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!

Nick Livermore speaks gibberish about expansion

Colk

First Grade
Messages
6,635
Mate .. if you can’t get it by now then you won’t get it…

The Swans and Giants for years were provided with a larger salary cap that they could spend to acquire better players … it was called a cost of liiving allowance … but essentially provided them with 10 percent extra …they could spend that additional amount to acquire another superstar player if they chose to …

Even eventually the AFL had to change their rules as it was proving to be too big an advantage as I pointed out in that article I posted …also it now goes to the lower paid players only …

Even though I have saiId I was joking about it applying to the NRL and Sydney … your point about how it doesn’t “ equate” to the NRL is not really relevant either… plenty of players in each Sydney based team come from outside of Sydney these days… whether it’s half like some NRL team or 95 percent like the Swans .. it’s the same argument …those players that move to Sydney from Regional NSW, QLD and NZ are the same as the Swans recruiting from VFL heartland …

But at the end of the day… the AFL‘s argument to justify it was that Sydney was more expensive to live than other cities .. so according to them it was irrelevant where you come from …you were entitled to more money because you played in Sydney

We’re arguing two different points on the first one.

1. I’m just stating that the advantage was due to the fact that they’re from a non AFL areas. Same as when they give extra draft picks to expansion sides. They are trying to make them more competitive and attractive for players, sponsors and fans. You’re debating a different point. Anyway I hate fumbleball so…..

2. Mate, Sydney teams have a distinct advantage over regional teams in recruiting players. It would be silly to argue that there isn’t.

For example, try and convince a player to uproot their family from Sydney and move to places like Townsville, Auckland or Canberra when you can just play for a different club in Sydney. Unless that person or family has a connection to those areas; or they need to escape the fishbowl experience for some reason; or they have no other option, it’s clearly a harder sell.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,305
We’re arguing two different points on the first one.

1. I’m just stating that the advantage was due to the fact that they’re from a non AFL areas. Same as when they give extra draft picks to expansion sides. They are trying to make them more competitive and attractive for players, sponsors and fans. You’re debating a different point. Anyway I hate fumbleball so…..

2. Mate, Sydney teams have a distinct advantage over regional teams in recruiting players. It would be silly to argue that there isn’t.

For example, try and convince a player to uproot their family from Sydney and move to places like Townsville, Auckland or Canberra when you can just play for a different club in Sydney. Unless that person or family has a connection to those areas; or they need to escape the fishbowl experience for some reason; or they have no other option, it’s clearly a harder sell.

My point is that it was just a tool for the AFL to give the Sydney teams a leg up… The QLD AFL teams had the same issues acquiring players from the AFL States but they didnt get an increased cap
 

Colk

First Grade
Messages
6,635
My point is that it was just a tool for the AFL to give the Sydney teams a leg up… The QLD AFL teams had the same issues acquiring players from the AFL States but they didnt get an increased cap

I agree with you although it would be harder to recruit Melbourne players in particular if it was a free for all

By the way the Lions did have concessions but it was stopped because they won three comps in a row. The Suns did as well (not sure if they still do)



 

titoelcolombiano

First Grade
Messages
5,623
LOL, you can't genuinely believe that Occam's razor is on your side!!!

Tell me, what's is the simplest answer; A. that a team that traditionally struggled grew in popularity as they became better administered and more successful on the pitch, or B. that they only became successful because literally tens of thousands of people whom showed no prior interest in the sport suddenly started following them out of nowhere because of totally unrelated events happening in another sport...

That's simply not how human psychology or the market works.

There're multiple contributing factors as to why some of the Swans statistics have stagnated, but none of them are because the club has stopped growing.

BTW, there's a massive difference between saying current events gave them some sort of boost at the time and that the SL war is both solely responsible for the Swans growth and sustained success. Being the Swans chairman doesn't make him right anyway.
- Their only genuine boost was 1995 - 1997
- No significant growth since then
- Swans chairman at the time admitted what a godsend SL was for the growth of the club

Yeah, the Swans should be sending us a thank you card every year. Their brothers in "Western" Sydney won't be getting such a gift
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,888
- Their only genuine boost was 1995 - 1997
- No significant growth since then
- Swans chairman at the time admitted what a godsend SL was for the growth of the club

Yeah, the Swans should be sending us a thank you card every year. Their brothers in "Western" Sydney won't be getting such a gift
Ignoring criticism and repeating yourself over and over doesn't make you right.

Their crowds have artificially stagnated because they lost the ability to draw crowds of 50K+ and 60K+ that they were drawing against bigger teams in the 00s. Those handful of higher drawing games boosted their averages during the 00s, and early 10s to a lesser extent, giving the false impression that their attendance numbers have flattened out significantly more than they actually have. In the same vein, if they had access to a larger capacity stadium (that isn't complete garbage) they'd start drawing those larger crowds again and it'd have the same effect of weighting their numbers to a degree.

