The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[siv]

Ratings dont mean much anymore with so many drifting away and watch on streaming services

And to it events that used to be on FTA are not on FTA so ratings machines just reflect that residual crowd

Most figures just reflect a lazy trend these days

 

[Wb1234]

Yes, the AFL team that currently represents Canberra. Why can't they out rate or out draw the Raiders if there are so many AFL fans?

They just need to build a 30k oval for them it will be full each week

You keep repeating these things like they mean something when all it does is expose your confirmation bias.

Ratings for Canberra are bundled into the Southern NSW regional numbers, and the sample size for Canberra/ACT itself is only roughly 200 households. In other words any numbers you see claiming to be numbers for just Canberra/ACT are literal guesstimates extrapolated either from the Southern NSW numbers or data collected from about 200 household, making them effectively meaningless.
In saying all that, it wouldn't be surprising if the NRL outrates the AFL in Canberra given that Canberra has an NRL side but no AFL side, but we simply don't know because that data isn't being collected. So not only is the sample size for ratings in Canberra so low that it makes the numbers effectively meaningless, but you aren't comparing like for like even if Nielsen were collecting solid data in the ACT.

Claiming that any of GWS's statistics in Canberra are particularly meaningful is just ignorance, or you're being intentionally dishonest about GWS's cultural significance in Canberra. GWS aren't a Canberran team, most people in Canberra, local or expat alike (even hardcore AFL fans), don't give a shit about them and never will. So again you aren't comparing like for like.

Haha this is epic

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The crowds are similar and it’s been a couple of years since I’ve been to the GC but when I was there last there was advertisement everywhere for the suns and essentially non for the Titans. What are you going off to say the Suns aren’t as big as the Titans?

The crowds aren't similar. Titans 17k, Suns 13k. Titans have 8 of the top 10 crowds on the Gold Coast this year.

Advertising means nothing, that just means the AFL are spending shit loads to try and get a foothold.

Other than the Titans superior NRL crowds, the TV ratings and participation are significantly ahead for RL.

 

[Wb1234]

Parramatta Eels appoint Kane Constructions NSW to build Centre of Excellence

The Parramatta Eels have appointed Kane Constructions NSW to deliver its Centre of Excellence and Community Facility at Kellyville Park.

www.parraeels.com.au

 

[Wb1234]

Cmon with all the fans on here of ex super league clubs one of you sign up for a DT subscription

you can’t expect us loyalists to give more money to those scum

 

[Wb1234]

Up the beers

 

[The Great Dane]

So again I ask, if AFL is more popular in Canberra, then why aren't the fans getting behind it in greater numbers when it's in town?

Because the vast majority of people support a club not the sport/league.

Most Aussie Rules fans in Canberra have little interest in GWS matches unless the team they support is participating. You can participate in performative stupidity and pretend that isn't the case if you like, but it is what it is.

Also, Canberra is by far the largest city in that southern nsw region, and whilst I agree a small sample we still have the nrl as the main game.

Regional Tam's sample for Southern NSW is 635 Households.

230 of those are from Canberra, 227 from Wollongong, and 179 from the rest of Southern NSW as they define it (Wagga, Dubbo, Orange, etc), which is different from how Southern NSW is traditionally defined.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you, when you see ratings data claiming to be just for Canberra it's extrapolated from the Southern NSW data of which Canberra/the ACT represents a minority of the sample, and as such it's influenced by the rest of the Southern NSW market which is an extremely different from the ACT both culturally and in their social make up. In other words they're literally glorified guesstimates informed by poorly sampled data.

The crux of your argument is that the AFL would be bigger given certain circumstances that may or may not eventuate. Whereas the actual support for both codes in the city shows RL as number 1

Again you're arguing against a claim I never made. . .

I never claimed the AFL or AR is or would be bigger, I said that Aussie Rules and RL are roughly the same size in Canberra, i.e. neither is particularly more popular than the other, and that a Canberra AFL side lunched tomorrow would be as big as, if not slightly bigger than the Raiders, from day one.

The first claim is simply true, you might not want to accept it but you're simply ignorant and it is what it is, and it isn't hard to imagine that the second is likely given the different attitudes towards attendance and memberships between the two sports and the pattern of AFL sides converting more of their fans into members and attendees on average than their NRL counterparts.

