Welcome to the comp, Redcliffe.

[The Great Dane]

yeah sure... you know Sydney has 9 teams, 9!! hasn't stopped the Swans becoming the most attended team in the city. Perhaps we need to add a 10th team to Sydney, 9 just isn't quite enough.

"But, but, but, muh SL war. Muh mergers and criteria. Muh North Sydney. Blah, blah, blah."

The people whom spout this shit don't understand basic principles of a free market, and don't care to learn because it doesn't fit their narrative. So do yourself a favour and don't waste your time on their bullshit.

 

[Wb1234]

"But, but, but, muh SL war. Muh mergers and criteria. Muh North Sydney. Blah, blah, blah."

The people whom spout this shit don't understand basic principles of a free market, and don't care to learn because it doesn't fit their narrative. So do yourself a favour and don't waste your time on their bullshit.

You mean the people who have lived in Sydney for 50 years and lived through super league and knew what a joke afl was in Sydney before super league ?

 

[The Great Dane]

You mean the people who have lived in Sydney for 50 years and lived through super league and knew what a joke afl was in Sydney before super league ?

The AFL being 'a joke' in Sydney before SL doesn't mean that SL had a significant impact on it's growth afterwards. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

The biggest factor in the Swans turning things around was them going broke and the AFL commission taking them over in 92. They effectively went from an incompetent rabble to one of the best run sports clubs in the country almost overnight. They were also given further concessions from the AFL to assure they became competitive on the pitch as quickly as possible on top of that, which basically cemented them as one of the best run and most successful clubs in the league.

In other words they went from making the finals twice between 1982 and 1995 to making the finals 22 times out of the next 27 seasons. Going from at best perennial also rans to that level of success would push growth at any club.

The fact that the SL war happened during the same time period is just a coincidence that insecure RL types in Sydney have jumped on as an excuse for the Swans success.

 

[Wb1234]

The AFL being 'a joke' in Sydney before SL doesn't mean that SL had a significant impact on it's growth afterwards. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

The biggest factor in the Swans turning things around was them going broke and the AFL commission taking them over in 92. They effectively went from an incompetent rabble to one of the best run sports clubs in the country almost overnight. They were also given further concessions from the AFL to assure they became competitive on the pitch as quickly as possible on top of that, which basically cemented them as one of the best run and most successful clubs in the league.

In other words they went from making the finals twice between 1982 and 1995 to making the finals 22 times out of the next 27 seasons. Going from at best perennial also rans to that level of success would push growth at any club.

The fact that the SL war happened during the same time period is just a coincidence that insecure RL types in Sydney have jumped on as an excuse for the Swans success.

So the giants have made semi finals and grand finals and their crowds are pitiful

since the giants play the same sport as the swans what’s the difference ?

 

[Perth Red]

You mean the people who have lived in Sydney for 50 years and lived through super league and knew what a joke afl was in Sydney before super league ?

This is a bit of a myth.
In 1986 swans avg’d 26k, 1987 22k. Those same years Sydney rl clubs avg was around 11k.

 

[xe_kilroy]

It's not that Sydney needs more teams (i know that was sarcastic), but if they had only one or two teams like the AFL does, they would get the same crowds the Swans do. Or, if there were 4 or 5 Sydney AFL teams, the crowds would get less for each team, the market share getting divided up.

Obviously the NRL can't get the teams down to two in Sydney just like the AFL can't get the Melbourne teams down to two. But you see it in all those 1 or 2 team cities, concentrated crowds due to market share.

 

[The Great Dane]

So the giants have made semi finals and grand finals and their crowds are pitiful

since the giants play the same sport as the swans what’s the difference ?

There's multiple reasons for that.

One of the main ones is that there wasn't really proven demand for a second AFL club in Sydney in the first place, and that's placed GWS in the position of having to directly compete commercially with the Swans, whom more or less have the Aussie Rules market in Sydney sewn up.

The AFL knew this stuff as well, but have made the gamble that in the long term a second Sydney side will be extremely valuable, and this is the only way to get it off the ground. In other words GWS were always going to be an expensive long term investment that would take generations to cement themselves into the market.

 

[The Great Dane]

It's not that Sydney needs more teams (i know that was sarcastic), but if they had only one or two teams like the AFL does, they would get the same crowds the Swans do. Or, if there were 4 or 5 Sydney AFL teams, the crowds would get less for each team, the market share getting divided up.

Obviously the NRL can't get the teams down to two in Sydney just like the AFL can't get the Melbourne teams down to two. But you see it in all those 1 or 2 team cities, concentrated crowds due to market share.

If there's a will there's a way.

Problem is that there's no real will.

 

[Wb1234]

There's multiple reasons for that.

