL works better live because you can see the overall positioning and movement of where the play can happen. It's frustrating watching only parts of the field on TV.

 

[Quicksilver]

That is largely a myth evidenced by the fact their TV figures are on par with ours.
Not sure if you've been to a live AFL game but you end up watching half of it on the big screen if your at either end as you are so far away from whats going on.

You may do, but you get a way better understanding of the positional play which can't be transferred to TV. This is the advantage of watching both sports live, but it's a lot more important in their game.

 

[TheFrog]

That is largely a myth evidenced by the fact their TV figures are on par with ours.
Not sure if you've been to a live AFL game but you end up watching half of it on the big screen if your at either end as you are so far away from whats going on.

Been to one in my life. Swans vs StKilda about 20 years ago, because my son wanted to go. It was quite spectacular but not good enough to make me ever go again.

 

[Perth Red]

You may do, but you get a way better understanding of the positional play which can't be transferred to TV. This is the advantage of watching both sports live, but it's a lot more important in their game.

If anything Id say the constant close ups in our Tv coverage dumbs the sport down for the viewer, when you watch it live, especially from the ends you get a much greater appreciation of how teams are offensively and defensively shifting around. Plus you get to yell offside at the ref more

 

[Perth Red]

Been to one in my life. Swans vs StKilda about 20 years ago, because my son wanted to go. It was quite spectacular but not good enough to make me ever go again.

Yeh same, when I first arrived 20 years ago Reds had been cut and obvious RL was dead here, love my sport so tried to get into following the Eagles. Went to around half a dozen games at Subiaco with new friends, great atmosphere and slick presentation but the constant substitutions and general chasing the ball around like it was kids soccer put me right off. Havent been to one since, now get my live fix down at North Beach watching the local RL comp. Still say its a myth that AFL is better live than NRL though given you cant see half the action from the cheap seats at an AFL game and due to size of their stadiums you do feel a looooong way from the action. NRL you are right on top of it, especially at somewhere like Bankwest or the Perth East stand.