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!

West Coast Pirates Bid News

Colk

First Grade
Messages
6,637
Proves nothing

Haha you’re too stupid to understand the point that you are trying to make, hence why you are using a terrible example to assume how I think.

Women’s sport in general had very little audience 5 years ago, let alone 10 years ago. The rise of women’s sport and the Matildas popularity at this World Cup suggests that there was always a market there, but it was dormant and not properly engaged with.

You are arguing that everything is static and linear, that something that is popular will always be popular and vice versa. The above examples suggests otherwise doesn’t it?
 

Pippen94

First Grade
Messages
6,695
Haha you’re too stupid to understand the point that you are trying to make, hence why you are using a terrible example to assume how I think.

Women’s sport in general had very little audience 5 years ago, let alone 10 years ago. The rise of women’s sport and the Matildas popularity at this World Cup suggests that there was always a market there, but it was dormant and not properly engaged with.

You are arguing that everything is static and linear, that something that is popular will always be popular and vice versa. The above examples suggests otherwise doesn’t it?

Matilda's the highest rated sporting event since..Ash Barty in Australian open final; another women's sporting event. Nothing surprising about their success. Equating in vogue national team to Perth expansion is stretch,but ur usual arguments aren't working so u got to try something new I guess..
 

xe_kilroy

Juniors
Messages
319
Bit of a chicken-egg dynamic too. To have infrastracture to grow the sport, increase participation numbers, etc, you have to have a legit tangible pathway to a club associated with that region. Especially for a place like WA that is an AFL state. We didnt wait for Melbourne to have a proper big enough infrastracture before allowing the Storm in, because the argument is the same as Perth....AFL state, needs time, decades to nurture, but in the meantime can surely have a club in the national RL. Same as the thinking behind the Swans, Giants, Suns, Lions. Takes time/decades. Certain places are open to supporting rival sports if they had their own team, Perth such a place. I am sure the Storm have only increased in every facet since joining.
 
Messages
14,650
People will attend a high-scale event for a sport they have marginal interest in. The people who attended the athletics at the 2000 Olympics went because it was a once in a lifetime event. Only a fraction would have turned up to watch the national athletics championships in the years that preceded and followed the Olympics.

I don't know how many people will regularly attend a Perth NRL team's home matches. It won't by 42k, that's for sure. Nor will it be 5k like some of the naysayers are saying. I'm guessing it'll be close to the NRL average of 15k, give or a take a few thousand.
 

MugaB

Coach
Messages
13,562
45,814. No one else comes close to perth for ready made fanbase.
Then just hurry up and link with the Bears, you stubborn lords, you know they aren't talking to you without ready made depth, and the arlc aren't looking to carry you guys thru the bidding process either, all you need is the depth, pathways and an instantly likeable mascot, which WA right now has none of (pirates aren't it), unless you're returning as the Reds, (which I'm all for) but still doesn't solve your depth and pathway problems.
 

Colk

First Grade
Messages
6,637
Matilda's the highest rated sporting event since..Ash Barty in Australian open final; another women's sporting event. Nothing surprising about their success. Equating in vogue national team to Perth expansion is stretch,but ur usual arguments aren't working so u got to try something new I guess..

Yeah your argument didn’t work - remember you are the one who used the Matildas to make some erroneous point.

It is not my fault you can’t make logical conclusions to the points you raise: for instance why did you bring up the Matildas? What point were you trying to make?

Two things about the Matildas and women’s sport

1. Women’s sport has grown considerably in recent times. A decade ago, would anybody have predicted that there would be a women’s competition shown on FTA for NRL and Awful for example.

2. Sure people would have predicted an interest but nobody would have predicted the audience of what was it over 5 million. If they did, I’m sure Channel 7 would have been pressured to spend more than the $5m they had to pay for the rights.
 
Messages
14,650
Bit of a chicken-egg dynamic too. To have infrastracture to grow the sport, increase participation numbers, etc, you have to have a legit tangible pathway to a club associated with that region. Especially for a place like WA that is an AFL state. We didnt wait for Melbourne to have a proper big enough infrastracture before allowing the Storm in, because the argument is the same as Perth....AFL state, needs time, decades to nurture, but in the meantime can surely have a club in the national RL. Same as the thinking behind the Swans, Giants, Suns, Lions. Takes time/decades. Certain places are open to supporting rival sports if they had their own team, Perth such a place. I am sure the Storm have only increased in every facet since joining.

