Druzik:

England 3 Lions:

Western Australians do watch the NRL on Fox Sports.  The Western Australian Rugby League (WARL) has existed since 1848.

ahhhh are you sure... its not a typo is it ;) RL wasn't even thought about then let alone RU codified! But this is academic agree with E3L. 

I meant to write "1948".

 ps. I must have been thinking about feminazism AKA feminism when I wrote "1848".  (The first women's conference on American soil was held in 1848).

Great read in RLWeek this week about the WA Reds. Everyone get out there and get a copy if you want to here some good news about RL in WA.

First, just do dust of an old argument with dogged,

"Nosworthy is eager to remind any doubters on the other side of the country that the perth reds were not a failure, financially or otherwise. Merely they were "victims of the politics of two competitions becoming one"". - WARL general manager Bill Nosworthy.

So there is a bit of a flaw in you're story about the reds failing financialy.

Also good news, perth playing numbers are growing and they currently have 2300 players in the city alone, aswell there is a team from kalgoolie in the Perth RL competition.

Also this is a great article as it gives information straight from a man that what know what's going on over there, Bill Nosworthy. According to Nosworthy 2012 will be the year Perth see a team back in the NRL, "by then we will have bid that the NRL simply can't deny". So i think this man would know what he's talikng about so how are you going to find a retaliation to this dogged?

Lol yeh, just read that one dally.

dogged,

Australian Rules Football was the most popular sport in Papua New Guinea during the 1980's.  Rugby League has been the most popular sport in Papua New Guinea since the alte 1980's.  The national sport of Papua New Guinea is Rugby league.

Therefore, if Australian Rules Football is superior to Rugby League, then how come the latter has replaced the former as the national sport of Papua New Guinea?

 

dallymessenger:

does anyone see the irony of an AFL fan coming onto a RL website dedicated to our World Cup and saying AFL has been succesful at expansion. 

lol yeh, just read that one dally, oh we do need emoticons.

dogged:

oikee mate what drugs are you on?...can i have some? ...mate aussie rules is going from strength to strength...two new teams are on the horizon and this will mean every mainland state will have two teams - and will have a home team playing in their state every week of the football season...WA, SA, Vic, NSW, QLD - live football every weekend...this has never been achieved by RLeague - not even close.... so how is it that RL is somehow superior? ...whatever it is you're taking you might want to go a bit easier - you're frying your brain...     

The Free-To-Air (FTA) Commercial Networks in Queensland and New South Wales are hesitant about airing the Friday Night AFL game at a prime time viewing slot.  The reason they are hesitant about it is because a movie would draw more viewers than an AFL game.  Therefore, your logic can be used to argue that the AFL hasn't succeeded in Queensland and New South Wales.

dogged:

huge demand is driving the need for bigger stadiums...when did this ever happen for RL

The Brisbane Broncos relocated from Lang Park to QEII Stadium during the early 1990's for this reason.

 

dogged:

but the reality is that where ever/whenever RL is played worldwide it's crowds are not that good...and where ever AFL is played, including NSW and QLD, its crowds are great...and it's simply because it's a more exciting football code to watch - no need for conspiracy theories...very simply explained..

Since when has the Papua New Guinean Australian Rules Football League drawn larger crowds to its matches than the Papua New Guinea Rugby League's first grade competition?

The Bartercard Cup in New Zealand draws larger crowds than the amateur Australian Rules Football leagues that are held in its provinces.

The Australian Rules Football competitions in Europe do not draw larger crowds than the European Super League.  In fact, the European Super League draws larger crowds than any other domestic Rugby Union competition in the world.

The French Elite League draws decent crowds to its matches.  As does the Russian Rugby League's domestic competition.  I don't think you'll find too many Australian Rules Football fans in France and Russia.  If there are any over there, then they're probably Australian expratiates from Victoria.

dogged:

but the reality is that where ever/whenever RL is played worldwide it's crowds are not that good...and where ever AFL is played, including NSW and QLD, its crowds are great...and it's simply because it's a more exciting football code to watch - no need for conspiracy theories...very simply explained..

Well there's holes in that statement all over, anywhere outside of austrlia, QLD, NSW and ACT, that's where. I believe that accounts for all but 9.5 million of the worlds population. Ofcourse there would be a 2billion+ pewople who wouldn't have a clue what either were. More exciting to watch, well that's your opinion and i have mine as do all australian's. "it's simply because it's a more exciting code to watch" that's opinion not fact wank*r i bet only about 50% of australians agree with you on that.

dallymessenger:

Apparently AFL has an amateur World Cup - get this - the funny bit is that Australian arent allowed to compete in this world cup because they are too strong. only in AFL would you have a world cup where the nation that the "a" stand for cant play in it.

I could be wrong, but I think the Grand Final of the Australian Rules Football World Cup is usually held as a curtain raiser to one of the AFL Premiership's regular round matches at the MCG. 

An American Football World Cup exists, too. There have been three editions of it. The US didn't compete at the 1st-two editions of it, but they were at the 3rd-one. They won the last one after they defeated Japan 23-20 in the final -- the match went into over-time.

