- Banned
- #26
ban this idiot
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Expansion Has the Barassi line moved or not.
- Thread starter fabulousphil
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
ban this idiot
I dont mind Rugby League trolls as long as they are perfectly willing to admitt that they are Rugby League trolls but people like you annoy me no end as you pretend to be a AFL fan but in reality you are a Rugby League troll who is trying to get a rise out of people. You are so cowardly that you cant even admitt that you are a troll.
That's a good one
You are doing your job well, remember to not play it too stupid.
Exhibit A
But RUNVS, you must admit we do have Eel_Storm doing the same.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Yes but while he does pretend to be a AFL fan atleast he admitts that he is a huge Rubgy league fan and he has the username "Eel_Storm" which is a username only a NRL fan would use. "Denmark AFL" however is a incredibly deceptive username in a attempt to look like a AFL fan so he can troll as many threads as possible.
That's what I first thought too, But no-one even RL fans could be as stupid as what Eel storm appears to be, so he must be an AFL fan pretending to be an NRL troll, as to make the RL posters look even dumber than what they are.
- Banned
- #32
Remember Littleduck pretending to be a Lions fan for a while when he first appeared. Funny as. You've got to wonder what is going on in their minds. Not quite all there.
There is someone else from Northern NSW who was claiming to be a St Kilda fan to. Cant remeber his name now.
Clubs are clubs. Since when do they depend on a competition to survive ?
Even Fitzroy still exists. South Sydney and Port Adelaide both switched comps at various stages.
My point is that if these clubs were viable, then they would have gone on somewhere regardless of the unified comp.
The Western Reds I think are now revived as the Perth Reds and supposed to be playing in QLD am I right ?
Let me put things straight here too. Rugby league is not a dying code. Crowds for NRL, State of Origin, ANZAC test and even City vs Country are well up on last year.
If anything there is a total failure of the AFL to capitalise on the obstacles that rugby league which also shows that league fans are not going to convert - the AFL will need to find supporters from other sports and with soccer growing, it is unlikely that they are going to be able to.
The AFL grossly missed the boat on the Gold Coast. The only supporters now of the AFL are expats. Now I think they will quickly backpedal in Western Sydney and admit a Tasmanian team to bide time and save face which is all in line with the Barassi Line concept.
- Banned
- #34
Fishmonger. Your wish to see GC and WS fail is only because you wish Tassie to enter.
I see no correlation between GC/WS success and Tassie success. The AFL have long said Tassie is not viable. Long before GC and WS teams were thought of.
If Tassie can support its case, then there is no reason why Tassie cant join GC and WS and join in the AFL.
The AFL know they will have to prop up a GC and WS for some time before its viable. They see strategic importance in that, and are therefore prepared to do so. They do not want to extend support to a 3rd new club (tassie) especially as North, and Melbourne are still a financial drain.
If Tassie can come in at no-cost, and be viable, the only opposition I see is from teams like Hawthorn who will lose that market.
- Thread starter
- #35
Dont know about these players but there are a few from WA (cant think of their names but one player that comes to mind is Brad Clyde from Canberra, he played both codes (AR and RL as a junior ).... in fact his dad was president of the local junior aussie rules club and he was very good at both games but chose league as the Raiders offered him money and opportunities he could not knock back.
Had the AFL (then VFL ) got into Canberra first then a young Brad Clyde would have IMO played rules instead of league at the highest level. Around the ACT at the time many kids played several footy codes and were lost to rules as the Raiders moved into primetime time TV and news.
IMO the " Barassi line" would have moved further northwards and shored up the area had the Swans been relocated to the ACT instead of Sydney.
A few years later a new team for Sydney would have had a much easier run than the Swans did have.
You could argue that the Barassi line has in fact been moved further south with the success that the Raiders and Brumbies have had.
No, actually I'd like to see them succeed. But having lived most of my life north of the border, I think it more than extremely unlikely that they will. I waited patiently for nearly 20 years before Brisbane tasted any success or popularity and even then, it wasn't as the Bears, but as a merged Fitzroy outfit. You optimists are still living in the days when the Swans and Lions were popular and winning premierships. Those days are over. Look at how quickly the crowds and TV ratings drop when they're not winning. I'm sorry, but the AFL has missed the boat and they're filling your heads full of propaganda and doing the hard yards just because they are still reeling from the lost golden opportunity. It is going to take 20 years and billions of dollars until these teams become even moderately popular and in the meantime the Lions and Swans will suffer badly.
As for Tassie. Really, it is a no-brainer. May not do much for the AFL's billion dollar TV aspirations but it doesn't detract from any existing clubs and will only increase the passion of general rivalries AFL supporters. Nowhere near the risk of a second artificial club in two states where AFL has and will always be as popular as poo in a pair of undies.
But you correctly identified the killer problem for the Tasmanian AFL bid.
Unfortunately for Tasmania, the AFL regard that (along with future long term growth prospects) as no-brainers.
