hang me for saying this but the NRL needs to go national or go down the drain

[magpie_man]

the way that little pissant that does the weather on channel 10 news carries on you'd swear afl was played by every man, woman and child in sydney.

 

[adamkungl]

I'm about to finish school, and out of every kid i've ever known I don't a single one who's played AFL for a club, and only a few that played for school. What does that say about the strength of AFL in Sydney?

 

[Perth Red]

I would take the AFL's presence in NSW and Q'land over the NRL's in WA, SA and Victoria any day!!!

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Mate, I feel your pain but it isn't going to happen in the short term and it shouldn't happen in the short term. We need another place to pour dough into for little return like we need to change the rules to ape Rugby Union.

There's only one solution; move to a League-friendly state.

I understand that it's frustrating for League fans in non-League states but there just isn't enough interest to warrant up and moving a team there at the moment. For what it's worth I put a second NZ team in that basket as well.

Sure, it's Super League's fault and we can't have a mulligan on that one so it just has to be the way it is for the moment. Maybe in another 10 years Perth will be on the agenda again with a view to a Perth side in 15 or so.

I doubt that Adelaide will ever be on the agenda again.

AFL have spent squillions on Sydney and Brisbane, given them 600k bigger salary caps than their heartland teams and for what?

Plummetting ratings, crowds that are 100% based on table position and a massive drama for the 7 and 10 networks next year who've paid out huge dollars for a sport that just doesn't rate in the second and third largest states in Australia.

See how 7 & 10 feel about paying massively over the odds when they get creamed in NSW and Qld on Friday nights, which they'll have to show if they don't get an agreement with a PayTV carrier. And even if they do, League beats AFL on Friday nights more often than not right now, let alone with a live match next year.

 

[Perth Red]

I agree and nor should a RL team in AFL territory be introduced in the next 4-5 years. Having said that if RL doesn't have a strategic plan for expanding the game we will never expand our game beyond the CC/GC types of expansion teams. I want to see the NRL come out with a plan of action for the areas it sees as key expansion areas. I don't want to see in 4 years time them call for expressions of interest in new franchises if the hard work hasn't been done.

Will be very interesting in 4 years time to see how AFL is doing in NSW/Q'land with the extra media coverage and how they do in the next TV deal. You have to admit getting an extra $280mill should be telling us something about teh value of a national competition!

 

[russ13]

On the subject of a national coverage it is interesting to note the populations of regional & rural areas in Australia.

Depending on what statistic you look at the regional & rural areas of NSW & Queensland at present hold a population of somewhere between 4.5 million & 6 million people.

Here are the official Australian estimates at 31 December 2001:

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/c85cbe3e5e0f324bca256a16008312f7!OpenDocument
(millions)
NSW 6.642
VIC 4.854
QLD 3.670
SA 1.518
WA 1,918
TAS .498
NT .198
ACT .322

Total 19.603
(BTW the Australian population is now estimated to be about a million more.)

So on those figures SA & WA have about 17% of Australia's population ( & have no NRL teams). However, this is well short of regional & rural population numbers in Queensland & NSW. In these latter areas the NRL has Newcastle, Townsville, Canberra, half of St George Illawarra & now the Gold Coast. The AFL don't have any teams there. So on a population basis the NRL has a bigger coverage Australia-wide.


RL also has the advantage that the population centres are growing faster:

(Estimated population growth per year in % & absolute terms)

NSW 1.1 or about 73,000
VIC 1.3 or about 62,400
QLD 1.9 or about 70,000
SA .5 or about 3,750
WA 1.3 or about 39,000
TAS .2 or about 1,000
NT .7 or about 1,500
ACT 1 or anout 3000



The outlook for South Australia population looks bleak. Here is what the stat's department were saying:

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/3ef0ff4f060c37d4ca256b350010b3fe!OpenDocument
The populations of most States and of the Territories are expected to increase over the projection period, with the largest increases projected for the Northern Territory (between 36% and 163%), followed by Queensland (between 53% and 106%) and Western Australia (between 44% and 87%) which are well above those of Australia (between 27% and 49%).