At least the US's match against Japan was close. The same wouldn't be said after an Australian Rules Football match was played between an amateur Australia team and a "Rest of the World" team.

"when it comes to TV though RL is the dominant sport by a long margin"

Yes yes ..RL people keep telling themselves this and everyone agrees...at least every RL fan agrees that this is the case...the very odd fact though is that for a sport that supposedly is so dominant on TV its broadcasting deal is 30% lower that the AFL per annum - and that 30% represents tens of million......doesn't this bug RL fans....doesn't it make you wonder why?? ....why does the AFL get paid far more for a less popular broadcast?? .....and why do their players get paid more both on average and for their top players? (a top RL player goes for 400-500K per season and and a top AFL player can double that)....many AFL players earn more than the highest paid NRL player....all seems a bit unfair doesn't it?!!

I've lost track of exact figure but the salary cap for an AFL club is somewhere around $6m (and depends on consessions for senior players) whereas is around $3.5-$4m for a NRL team....so for all these claims about being the dominant TV game isn't it quite odd that your game get paid less per player and per team?!....more popular yet paid less and less money around!!?...go figure?! ...doesn't make any sense does it?...that's because this claim to TV dominance is crap - I think this "RL is the best TV game" stuff is just nonsense repeated by RL fans and some RL media as some type of excuse to explain away their dismal crowds and empty stands.....repeating a lie a thousand times doesn't make it the truth...so RL fans that parrot this nonsense are just wasting their breath...

as I've said before on this forum, the NRL administration itself (Gallop) doesn't even claim RL leads ANY of the objective measures of popularity - crowds, TV, sponsorships, club revenues, club memberships, broadcasting deals - none of them..not one measure does it claims to lead......in fact quite the opposite - it has admitted that it trails but tries to put a spin on it that they lead in NSW/QLD...please prove me wrong and post a link.....the only thing you'll ever get Gallop and company claiming is supremacy in NSW/QLD...and that's all that can be claimed...if you do a comparison of the AFL and NRL nationally then it's AFL first and daylight second....

again it's Occum's Razor...why does the AFL earn significantly more for its broadcasting rights deal than NRL?...answer - the AFL broadcasts are more popular...it's really very very simple...no complicated theories needed to exlpain the difference....if you want a laugh look out for the six monthly articles from Roy Masters where he wrings his hands about how the AFL "fluked" it's $780 million broadcasting deal and how the NRL got ripped off and paid much less.....he throws around conspiracy theories about why it happened...and Phil Gould is the same - he puts it all down to the AFL's clever 'spin' and better adminstration...they just don't get it...more popular - more money..very simple...very very easy....and the next broadcasting deal will be just the same - more money for the AFL and less for RL....the only interest will be to see if RL can manage to close the substantial gap or whether it widens even further which I suspect it might given the Gold Coast and Western Sydney coming in....

and please for anyone tempted to sprout the "State of Origin is the highest rating TV event" please don't bother...don't display your ignorance....the SOO audience doesn't even get close to the NRL GF....and the NRL GF in turn isn't close to the AFL GF...this myth seems to be a standard amonst RL fans and I'm not sure where it comes from but I think it is the media....I have seen this nonsense published by some dishonest/stupid RL journos....again - please prove me wrong on this - and by proof I mean something concrete like Oztam figures (which are published annually) not just claiming it is true....

one more thing,...everyone here seems to be taking a swipe and ridiculing the AFL's International series...why? ...the AFL and AFL fans knwo this is an amatuer event ,....it's supported by the AFL but it's purely a fun event and nothing serious....just a chance for overseas amatuers to have a go at playing aussie rules with other amatuer players...what's the big deal////....

in fact it's a whole lot more honest that the RL 'World' Cup which Australia wins every year (almost)...how exciting..Australia wins again!!!...woo hoo!!..Australia v New Zealand/England final again....didn't see that coming...yeah!!!..seriously outside NZ/England how many players are actually professional and do it for a living - these other teams would be very similar to the team coming for the Australian International Rules series (the AFL version) - a bunch of amatuers who probably couldn't beat a decent schoolboys side...really..at least the AFL doesn;t have delusions of granduer....if you're excited by the RL 'World' Cup then good for you....I wonder who will make the final this year?!...woooo...   

