Expansion

[Quokka]

Superleague absolutely smashed RL in Perth, the timing just couldn't have been worse.

I definitely think a Perth team will need some propping up initially but it'd become self sufficient well short of 20 years. I reckon they could quickly get (and keep) a 10,000 crowd average if the team and televising is set up properly from the beginning (have to get on prime time free to air, over the years foxtel has hurt union, A-League and basketball in wa imo).

There was a pretty strong little metro league (juniors and seniors) in WA in the early - mid 90s, I'm sure it's still going but it wont take long for there to be a big jump in numbers if an NRL team gets established here.

 

[bunsen burner]

You just admitted in your post that leagues fan base was more casual. That is pretty much accepted, it isnt good for the nrl commercially but it is what it is.

I assumed you were saying the difference was in the people rather than the effect each game has on people. If this is not the case then I apologise.

Re:- the product. It is a matter for taste. IMO rugby league has had more competition and threat to its survival and thus has had to refine its product more to survive. Arguably AFL hasnt because of the strength of its product, but really its how long is a piece of string argument.

But there's 2 types of taste - individual taste and group taste. Clearly one code resonates much more to the wider community. i.e. more people's taste buds like AFL.

The AFL has refined its product a lot. The NRL need to but won't because the game is run by inept dinosaurs. The incumbent fans want biffo. I understand this as I don't mind a bit of biffo but if the NRL is to attract a wider audience (and they need to if they want to go into Perth and Adelaide) then they need to call the media/ex-players' bluff and dump the biffo. If they keep appeasing the imcumbent, then they aren't changing. And if they aren't changing, how do they expect to grow?

One thing annoys me is the likes of Johns, Geyer, Gould, etc etc all complain about the game not growing but everytime someone wants to make a positive change it gets howled down with the oft spruiked working class mantra of "this is the people's game and don't change it". There's a lot of morons who are very influential in how League is run.

Most people will like what they grew up on, others will like something to be different, some will like the physicality of league some will be turned off by it. BLA BLA BLA, suffice to say I dont think its fair to say that AFLs product is flat out better.

Numbers don't lie. Crowds, TV audience, revenue - all vastly in favour of AFL. The main variable - the product.

The expats and RL fans in perth have nothing to support. In sydney they had the swans, thats why perth would be easier.

There's not enough expats in either city to sustain a team. People need to be converted. Perth is very much an AFL town. GWS on the other hand has so many people who just don't follow League at all. They are the main target. Then there's people who grew up on League and have given it away (there's no shortage of them in Sydney). And then there's grass roots footy. The AFL have the funds to put into it. The NRL don't. Then there's the biffo factor. Mums want their kids to play auskick and soccer so they don't get munched every weekend.

Also imo AFL could have dont small things differently to be more successful in sydney with their second franchise but thats a different topic for a different day, they have done what they have done and they are getting what they get.

They are doing everything right...... They could have put mature players in there but it would end up like Brisbane and fremantle. When GWS come good people will jump on. Then when they have a bad patch many jump off, but not all, then they come goos again and more jump on.

Swans took 20 years. So will GWS.

 

[StKildaUSA]

I assumed you were saying the difference was in the people rather than the effect each game has on people. If this is not the case then I apologise.


But there's 2 types of taste - individual taste and group taste. Clearly one code resonates much more to the wider community. i.e. more people's taste buds like AFL.

The AFL has refined its product a lot. The NRL need to but won't because the game is run by inept dinosaurs. The incumbent fans want biffo. I understand this as I don't mind a bit of biffo but if the NRL is to attract a wider audience (and they need to if they want to go into Perth and Adelaide) then they need to call the media/ex-players' bluff and dump the biffo. If they keep appeasing the imcumbent, then they aren't changing. And if they aren't changing, how do they expect to grow?

One thing annoys me is the likes of Johns, Geyer, Gould, etc etc all complain about the game not growing but everytime someone wants to make a positive change it gets howled down with the oft spruiked working class mantra of "this is the people's game and don't change it". There's a lot of morons who are very influential in how League is run.