One of the main ones is that there wasn't really proven demand for a second AFL club in Sydney in the first place, and that's placed GWS in the position of having to directly compete commercially with the Swans, whom more or less have the Aussie Rules market in Sydney sewn up.

The AFL knew this stuff as well, but have made the gamble that in the long term a second Sydney side will be extremely valuable, and this is the only way to get it off the ground. In other words GWS were always going to be an expensive long term investment that would take generations to cement themselves into the market.

There wasn’t proveabls demand in Sydney for one afl club before super league either

or one in Brisbane

more swans woundnt have gone broke in 92

heck even the bears died on the Gold Coast pre super league

 

[Perth Red]

There wasn’t proveabls demand in Sydney for one afl club before super league either

or one in Brisbane

more swans woundnt have gone broke in 92

heck even the bears died on the Gold Coast pre super league

No doubt they had their start up issues and a various times in their transition to Sydney looked like going under. (seems a common theme of start ups in Australian sport!)
But to say there wasnt any demand is untrue. They were avg'ing same or better, some years much better, than Sydney RL clubs even in their difficult years

This is a bit of a myth.
In 1986 swans avg’d 26k, 1987 22k. Those same years Sydney rl clubs avg was around 11k.

 

[xe_kilroy]

You have to look at it not from an individual club pov but the sport itself.

Swans + GWS average crowd in Sydney is like 50k tops.

All the Sydney NRL clubs average crowd in Sydney is like 100k.

AFL in Sydney vs NRL in Sydney, on any given week.

If you had 10 AFL teams in Sydney the market share of 50k is still there. There are 50k active (game attending) fans for the sport. So each team would have like 5k crowds.

If you had 2 NRL Sydney teams, hypothetically they'd split the 100k market 50:50.

Melbourne....the 10 AFL teams probably have 400k fans to share, while the one-team Storm get like 15-20k.

SEQ....2 AFL teams vs 3 NRL teams

Broncos probably average like 30k and Dolphins now would be around 15-20k. Titans around 10-15k. Say, total 60k active fans for NRL.

Lions around 20-30k, and Suns 10-15k. Total say 45k.

Both sports are fairly close in Qld. Not so close in NSW. While the AFL mad Vic is a clear win. There's only AFL in WA and SA so can't compare but WA would probably be similar to QLD (AFL 60K two teams vs NRL 20-30k one team). SA probably half that (10-15k) for one NRL team.

 

[xe_kilroy]

It highlights tho that the Sydney market is finite. There's no room even for 2 AFL teams...one of them (giants) is going to struggle to stay afloat without AFL assistance. Whilst the same is true with NRL...far too many Sydney teams, making each other all weak as businesses, sporting franchises. The biggest clubs are the one or two teamers like Eagles, Dockers, Broncos, Crows. That's the way of the future. Should've always been that way when setting up a national comp in both sports...create max two new clubs in their respective capital cities.

But they're all kind of conpeting in the one landscape of sport. Eagles, Broncos, Dockers, Crows, Power, Dolphins, Titans, Cowboys, Storm...the one or two team for an entire city approach. They will outlast, will only get bigger. The mass of AFL teams in Melb and mass of NRL teams in Syd are up against it in the long term.

Whittling down to a 12-14 team national league (for both codes) will be hard, and fans will be lost, but the clubs will eventually be more stable and have room to grow when fans from the respective cities rejoin the sport.

Less teams also means better standard of conpetition as only the very best will make it. Would also mean a second tier comp could work talent-wise. Propping up clubs in "expansion" regions

 

[Perth Red]

It highlights tho that the Sydney market is finite. There's no room even for 2 AFL teams...one of them (giants) is going to struggle to stay afloat without AFL assistance. Whilst the same is true with NRL...far too many Sydney teams, making each other all weak as businesses, sporting franchises. The biggest clubs are the one or two teamers like Eagles, Dockers, Broncos, Crows. That's the way of the future. Should've always been that way when setting up a national comp in both sports...create max two new clubs in their respective capital cities.

But they're all kind of conpeting in the one landscape of sport. Eagles, Broncos, Dockers, Crows, Power, Dolphins, Titans, Cowboys, Storm...the one or two team for an entire city approach. They will outlast, will only get bigger. The mass of AFL teams in Melb and mass of NRL teams in Syd are up against it in the long term.

Whittling down to a 12-14 team national league (for both codes) will be hard, and fans will be lost, but the clubs will eventually be more stable and have room to grow when fans from the respective cities rejoin the sport.