Perhaps the AFL is underestimating the intelligence of the television broadcasters. They are only going to pay $300 million extra if Gold Coast and Sydney can bring an extra $300 million in viewers and that is highly unlikely. Every AFL fan in Queensland and NSW already has a team that they can watch on TV. In the case of the Gold Coast, giving them their own team might mean that the 50,000 AFL fans will watch their own club instead of watching an existing AFL club. Every other Queensland AFL fan will probably keep watching as many games as they do now. A change in allegiances is not going to bring in $300 million extra.
The television stations are also probably intelligent enough to know that failing teams in Sydney and the Gold Coast will look bad for the image of the code in the northern markets and television ratings will suffer. They are also probably intelligent enough to realise that giving massive draft concessions to two new clubs could alienate fans in traditional markets and ratings would suffer. So all in all, the risks associated with new new teams may make the television stations more conservative in their bids.
Personally, I think Western Sydney is worth the risk but if you are going to gamble, it is much better to pair the long shot with a conservative bet. It's very silly to bet the family jewels on two long shots. Perhaps the AFL is sure that the long shots are a shoe in, but I’d wager the television networks would be more objective.
Spot on.
I also very much doubt they are dumb.
The AFL thinks their fans and everyone else including the TV stations are stupid. That's why they serve up Kath & Kim as Grand Final entertainment. It was a very smart move for the TV stations to come out and tell the AFL they are dreaming if they think two hollow franchises in non-AFL states will hand them a billion on a plate.
On the other hand, never underestimate the appeal of a truly national competition. It is what has made A-League such a force in Australian sport. Not only will people in NSW and QLD take more notice, but they will want to be a part of it and watch it. As crazy as it sounds this is why I think that Tasmania, the Gold Coast, Canberra and even Darwin should be more immediate priorities than Western Sydney.
A successful Tasmanian team will capture their imagination like nothing else, as the average punter in Brisbane or Sydney doesn't even think or know that Aussie Rules is popular outside of Melbourne. They think that West Coast, Adelaide etc are just hollow expansion sides rather than clubs in areas with 100+ years of rich footy history. Its time to educate them.
I reckon that WS will be a winner. Don't forget the Kangas were pulling crowds of 8 - 13k in the late 90s in Sydney.
The new team should be able to average 20K+ crowds (15K if they play most games at the Showgrounds, 40 for the seaon opener & 70K V Swans @ ANZ) which will look a huge winner in the Sydney market.
Not so sure about the GC, or Tassie. I reckon both areas are best served with the type of deal the Hawks have in Tassie.
But we will have 18 teams. And Tassie will only get a look in if a new fanchise fails, or we have a relocation/merger.
The new team should be able to average 20K+ crowds (15K if they play most games at the Showgrounds, 40 for the seaon opener & 70K V Swans @ ANZ) which will look a huge winner in the Sydney market.
Not so sure about the GC, or Tassie. I reckon both areas are best served with the type of deal the Hawks have in Tassie.
But we will have 18 teams. And Tassie will only get a look in if a new fanchise fails, or we have a relocation/merger.
I think West Sydney is worth the risk because it is a big market, rugby league has some problems, the council is supportive, and it is being flooded with migrants. I know the assumption is that migrants play soccer, but that's often not the case. When people go to another country, a large number want to learn something about the new country and become part of it. Australian football helps with that. In any case, some migrants, such as these Sudanese fellas, don't have the body shapes for either soccer or rugby league.
Heres a list of AFL players born in a different country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overseas-born_AFL_players
Heres a list of players by ethnicity. (This is a strange one because I don't know what criteria was used to define ethnic.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VFL/AFL_players_by_ethnicity
- Banned
- #42
I know for a fact the the TV ratings both Sydney and Brisbane get in Sydney and Brisbane exceeds in absolute numbers what Tasmania provides.
And I'm fairly confident the Lions and Swans have higher average crowds than Hawthorn do in Tasmania.
So I dont see how you can say Tassie is a "no brainer". Maybe only those with no brain cant see past the emotional rhetoric.
So how do the Kangaroos' crowds on the Gold Coast compare to Hawthorn's in Tassie?
As for television, you would expect a larger audience in Brisbane because they have their own team and are in a large city. How do ratings on the Gold Coast compare to ratings in Tassie?
Even if the Gold Coast region provided high ratings than Tassie (unlikely I would guess), you have to decide whether TV should be considered more important than game attendance. The NRL is completely focussed on television, but I personally think it is a mistake.
The argument for Tassie is not an emotional one. It is a logical one.
If Collingwood played games on the Gold Coast instead of the Kangaroos, the crowds would be much larger then Hawthorn in Tassie, ditto Carlton, ditto Essendon.
Fact is, no one embraced North on the Gold Coast because practically no one supports them up on the Coast, that and the fact that Carrara is a dump.