This is a debate that every violent team sport is having right now between keeping the sport ''safe'' and keeping the spectacular hits and fights that traditionalists love. It is currently happening in the NRL, with the recent crackdowns on shoulder charges and fights (biffo). And there is still a debate within the AFL about this issue as well, especially with the actions of the MRP in penalizing players who commit violent acts on the field. And here in the US, where I am, there has been increased scrutiny over violent hits and fights within the NFL and NHL. With increased awareness over the effects of concussions (Google CTE sometimes; there are some horrific stories about ex-NFL and ex-NHL players dealing with the effects of repeated concussions. In the past few years, I think there has been an increased awareness of the effects of repeated concussions have on the brains of athletes in Australia, but not as much in the States. While I think there is less of a concern with the AFL and the NRL with this issue, compared to say, gridiron, both codes will have to tackle this issue eventually.)



Numbers don't lie. Crowds, TV audience, revenue - all vastly in favour of AFL. The main variable - the product.

I don't dispute the AFL vs NRL comparisons regarding crowds, tv audience, etc. However, I think there are many historical factors that explain this besides on-field product. The popularity of a sport has little to do with how exciting a sport is. For example, cricket bores me to tears but is probably the 2nd or 3rd most popular team sport worldwide.

There's not enough expats in either city to sustain a team. People need to be converted. Perth is very much an AFL town. GWS on the other hand has so many people who just don't follow League at all. They are the main target. Then there's people who grew up on League and have given it away (there's no shortage of them in Sydney). And then there's grass roots footy. The AFL have the funds to put into it. The NRL don't. Then there's the biffo factor. Mums want their kids to play auskick and soccer so they don't get munched every weekend.

The NRL and touch football in Australia are planning a merger. I think that will help with the fear of kids getting smashed. As for RL in Perth, I think AFL will always be king, even moreso than the NRL in NSW/Qld. That said, I do think there is a market for RL in Perth. Over 20,000 people showed up for the Souths vs Warriors game at nib Stadium (And that occurred the same time as a Fremantle home game). At the very least, I think the WC Pirates would sell out any home game against the NZ Warriors, and draw at least 15,000 for home games against the Broncos, Dragons, and Rabbitohs.

They are doing everything right...... They could have put mature players in there but it would end up like Brisbane and fremantle. When GWS come good people will jump on. Then when they have a bad patch many jump off, but not all, then they come go.To suffice, I think GWS will be a success in Sydney, I don't think the success of the Swans in Sydney is not necessarily a good predictor of the success of GWS.
Swans took 20 years. So will GWS.

 

[Whats a Battle]

Then there's people who grew up on League and have given it away (there's no shortage of them in Sydney).

Thanks Rupert. If you hadn't destroyed the world's greatest sport then we wouldn't need to even be talking about expanding because IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE FOR 20 YEARS!

 

[bunsen burner]

This is a debate that every violent team sport is having right now between keeping the sport ''safe'' and keeping the spectacular hits and fights that traditionalists love. It is currently happening in the NRL, with the recent crackdowns on shoulder charges and fights (biffo). And there is still a debate within the AFL about this issue as well, especially with the actions of the MRP in penalizing players who commit violent acts on the field. And here in the US, where I am, there has been increased scrutiny over violent hits and fights within the NFL and NHL. With increased awareness over the effects of concussions (Google CTE sometimes; there are some horrific stories about ex-NFL and ex-NHL players dealing with the effects of repeated concussions. In the past few years, I think there has been an increased awareness of the effects of repeated concussions have on the brains of athletes in Australia, but not as much in the States. While I think there is less of a concern with the AFL and the NRL with this issue, compared to say, gridiron, both codes will have to tackle this issue eventually.)

Welcome to 1990. The AFL have dealt with it. Whilst harder to deal with in League given the nature and limitations of League, the NRL still haven't worked out how important grass roots footy is.

I live in a part of Sydney and it works like this:

1. League is the dominant spectator sport by a mile (live, TV, and general following a team or being in a tipping comp).
2. But the dominant participation sport is soccer (by a mile)

Why do you think that is? And don't you think that is a pressing issue for the NRL? If the parents follow League but put their kids into soccer, what do you think that is saying?

 

[bunsen burner]

Thanks Rupert. If you hadn't destroyed the world's greatest sport then we wouldn't need to even be talking about expanding because IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE FOR 20 YEARS!

Let's just stick to the facts Rupret:

1. League is not the world's "greatest sport" so cease embarassing yourself. If you're going to pull that card then let's talk soccer v League.....
2. SL did not destroy League. League has always been this popular. Go check historical stats on TV and game attendances. It has remained remarkably constant.
3. Do you honestly think the NRL had the cash flow to prop up interstate teams at the advent of SL?