The circumstances that allowed the Storm to flourish were unique and will never be replicated again. Three teams folded at the end of 1997. That provided the Storm with plenty of players. Queensland was reduced to just two teams with one in the south-east. It created a vacuum that the Storm were able to fill.

Perth can succeed because they've developed their grassroots infrastructure and have an enthusiastic government lobbying for a team.

Melbourne 2 and Adelaide won't work because a) there is no demand from the Vic and SA Govs and b) there's no vacuum in SEQ for them to exploit. Melbourne 2 would be an even bigger failure than the Melbourne Heart/City without a Manchester City to bail them out.
 

xe_kilroy

Juniors
Messages
319
The circumstances that allowed the Storm to flourish were unique and will never be replicated again. Three teams folded at the end of 1997. That provided the Storm with plenty of players. Queensland was reduced to just two teams with one in the south-east. It created a vacuum that the Storm were able to fill.

Perth can succeed because they've developed their grassroots infrastructure and have an enthusiastic government lobbying for a team.

Melbourne 2 and Adelaide won't work because a) there is no demand from the Vic and SA Govs and b) there's no vacuum in SEQ for them to exploit. Melbourne 2 would be an even bigger failure than the Melbourne Heart/City without a Manchester City to bail them out.
Good points.

I mean, Perth already has more of a RL infrastracture and local support for RL than Melbourne did or still does. The argument against Perth as #18 is there needs to be substantial/sufficient infrastracture first before an NRL club. But the reverse can work too, or, is probably more appropriate for Perth.

Perth is still AFL country, to wait and wait and try to build a SEQ-like infrastracture first would take decades, which doesn't help them getting in. Whereas having a team now would encourage and prosper the infrastracture more....like, say, womens sport and the matildas comparisons being made.

Now that women/girls have leagues set up in various sports, the small infrastractures already in place have pathways and fast growth potential. And then govt proceeds to commit $200m toward grassroots. And that funding will increase down the track.

I mention Melbourne because it's a similar thing tho not exact. Melbourne is a huge market, really needed a team there as part of the N in NRL, tho they didn't have any infrastracture, but I bet today, Melbourne overall in terms of RL from grassroots up (participation, crowds, memberships, tv audiences, sponsorships, etc) has only grown over the last 20 years.

Perth is the next biggest non-Eastern market, a major city, and gives added credibility to the N in NRL. So should be treated similarly to the way Melbourne was....get them in pronto and build RL there over time...not the other way around.

Spinoff of this....in time, this will only help cause Adelaide to want an NRL team too, have double headers and origins, have local boys and girls want to take up RL. Etc. SA competitive by nature and would want to be able to compete against their rival WA and VIC states.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,650
Good points.
I mean, Perth already has more of a RL infrastracture and local support for RL than Melbourne did or still does. The argument against Perth as #18 is there needs to be substantial/sufficient infrastracture first before an NRL club. But the reverse can work too, or, is probably more appropriate for Perth.

Perth is still AFL country, to wait and wait and try to build a SEQ-like infrastracture first would take decades, which doesn't help them getting in. Whereas having a team now would encourage and prosper the infrastracture more....like, say, womens sport and the matildas comparisons being made.

Now that women/girls have leagues set up in various sports, the small infrastractures already in place have pathways and fast growth potential. And then govt proceeds to commit $200m toward grassroots. And that funding will increase down the track.

Perth ain't a rugby league city, but it has enough support from the WA Gov and business sector to develop a strong niche. There's plenty of Queenslanders, New South Welshmen and New Zealanders in Perth.
 

Pippen94

First Grade
Messages
6,695
Haha you’re too stupid to understand the point that you are trying to make, hence why you are using a terrible example to assume how I think.

Women’s sport in general had very little audience 5 years ago, let alone 10 years ago. The rise of women’s sport and the Matildas popularity at this World Cup suggests that there was always a market there, but it was dormant and not properly engaged with.

You are arguing that everything is static and linear, that something that is popular will always be popular and vice versa. The above examples suggests otherwise doesn’t it?

Yeah, biggest audiences for sport are Barty & before that Cathy freeman. Who would've thought women representing Australia in global event would capture public's interest?!

Womens afl popular in southern states. Nrlw popular in north..
 

Latest posts

Top