Their ratings aren't a great representation of their popularity for many reasons. Put simply, the AFL has different cultural quirks to the NRL, one being that there're less poser couch potatoes. Another reason is that their growth hasn't been restricted to Sydney. They've effectively acted as the de facto NSW AFL team, which isn't reflected in their ratings as regional data is beyond useless frankly.

There're other metrics to measure growth by than just those two as well, all of which you conveniently choose to ignore... The truth is that the AFL's metrics have slowly, but steadily, been growing across NSW, and only fools would pretend otherwise.

Finally, as I said before, appealing to the opinion of a former Swans Chairman, whom you're undoubtably badly misrepresenting, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. The fact that he held a position of power at the Swans doesn't make him right.
 

titoelcolombiano

First Grade
Messages
5,623
Ignoring criticism and repeating yourself over and over doesn't make you right.

Their crowds have artificially stagnated because they lost the ability to draw crowds of 50K+ and 60K+ that they were drawing against bigger teams in the 00s. Those handful of higher drawing games boosted their averages during the 00s, and early 10s to a lesser extent, giving the false impression that their attendance numbers have flattened out significantly more than they actually have. In the same vein, if they had access to a larger capacity stadium (that isn't complete garbage) they'd start drawing those larger crowds again and it'd have the same effect of weighting their numbers to a degree.

Their ratings aren't a great representation of their popularity for many reasons. Put simply, the AFL has different cultural quirks to the NRL, one being that there're less poser couch potatoes. Another reason is that their growth hasn't been restricted to Sydney. They've effectively acted as the de facto NSW AFL team, which isn't reflected in their ratings as regional data is beyond useless frankly.

There're other metrics to measure growth by than just those two as well, all of which you conveniently choose to ignore... The truth is that the AFL's metrics have slowly, but steadily, been growing across NSW, and only fools would pretend otherwise.

Finally, as I said before, appealing to the opinion of a former Swans Chairman, whom you're undoubtably badly misrepresenting, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. The fact that he held a position of power at the Swans doesn't make him right.

Yes, exactly, that's how averages work. They are unable to sustainably draw crowds or 50 and 60k because they aren't popular enough to do so on an ongoing basis. What exactly is your point here? If they were popular enough to draw those kind of crowds and didn't want to play at Homebush (which they don't), they'd be averaging above 40k, pushing towards mid 40's, at the SCG, but they aren't because they don't have the support to do so.

So we'll just throw TV ratings out the window as a metric then because it doesn't favour your argument that the swans are more popular than they actually are?

What are the other metrics? Membership is completely rubbery as NRL clubs are currently showing as they grow them. Participation? Sure, slowly, but that's not translating to the two metrics that count the most, bums on seats and TV ratings.... where the swans have stagnated since the SL war boost.

Oh and on the topic of the SL war boost, which the former swans chairman states is absolutely the case. You want to disregard the words of someone who was at the coal face at the time, but we are just to take you at your word that you are right and that it had nothing to do with SL? lol
 

Tigerlaird

Juniors
Messages
74
Queensland is basically an AFL state in denial.

Brisbane Lions winning the flag this decade or even doing another three-peat will be the final nail into the coffin that is Queensland Rugby League.

And how can you really blame them? Brissy Lions have one of the greatest sporting brands in the world.
 

mongoose

Coach
Messages
11,628
Queensland is basically an AFL state in denial.

Brisbane Lions winning the flag this decade or even doing another three-peat will be the final nail into the coffin that is Queensland Rugby League.

And how can you really blame them? Brissy Lions have one of the greatest sporting brands in the world.
nice bait...
 

mongoose

Coach
Messages
11,628
nice bait...
i'll bite though..

Even bringing up rubbery participation numbers, auskick etc and the Lions recent strong crowds the fact is AFL just doesn't have the profile of League in QLD. Even Rugby Union probably has a bigger profile in QLD than AFL. There are no real household QLD legends in AFL. League has Wally, Alfie, Lockyer, Meninga and the list goes on an on....The sporting identity of QLD is tied to these icons. Even Union has John Eales who is a world cup winning captain. I really can't think of any QLD icon's of AFL, maybe Simon Black? I think Jason Dunstall was born in QLD but he played all his AFL career in Victoria and never seemed to be recognised much in QLD.

That pretty much says it all really, without even having to bring up metrics. Anyone who has lived in QLD for any decent amount of time and has a feel for the place knows this and giggles when people down tell us "AFL is taking over"
 

Latest posts

Top