Unless both Tasmania and the Gold Coast get their own teams, its practically impossible to compare the relative drawing power in both regions, given you're comparing the relative populaity of the clubs playing as opposed to the game as a whole or the capacity for either region to support the game totally.
If you're comparing Tasmania to the Gold Coast, the Gold Coast clearly has a significantly larger catchment area - running down the North Coast of NSW and up to Brisbane, while Tasmania is isolated.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Yeah and I know for a fact that Pamela Anderson is gay.
You got some tv ratings stats for Tassie to show to prove it ?
Oh really ?
When they are winning ? Or when they are losing ?
Maybe at the moment, while premierships are still fresh in memory, BUT let me put a little blow to your confidence:
Sydney Swans
1994 15th 9,813
1993 15th 9,423
1992 15th 9,881
Brisbane Bears
1992 6,499
1991 8,887
1990 8,887
All time average for York Park (Aurora Stadium) AFL matches = 16,754
You have a ####ing short memory mate
This was just over 10 years ago and before their form slump, both clubs were getting half decent crowds and the Swans had made the finals. The AFL has bailed both clubs out to the tune of countless millions.Even the worst crowds for Hawthorn and St Kilda at Aurora have never sunk that low .... the worst ever crowd at Aurora was 12,465. And remember that while Sydney and Brisbane have seen AFL finals, Aurora has never once hosted one. If they did, I reckon the place would rock hard.
SO - you expect the Swans and Lions keep winning premierships ? And for the Gold Coast and West Sydney to be successful ??? I don't think the AFL will keep all four clubs on concessions
numbnuts. These new clubs might pull big crowds for a couple of weeks, but once the honeymoon is over - they'll be on their own and well and truly out of their depth.
Keep to the thread before you embarass yourself even further.
Whichever way you look at it, the case for the Gold Coast team relies on the assumption that it can succeed where the Brisbane Lions have failed by building a following amongst rugby league fans who have currently rejected the Lions. This is not easy to do. The only people who seem to think it will be easy are people who have no experience in a rugby league environment.
So what are the attributes of the Gold Coast that will allow them to succeed where the Lions have failed?
Rubbish. Take the RL blinkers off. The problem is that RL fans just cant stomach the thought that the AFL gets more money. Well stomach this, your CEO of the NRL David Gallop has just conceded the TV business case for the AFL over the NRL. If ever he had the opportunity to come out and declare that the NRL deserves more money than its currently getting this would have been the occasion.
Meanwhile several Sydney NRL clubs are struggling, the best players could end up either in the English Superleague or the European rugby union. Maybe just maybe thats what the TV executives of News Ltd think about the NRL's future in this country. A second rate comp in two states - what future, overseas TV rights? not Australia?
Redb
- Banned
- #48
Excellent point. I'm sure that (AFL) people have considered this. Times change. I suppose that's the only answer. Meaning that the AFL's approach will change and that they have the money (& a shitload of it) to support their new strategies. Owing to the position that the AFL are in and the state of football in this country (even with Vlad at the helm), I have faith in what they are doing. I'm sure others do too. But then again, I had faith in Tony Shaw.
(By the way, I have seen your new movie. What did you think? Is there going to be a sequel? Someone told me it's in three parts, however, I doubt it- it cannot be more than two.)
I agree that times change, but they don't change overnight. If the AFL can raise more revenue than its rivals, then if it spends the revenue wisely it will eventually win. It will not win if it squanders its money on grand symbolism that conveys the stench of failure.
So which way of spending money is most wise? pumping $200 million into a failing Gold Coast team in the hope that the large scale symbolism of their own club will win fans or pumping $200 million into junior development on the Gold Coast?
The AFL is working on the principle that giving the Gold Coast a team will create demand for the AFL where none currently exists. This is consistent with its idea of trying to relocate the Kangaroos to Sydney in the past.
Personally, I think a team satisfies demand. It doesn't create demand. You should only put a team in a region when there is demand for a team in a region. Until then, the AFL's money would be better spent on junior development.
Haven't seen my new movie yet, but going to inner Mongolia next week so I'll be sure to ask for some local feedback.
I wouldn't say none currently exists. And a local cub of its own will surely grow the demand that's currently there. And, I know we've gone through the supposed North Melb "relocation" to Sydney months back. To repeat - it was not proposed as an actual relocation, but only as a 'fly in, play, fly out' basis, with its home remaining at Arden St. A really stupid idea that insulted Sydney and was always doomed to failure.
A bit like the chicken or the egg argument. The AFL obviously feel they need the chicken AND the egg. The theory is that a local club will further inspire local juniors to choose Australian Football to play (thus going hand in hand with junior development), and for locals to watch it.
Lucky baarstard! I saw the movie, and its well worth watching. As it only covers his early life up until the time he unites the clans, there's plenty of scope for two sequels - his conquering of the East (China) and then his drive West through the rest of Asia into Europe.