Stop poking yourself in the eye with your dinner fork.

 

[bunsen burner]

I don't dispute the AFL vs NRL comparisons regarding crowds, tv audience, etc. However, I think there are many historical factors that explain this besides on-field product. The popularity of a sport has little to do with how exciting a sport is. For example, cricket bores me to tears but is probably the 2nd or 3rd most popular team sport worldwide.

Such as?

<please don't insult your own intelligence by answering that Melbourne people love sport and Sydney people don't>

Do you not realise that you can't loook beyond your own preferences? "I love League, therefore it is good" and "I don't like cricket, therefore it isn't"?

Tip: try look past your own preference and be subjective. I dislike Michael Jackson but exept he's one of the best artists of all time. Try put your own opinions aside and look at the numbers and look at what it was that achieved those numbers.

 

[StKildaUSA]

Welcome to 1990. The AFL have dealt with it. Whilst harder to deal with in League given the nature and limitations of League, the NRL still haven't worked out how important grass roots footy is.

I live in a part of Sydney and it works like this:

1. League is the dominant spectator sport by a mile (live, TV, and general following a team or being in a tipping comp).
2. But the dominant participation sport is soccer (by a mile)

Why do you think that is? And don't you think that is a pressing issue for the NRL? If the parents follow League but put their kids into soccer, what do you think that is saying?

It has to do with the fact that soccer is less than a contact sport than RL. With the grassroots footy aspect, you have to understand that the new IC has only been in place for a little over a year. I think there has been some good starting points in this regards (ie. the planned merger with touch football), but any initiative in this regard will have to take time.

 

[Northern_Union]

Such as?

<please don't insult your own intelligence by answering that Melbourne people love sport and Sydney people don't>

Do you not realise that you can't loook beyond your own preferences? "I love League, therefore it is good" and "I don't like cricket, therefore it isn't"?

Tip: try look past your own preference and be subjective. I dislike Michael Jackson but exept he's one of the best artists of all time. Try put your own opinions aside and look at the numbers and look at what it was that achieved those numbers.

I wasn't going to get into this but you seem to be making up the rules as you go. For starters you are telling StKildaUSA to try and look past his own preferences and be subjective. Yet in an earlier post you have stated that league as a product is inferior to AFL. How is that being subjective? You are clearly stating you're own opinion as a fact. Secondly you say that clearly one code resonates to a much wider audience than the other. That would be rugby league would it not? NRL is played in 2 countries, ESL is played in 2 countries and until recently 3 countries. Their is a RL world cup this year with 14 countries playing in it.
Congratulations though in turning an interesting thread about the expansion of the NRL through out Australia and New Zealand into a AFL vs NRL pissing contest.

 

[Aucklander]

I wasn't going to get into this but you seem to be making up the rules as you go. For starters you are telling StKildaUSA to try and look past his own preferences and be subjective. Yet in an earlier post you have stated that league as a product is inferior to AFL. How is that being subjective? You are clearly stating you're own opinion as a fact. Secondly you say that clearly one code resonates to a much wider audience than the other. That would be rugby league would it not? NRL is played in 2 countries, ESL is played in 2 countries and until recently 3 countries. Their is a RL world cup this year with 14 countries playing in it.
Congratulations though in turning an interesting thread about the expansion of the NRL through out Australia and New Zealand into a AFL vs NRL pissing contest.

Indeed.

Lets just leave the debate about expansion, where , when, why and leave the rest out of it.

 

[bunsen burner]

It has to do with the fact that soccer is less than a contact sport than RL.

Exactly my point - biffo makes League more "contact" than it needs to be. Take biffo away, and it reduces the contact.

With the grassroots footy aspect, you have to understand that the new IC has only been in place for a little over a year. I think there has been some good starting points in this regards (ie. the planned merger with touch football), but any initiative in this regard will have to take time.

I agree. I thought Gallop was unfairly maligned. I agree with most of things Dave Smith has done so it's disappointing to see the usual League culprits (almost every single ex player who gets his mug on the media or radio) try to undermine him and push for the same old dumb shit that doesn't work.

i'm not sure if Smith will last but if he sticks in there its a step in the right direction. The changes needed will take decades, and every commissioner will be unfairly maligned up until League is strong. I just hope they don't run him out and go back to old habits.

 

[bunsen burner]

For starters you are telling StKildaUSA to try and look past his own preferences and be objective. Yet in an earlier post you have stated that league as a product is inferior to AFL. How is that being subjective?