Less teams also means better standard of conpetition as only the very best will make it. Would also mean a second tier comp could work talent-wise. Propping up clubs in "expansion" regions

Its interesting though that viability only becomes an issue if revenue doesn't match expense. So you either increase your revenue or decrease your expense. Why it costs $35mill to run an NRL club when players are only getting $12mill is still a mystery!
I don't think there's any evidence the reducing teams = better quality. It just means less pathways and investment for kids to be developed. I mean SOO is literally a two team comp of most of the best players yet look at the run of wins and sometimes one sided games we have seen.

 

[Wb1234]

No doubt they had their start up issues and a various times in their transition to Sydney looked like going under. (seems a common theme of start ups in Australian sport!)
But to say there wasnt any demand is untrue. They were avg'ing same or better, some years much better, than Sydney RL clubs even in their difficult years

So broke in 92 so we are ignoring that are we ?

 

[Perth Red]

So broke in 92 so we are ignoring that are we ?

no, like I said they had their start up problems in Sydney, but to say there was no support for them prior to SL is an absolute furphy when they drew 26k avg fans in 1986!

 

[Wb1234]

no, like I said they had their start up problems in Sydney, but to say there was no support for them prior to SL is an absolute furphy when they drew 26k avg fans in 1986!

Broke in 92

 

[The Great Dane]

Broke in 92

Their going broke in 92 doesn't mean that there wasn't demand for Aussie Rules in Sydney prior to the SL War.

One of the Swans major issues pre AFLC takeover, and especially pre 96, was that they largely failed to engage the pre-existing Aussie Rules fanbase in Sydney. The Aussie Rules fanbase was there, but it was fractured, and largely because of historical baggage and a public perception of the Swans being failures, the majority continued to support their 'traditional' Melbourne clubs instead of swapping to the Swans.

BTW, 92 wasn't the first time they went broke after relocating to Sydney. The fact that you don't seem to know that (you'd be rubbing it in our faces without actually understanding why it had happened if you did) shows that you've got no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Wb1234]

Ccvvb

Their going broke in 92 doesn't mean that there wasn't demand for Aussie Rules in Sydney prior to the SL War.

One of the Swans major issues pre AFLC takeover, and especially pre 96, was that they largely failed to engage the pre-existing Aussie Rules fanbase in Sydney. The Aussie Rules fanbase was there, but it was fractured, and largely because of historical baggage and a public perception of the Swans being failures, the majority continued to support their 'traditional' Melbourne clubs instead of swapping to the Swans.

BTW, 92 wasn't the first time they went broke after relocating to Sydney. The fact that you don't seem to know that (you'd be rubbing it in our faces without actually understanding why it had happened if you did) shows that you've got no idea what you're talking about.

couldn’t compete with rugby league at full strength

which is why the giants have no fans now

Waratahs went broke during this time too and the aru had give them 6 million to wipe out their debts

 

[mongoose]

You have to look at it not from an individual club pov but the sport itself.

Swans + GWS average crowd in Sydney is like 50k tops.

All the Sydney NRL clubs average crowd in Sydney is like 100k.

AFL in Sydney vs NRL in Sydney, on any given week.

If you had 10 AFL teams in Sydney the market share of 50k is still there. There are 50k active (game attending) fans for the sport. So each team would have like 5k crowds.

If you had 2 NRL Sydney teams, hypothetically they'd split the 100k market 50:50.

Melbourne....the 10 AFL teams probably have 400k fans to share, while the one-team Storm get like 15-20k.

SEQ....2 AFL teams vs 3 NRL teams

Broncos probably average like 30k and Dolphins now would be around 15-20k. Titans around 10-15k. Say, total 60k active fans for NRL.

Lions around 20-30k, and Suns 10-15k. Total say 45k.

Both sports are fairly close in Qld. Not so close in NSW. While the AFL mad Vic is a clear win. There's only AFL in WA and SA so can't compare but WA would probably be similar to QLD (AFL 60K two teams vs NRL 20-30k one team). SA probably half that (10-15k) for one NRL team.

it's f**king laughable that cucks on this forum are bragging that we're still bigger than AFL in our heartland and have to twist figures to prove it... It's safe to say they are becoming more entrenched in Brisbane and Sydney, meanwhile League has barely made a dent in their heartlands but sure, lets laugh and mock them for not being as popular as Rugby League yet in NSW and QLD.

 

[Wb1234]

it's f**king laughable that cucks on this forum are bragging that we're still bigger than AFL in our heartland and have to twist figures to prove it... It's safe to say they are becoming more entrenched in Brisbane and Sydney, meanwhile League has barely made a dent in their heartlands but sure, lets laugh and mock them for not being as popular as Rugby League yet in NSW and QLD.

Not true

afl tv ratings in nsw and qld have collapsed

swans have been in Sydney nearly 40 years and their tv ratings are pathetic

in terms of juniors produced they rank last in western Sydney

if anything league is still growing in Sydney and Brisbane