 

[The Great Dane]

Ratings for tv audiences in Canberra and everywhere else across Australia are subjected to a validated sampling system. They would accurately reflect the viewership for each code and any other programming . To say otherwise is self serving

Yeah, but the sample they're validating is Southern NSW not Canberra. That's the whole problem with ratings numbers claiming to be just for Canberra lol.

I posted participation data for the ACT region which showed afl had less than half the participants of league back in 2013. Since then our participation has increased by over 50% as demonstrated by data available on line. For afl to have the same level of participation their numbers would have to have tripled.

if you go to the AFL Canberra site it’s obvious league poops all over them particularly for teams between under 6s to under 13s. It’s not even close.

LOL, decade old data isn't particularly valuable to begin with, and your data included places outside of Canberra. 2013 is also the first year of the AFL's big expansion of spending in the region.

All of RL participation growth in the ACT has come through female participation and touch (i.e. not actually RL), male participation numbers in the actual sport have been steadily trending down.

AFL participation has been steadily growing across the board since then. They have more clubs and teams in Canberra itself (not the Capital Region) than RL.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I can't tell if this pompous windbag is an afl troll or a dope.

So I'm going to go with both

 

[Pneuma]

Yeah, but the sample they're validating is Southern NSW not Canberra. That's the whole problem with ratings numbers claiming to be just for Canberra lol.

LOL, decade old data isn't particularly valuable to begin with, and your data included places outside of Canberra. 2013 is also the first year of the AFL's big expansion of spending in the region.

All of RL participation growth in the ACT has come through female participation and touch (i.e. not actually RL), male participation numbers in the actual sport have been steadily trending down.

AFL participation has been steadily growing across the board since then. They have more clubs and teams in Canberra itself (not the Capital Region) than RL.

And lol at you. The afl participation data includes teams as far away as Batemans Bay. I acknowledged the data was a decade old. What I said was that participation in league since then has grown by 50%. It does not include touch so I suggest you withdraw that. The simple fact is, no matter how much you might not like it, the afl and NRL websites, which include all their fixtures, demonstrate league poops all over afl particularly in Juniors. I must say though that I truly admire your commitment to being absolutely negative about everything.

 

[Pneuma]

I can't tell if this pompous windbag is an afl troll or a dope.

So I'm going to go with both

It’s a bloody drag responding to him too. Jesus the bloody afl and NRL fixtures sites prove without any doubt league is stronger in the region and that both codes include clubs outside the Canberra region yet he still runs the game down.

 

[ground zero]

ADELAIDE sharks

 

[ground zero]

Brisbane Tigers

 

[ground zero]

Perth Pirates . 16 teams

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Perth Pirates . 16 teams

We've already got 17. Which two are you going to cut?

 

[beave]

Can we talk about stadiums again?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Can we talk about stadiums again?

View attachment 79676

Can we have another 3 or 4 of those?

 

[Jamberoo]

Yeah, but the sample they're validating is Southern NSW not Canberra. That's the whole problem with ratings numbers claiming to be just for Canberra lol.

LOL, decade old data isn't particularly valuable to begin with, and your data included places outside of Canberra. 2013 is also the first year of the AFL's big expansion of spending in the region.

All of RL participation growth in the ACT has come through female participation and touch (i.e. not actually RL), male participation numbers in the actual sport have been steadily trending down.

AFL participation has been steadily growing across the board since then. They have more clubs and teams in Canberra itself (not the Capital Region) than RL.

And lol at you. The afl participation data includes teams as far away as Batemans Bay. I acknowledged the data was a decade old. What I said was that participation in league since then has grown by 50%. It does not include touch so I suggest you withdraw that. The simple fact is, no matter how much you might not like it, the afl and NRL websites, which include all their fixtures, demonstrate league poops all over afl particularly in Juniors. I must say though that I truly admire your commitment to being absolutely negative about everything.

Perhaps one of you could post the actual team numbers that you are referring to, you know to decide this Canberra participation debate once and for all.

 

[Pneuma]

Perhaps one of you could post the actual team numbers that you are referring to, you know to decide this Canberra participation debate once and for all.

Perhaps you could get off your ass and find the data yourself? It isn’t hard.

 

[Jamberoo]

Perhaps you could get off your ass and find the data yourself? It isn’t hard.

Anyone would think that you simply make up everything you post. Not capable of backing anything up or providing examples. Preferring to make personal insults as a way to get your point across.

At least give us some numbers. Is RL participation 10% higher? 20%? 30%? More?

And you spent ages posting about the ratings. How much higher is RL? 50%? 100%? Or were just you making that up?