?????

I told you before: crowd numbers, TV ratings, revenue......

That's not my opinion, that's the peoples' opinion. StKildaUSA is putting up his own opinion. His nor my opinion really matters.

You are clearly stating you're own opinion as a fact. Secondly you say that clearly one code resonates to a much wider audience than the other. That would be rugby league would it not? NRL is played in 2 countries, ESL is played in 2 countries and until recently 3 countries. Their is a RL world cup this year with 14 countries playing in it.

Embarassing when League heads have to resort to the international argument. Clearly we're talking about expansion within AU. AFL resonates in AU much wider.

The international thing is another debate for another time.

 

[Northern_Union]

?????

I told you before: crowd numbers, TV ratings, revenue......

That's not my opinion, that's the peoples' opinion. StKildaUSA is putting up his own opinion. His nor my opinion really matters.

Embarassing when League heads have to resort to the international argument. Clearly we're talking about expansion within AU. AFL resonates in AU much wider.

The international thing is another debate for another time.

What the hell has crowd numbers, TV ratings, revenue got to do with a thread about expansion of the NRL other than you wanting this to be a pissing contest between codes and you wishing upon your little star that league doesn't expand and threaten your favored code.
So you say that what you are saying is the people opinion BUT you want to limit what the people say to Australia? As i said before you are making the rules up to suit yourself.
Embarrassing is when a supporter of AFL rushes into a league forum and tries to tell ever one why the NRL shouldn't expand. Embarrassing is AFL's lack of international competition.

 

[Aucklander]

Exactly my point - biffo makes League more "contact" than it needs to be. Take biffo away, and it reduces the contact.

Stop talking rubbish. Biffo in Rugby league is a myth made up by those who like to bag the game and use terms like "thugby"

In fact there's more off the ball cheap shots in Aussie Rules than there is biffo in Rugby league.

The game is hard, but it's seldom violent.

Now keep it on topic or go away.

 

[bunsen burner]

What the hell has crowd numbers, TV ratings, revenue got to do with a thread about expansion of the NRL

You asked me to justify my assumption that AFL is a better product / more popular game. So I did. Did you forget you asked me this?

The whole expansion debate isn't as simple as talking about where and why. Lots of other things come into it like financial support from NRL, and what cultural changes need to be made to make League more appealing.

Embarrassing is when a supporter of AFL rushes into a league forum and tries to tell ever one why the NRL shouldn't expand.

Not sure where I said this? Why the need to make stuff up?

Embarrassing is AFL's lack of international competition.

I thought we were moving on from this "pissing contest"? You seem hell bent on keeping it going.

 

[bunsen burner]

Stop talking rubbish. Biffo in Rugby league is a myth made up by those who like to bag the game and use terms like "thugby"

In fact there's more off the ball cheap shots in Aussie Rules than there is biffo in Rugby league.

The game is hard, but it's seldom violent.

Now keep it on topic or go away.

Any chance you can attempt to be realistic?

Origin 1:
- Gallen goes toe to toe with Nake Myles
- The judiciary decides to penalise Gallen
- Gallen publicly states he is hard done by because the precedent in Origin is that biffo is okay
- Then a whole heap of former players come out and say that biffo should be allowed in SOO

Don't make go find the articles. This is what happened and everyone knows it.

So here's the issue:

- The NRL want to expand. They want to attract NEW supporters (perth, Central Coast, Wellington etc, and in the Sydney market)
- Biffo doesn't work. People into the biff are probably already fans. But it's much harder to convert new people (particularly grass roots where Mums have the say) when there's too much biff in the game

If the NRL keeps doing the same, how do they expect anything to change? They need outsiders like Smith to look at the game objectively and put things in place that will grow the game. This culture of listening to incumbents doesn't and hasn't worked.

If you want to grow/expand you don't preach to the converted, you preach to the unconverted. That's a pretty simple concept.

 

[Fire Storm]

Not good as listening, are you Bunsen.


Fighting and punching in the NRL rarely happens. Origin aside. Moot point, but also know many Vicorian friends who only watch Origin hoping to see some 'biff'. But again, moot point.


Maybe buy some ear cleaners? Actually the saline solution one is pretty good. Just spray it in your ear when your having a shower. Then eventually it'll fall out here and there. Kinda gross, but helps with the hearing.