Tasmania and South Australia are the only States where the population is projected to decline under each projection series. Tasmania's population is projected to decline by between 7% and 51% by 2051, from 470,300 in 1999 to between 231,300 and 435,700 in 2051. South Australia's population is projected to be between 1,410,500 and 1,477,100 persons in 2051, a decline of between 1% and 6% from its 1999 level of 1,493,100.

Perth Red I agree with EA I too share your pain. Perhaps in the short term NRL trials & competition games should be taken there. I maybe wrong but I don't see the west embracing union for too much longer. This is because:

1) All the WA franchise's team are imports. Transported teams teams are given support when they are winning. The WA haven't won a game at home yet & will only beat Queensland next season. Their only saving grace is that they attracted good crowds for a hopeless side. A more discerning public would have given them the flick;

2) Not FTA TV coverage & the Super 14 season is to short;

3) The local union's representative team couln't beat the Northern Territory (a poor standard team) in a recent clash. So it would seem that they have no emerging local talent & no locals to relate too. At least WA has produced NRL players' Matt Peterson & Daniel Holdsworth.

 

[Thomas]

Kurt

I got this from a TRL thread. As you know Thomas aks as Aflies Thumb had this said about him over there:

The fan of both codes said he can't remember making this statement.

Russ...please find the thread where I said "the lions have over 50% of home grown players in their squad".

And if you don't...please remove that post as it is a figment of that posters imagination. I have never said such a thing.

But thanks for stalking me you senile old f**ktard! :lol:

 

[t-ba]

Will be very interesting in 4 years time to see how AFL is doing in NSW/Q'land with the extra media coverage and how they do in the next TV deal. You have to admit getting an extra $280mill should be telling us something about teh value of a national competition!

That they paid overs?

As good as this is for the AFL NOW, this isn't good for the AFL when the next TV offer comes. If Ten or Seven suffer hardship (And they will...and Channel 9 will, instead of attempting to create a new stable to rival Ch7, will simple buy there Desperate Housewives and there Losts from under them), and Vlad Demetriou refuses to do anything to help them out, They won't be forgiving during the next negotiations.

The Best case scenario for either Ch10 or Ch7 is that the other partner in this deal goes skint and they get out of the contract.

 

[t-ba]

So on those figures SA & WA have about 17% of Australia's population ( & have no NRL teams). However, this is well short of regional & rural population numbers in Queensland & NSW. In these latter areas the NRL has Newcastle, Townsville, Canberra, half of St George Illawarra & now the Gold Coast. The AFL don't have any teams there. So on a population basis the NRL has a bigger coverage Australia-wide.

No were not I'm afraid.

Adelaide and Perth = 1.5+1.1=2.6m
RL centres= 510K+482k+371k+275k = >2.5m

Adding Perth would tip the scales decisevely in our favour though.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Thanks Russ.

I was part way into doing something similar to show that AFL isn't really national. When your only regional representation is Geelong in a country where 1/4 of the population is regional, a national competition it aint.

 

[magpie_man]

That they paid overs?

As good as this is for the AFL NOW, this isn't good for the AFL when the next TV offer comes. If Ten or Seven suffer hardship (And they will...and Channel 9 will, instead of attempting to create a new stable to rival Ch7, will simple buy there Desperate Housewives and there Losts from under them), and Vlad Demetriou refuses to do anything to help them out, They won't be forgiving during the next negotiations.

The Best case scenario for either Ch10 or Ch7 is that the other partner in this deal goes skint and they get out of the contract.

if foxtel doesn't pick up any afl games next year there are going to be a lot of insomniac afl supporters out there. add to this channel 7's v8 supercar commitments, we could be seeing the afl being aired at 8am the next day in afl heartlands.

 

[Perth Red]

Is the Gold Coast regional?

As you know the difficulty with regional is the distances. How much of a population does say Canberra really support? Do fans travel the 3-8 hours each way to get to games and support clubs?

Agreed re Union in the West, unless they win the comp in the next two years or at least get to a final then croWds will be down to 10-15,000 I reckon by 2010 which is the date the NRL/WARL have been touting as time to reintroduce a Perth team (too early I think, 2012 would be more realistic IF they start work now)