Hey dogged, i reckon your mouth is so big you could put a House in it, you sound like a little lost puppy wandering around the ghetto looking for something to do. Why dont you go find your own gayFL forum and get over yourself......Fool

dogged:

as I've said before on this forum, the NRL administration itself (Gallop) doesn't even claim RL leads ANY of the objective measures of popularity - crowds, TV, sponsorships, club revenues, club memberships, broadcasting deals - none of them..not one measure does it claims to lead......in fact quite the opposite - it has admitted that it trails but tries to put a spin on it that they lead in NSW/QLD...please prove me wrong and post a link.....the only thing you'll ever get Gallop and company claiming is supremacy in NSW/QLD...and that's all that can be claimed...if you do a comparison of the AFL and NRL nationally then it's AFL first and daylight second.... 

again it's Occum's Razor...why does the AFL earn significantly more for its broadcasting rights deal than NRL?...answer - the AFL broadcasts are more popular...it's really very very simple...no complicated theories needed to exlpain the difference....if you want a laugh look out for the six monthly articles from Roy Masters where he wrings his hands about how the AFL "fluked" it's $780 million broadcasting deal and how the NRL got ripped off and paid much less.....he throws around conspiracy theories about why it happened...and Phil Gould is the same - he puts it all down to the AFL's clever 'spin' and better adminstration...they just don't get it...more popular - more money..very simple...very very easy....and the next broadcasting deal will be just the same - more money for the AFL and less for RL....the only interest will be to see if RL can manage to close the substantial gap or whether it widens even further which I suspect it might given the Gold Coast and Western Sydney coming in....

Oh, God you're embarassing yourself. You keep crapping on about this simple theory crap, well here's a simple theory for you, NSW, QLD and ACT cover more than half of the australia population, i told you this before and you made some sort of comeback, sounded something like this i think "WAH WAH WAH, WAAAAAHHHHHHH, WAAAAAAAAHHEHEHEHEHEHAAAAAHHHHHHH, I DON'T LIKE RUGBY LEAGUE!!!! WAHEHEHEAAAAHHHH, WAAAAHHHHH, I WANT AFL, III WAAAANNNNNT AAYYY EEFFF EEEHHEHELLLLLL, WAAAAHHHHHH..." and so on, matter of fact thats pretty much what everything you have said sounded like.

Population of AFL territory - VIC, TAS, WA, SA = 9.5 million

Population of NRL territory - NSW, QLD, ACT = 11.5 million

Now you can keep crapping on about simple theories and what not, there is one right there. You claim to be superior because you are more popular in 4 states while we have 2 and 1 territory, yet "our states" so to speak have more people. You don't get popularity from land mass and trees and grass in WA, SA, Vic and tassy, you get it from the people, as do we in NSW, QLD and ACT. So when you use this "we are popular in more states" you are embarassing yourself.

I'll also predict a reply to this BTW, "you're embarassing yourself".

Now, now, now back to you're very first argument "an NRL club will never survive in Perth, the Reds failed financially and would do so again" check 1 of my posts up the page a bit and you will see I have all but proved you wrong with quotes from WARL GM. Any answers to this one, master AFL guru?

dogged:

"when it comes to TV though RL is the dominant sport by a long margin"

Yes yes ..RL people keep telling themselves this and everyone agrees...at least every RL fan agrees that this is the case...the very odd fact though is that for a sport that supposedly is so dominant on TV its broadcasting deal is 30% lower that the AFL per annum - and that 30% represents tens of million......doesn't this bug RL fans....doesn't it make you wonder why??

The disparity is partly derived from the situation 2000/2001 bidding war between Foxtel, Channel Nine Network and the Seven Network.  Kerry Packer owned the Channel Nine Network.  Plus, he had a stake in Foxtel.  His main competitor was Kerry Stoke's Seven Network and C7 Sport Pay TV service on Optus Vision.  Packer knew that he could kill off Stoke's C7 Sport service by hoarding the broadcast rights of the Australian Football League.  Therefore, he set up a joint deal between the Channel Nine Network, Network Ten and Foxtel that couldn't be matched by the Seven Network.

The Seven Network was desperate to secure the most recent broadcast rights for the NRL.  They proposed a deal that would have seen the NRL televised via their FTA service into every region of Australia at prime time.  However, the Channel Nine Network had a clause in their previous contract that gave them the right to place a bid before the Seven Network could formally announced theirs.  As a result, the Channel Nine Network offered the NRL a proposal that was equal in worth to the previous AFL broadcast right's package between Channel Nine Network, Foxtel and Network Ten.  The NRL accepted the deal before the Seven Network could bid for the broadcast rights.

In response, the Seven Network was desperate to secure the right to broadcast the AFL on terrestrial television.  Network Ten were equally as desperate to keep their right to broadcast the AFL.  As a result, both of the networks formed an alliance and outbidded Packer.  The deal they signed has taken them to the limit.  It was more than they could afford.  It's probably the last time you'll ever see the AFL's broadcast deal equate to such a high sum.

Alright people, just updating the fox sports poll results so far (the one that is apparently irrelevant since all RL fans are funneled to fox whilst no AFL fans are), thats right it's still going.

ok last time i checked it was:

Football: 46.12%
League: 30.14%
AFL: 18.7%
Union: 5.03%

I checked it again just now and the results show:

What's your favourite code - AFL, League, Rugby or Football?

AFL	15.37% 1731 votes
League	36.84% 4148 votes
Rugby	9.38% 1056 votes
Football	38.39% 4322 votes

 

Ok so soccer just ahead of us, then daylight to AFL and again to union.

RL nowhere near as popular as AFL dogged? well those results show different.