 

[bunsen burner]

Not good as listening, are you Bunsen.


Fighting and punching in the NRL rarely happens. Origin aside. Moot point, but also know many Vicorian friends who only watch Origin hoping to see some 'biff'. But again, moot point.


Maybe buy some ear cleaners? Actually the saline solution one is pretty good. Just spray it in your ear when your having a shower. Then eventually it'll fall out here and there. Kinda gross, but helps with the hearing.

That's some pretty serious denial.

SOO is League's centrepiece. There's a lot of biffo, always has been. Gallen goes toe to toe then at a press conference complains that he is being unfairly treated due to precedent.

What do you think Mums think when they see this? You do know the key to a strong code is grass roots footy, right?

Biffo is an issue with League (regarding attracting new players and supporters). Not sure how you can deny this?

 

[____]

Personally I think it's a no-brainer, Perth and Adelaide should be next in line. I think Perth would be as successful off-field as Gold Coast have in the AFL (have a decent core of supporters and a fair bit of local lovers of the sport who would adopt them as a second team). Adelaide would need more long term work similar to GWS in the AFL, but it makes sense to have one team in each of the five major cities.

Would also love to see a second Brisbane team for the derbies, a second New Zealand team, a Central Queensland or Central Coast team one day as well, but they should come after Perth and Adelaide.

 

[Aucklander]

Not good as listening, are you Bunsen.

Fighting and punching in the NRL rarely happens. Origin aside. Moot point, but also know many Vicorian friends who only watch Origin hoping to see some 'biff'. But again, moot point.

Maybe buy some ear cleaners? Actually the saline solution one is pretty good. Just spray it in your ear when your having a shower. Then eventually it'll fall out here and there. Kinda gross, but helps with the hearing.

As I said, biffo in "Rugby league" is a myth. The game is hard, but seldom violent. In fact you see more cheap shots which might entail, elbows, gut punching, high hits etc. in your average game of Aussie Rules, but that doesn't seem to harm the game at all.

Focusing on SoO is silly and naive as there are 26 rounds of Rugby league in the season. Don't the mums watch those games too, or are they only watching SoO like bunsen burner?

 

[bradrowe#32]

I assume a Perth team would play out of NIB Stadium. Where would an Adelaide team play?

 

[Fire Storm]

That's some pretty serious denial.

SOO is League's centrepiece. There's a lot of biffo, always has been. Gallen goes toe to toe then at a press conference complains that he is being unfairly treated due to precedent.

What do you think Mums think when they see this? You do know the key to a strong code is grass roots footy, right?

Biffo is an issue with League (regarding attracting new players and supporters). Not sure how you can deny this?

Its a complete non issue and you don't get it.....because I guess you don't watch it?


I still think the NRL need to be careful about expansion. Don't want a GWS scenario with a completely uncompetitive team in a new area like Perth etc. Just my views.

Perth, NZ, 2nd Brisbane team for mine as areas to expand to....but only one for now. GC personally has been a wasted area and should've been a 2nd Brisbane side.

Adelaide....no. And possibly never.
Central Coast...yes....but possible existing NRL team....Manly more games there?
Central QLD team...no.

 

[Heardy_101]

Central Coast is probably going to happen first along with either Perth or Brisbane #2 - Brisbane Bombers I recall.

With Central Coast (a revived North Sydney Bears) you could then have the potential Derby with Newcastle - potential rivalries are usually good incentives, which is also why I think Brisbane #2 will also get the go ahead. I would like to see more QLD teams personally.

Another question - is relocation a possibility? I also seem to recall either the NRL or the media flaunting the idea of moving the Sharks to Adelaide (??).

 

[Fire Storm]

Central Coast is probably going to happen first along with either Perth or Brisbane #2 - Brisbane Bombers I recall.

With Central Coast (a revived North Sydney Bears) you could then have the potential Derby with Newcastle - potential rivalries are usually good incentives, which is also why I think Brisbane #2 will also get the go ahead. I would like to see more QLD teams personally.

Another question - is relocation a possibility? I also seem to recall either the NRL or the media flaunting the idea of moving the Sharks to Adelaide (??).

After ASADA and WADA finish with Essenedon and move onto Cronulla, there might not be much left of the Sharks to move. Maybe the sign of the front of the stadium?

 

[Bobby P]

Always thought NZ north and south island teams would work well and get a bit of rivalry going. A second Brisane team is a must and should probably be next followed by central coast.