Play Nice 2022 Non AFL Crowds/Ratings/Finance/Development thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who was behind this cricket world record crowd of 100,000 hype in India? My eyes tell me I’m missing something.
The Indians are claiming 100,000 but it looked more like 70,000 max( An official crowd figure was not confirmed for day one of the fourth Test on Thursday, but the Gujarat Cricket Association estimated it to be between 50,000 and 60,000.)with huge sections of the top deck empty and then half of those left at the lunch break.

"According to local reports, about 85,000 seats for day one of the Test have been reserved for students and families in honour of Modi’s visit, while a large portion of the venue will be empty due to security protocols."

There would have been lucky to be 30,000 for the last session of play as it seems like a lot of the crowd was there just to see their PM who is wildly popular in his home State of Gujarat where the Test is being played.
Lets see how the crowd is tomorrow but I doubt we will see anywhere near a real 100,000 for any day of the test.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The women’s soccer Australia Cup will be launched in 2024 - claims to be the first such competition for any women’s code in Australia, and will involve all clubs from the community level to the elite Aleague women teams
 
It doesnt appear to have the rake of modern stadiums.
The second day crowd was a shocker lucky to be 10,000 and it does appear the 85,000 free tickets given out on day one boosted the crowd a lot and we are now back to a normal Indian Test crowd.
I think the onlytime the stadium whatever it holds would be full would be an IPL final.
 

Interesting read.

Melbourne and Sydney have secured 2025 Lions Tour Test Matches. Perth and Adelaide strong bids over Brisbane for the final test. Keen to see who gets what games over the coming months.
 
A question for all the LU lurkers on here - how come Melbourne Storm who have been a much more successful club over the last 25 years than the Sydney Swans can only get 17,000 to AAMI Park on a Saturday night when there is little or no competition esp no AFL matches?
 
Plenty of press about NRL expansion the past 24 hours, with some fairly outlandish proposals.
They at least acknowledge they are starting in 2nd possie.
I'll say just one thing about this idea of expanding to 20 teams with 10 games per round (and don't forget the old ARL was already there once upon a time), league lovers watch lots of games, they'll watch as many as you put up for them to watch, so in my humble opinion, even if no one was attending these extra games in person, they'd get rock solid TV ratings and a pretty healthy broadcast contract would eventuate.
Whether it's enough to pay for all these extra teams, well, that's the $400 million question.
 
Plenty of press about NRL expansion the past 24 hours, with some fairly outlandish proposals.
They at least acknowledge they are starting in 2nd possie.
I'll say just one thing about this idea of expanding to 20 teams with 10 games per round (and don't forget the old ARL was already there once upon a time), league lovers watch lots of games, they'll watch as many as you put up for them to watch, so in my humble opinion, even if no one was attending these extra games in person, they'd get rock solid TV ratings and a pretty healthy broadcast contract would eventuate.
Whether it's enough to pay for all these extra teams, well, that's the $400 million question.


Why would it significantly drive increased broadcast dollars if it is the same subscribers just watching an extra game?

The reason extra AFL games drive broadcast dollars is that, all else being equal, it pushes more of the big clubs' games onto pay TV

Also, just want to reiterate, I highly doubt the average NRL junkie watches any more NRL than the average AFL junkie. It is just that if they sit down and watch 6 hours on a Saturday they have watched every minute of every game. The same AFL junkie has watched 40% of the total game time.
 
Plenty of press about NRL expansion the past 24 hours, with some fairly outlandish proposals.
They at least acknowledge they are starting in 2nd possie.
I'll say just one thing about this idea of expanding to 20 teams with 10 games per round (and don't forget the old ARL was already there once upon a time), league lovers watch lots of games, they'll watch as many as you put up for them to watch, so in my humble opinion, even if no one was attending these extra games in person, they'd get rock solid TV ratings and a pretty healthy broadcast contract would eventuate.
Whether it's enough to pay for all these extra teams, well, that's the $400 million question.
20 teams including Pasifika (to win the 18th licence) based on the Feds providing 'tens of $millions' to bankroll the club HQ'd in Cairns & playing home premiership games in Samoa, Tonga & PNG.

Cant see the current clubs allowing a Pasifika side 'first dibs' on their side. Too much talent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

20 teams including Pasifika (to win the 18th licence) based on the Feds providing 'tens of $millions' to bankroll the club HQ'd in Cairns & playing home premiership games in Samoa, Tonga & PNG.

Cant see the current clubs allowing a Pasifika side 'first dibs' on their side. Too much talent.
Playing at three different home grounds in 3 different countries? Sounds a bit convoluted.
 
Why is the federal government offering to throw Australian taxpayers dollars around, for an overseas team to play in the Australian competition of an imported sport. Albo showing his strong bias again.

To project Australian ‘soft power’ across the Pacific due to China’s increasing influence in the region. These countries are rugby league mad, so I can see the rationale behind it, even if I don’t like it (for the reasons you’ve mentioned). Enhancing player pathways in Pacific countries will also help grow their talent pool, which is an important consideration for the NRL when you consider their GR participation problems.
 
To project Australian ‘soft power’ across the Pacific due to China’s increasing influence in the region. These countries are rugby league mad, so I can see the rationale behind it, even if I don’t like it (for the reasons you’ve mentioned). Enhancing player pathways in Pacific countries will also help grow their talent pool, which is an important consideration for the NRL when you consider their GR participation problems.


Certainly comes across as the PM's fetish rather than a justifiable use of government money. PNG is already "rugby league mad", how would spending 10s of millions a year to play a handful of games change the risk of a corrupt decision favouring china?

The Pacifika countries aren't "rugby league mad". They're rugby union mad how does the expensive cost of converting them to league shift any geopolitical outcomes? (i.e rather than the far cheaper option of supporting the existing Super rugby teams?)

What does my head in is how the government are so comfortable having this idea hawked around while they continue to play hardball on the Tasmanian stadium contribution.
 
Why is the federal government offering to throw Australian taxpayers dollars around, for an overseas team to play in the Australian competition of an imported sport. Albo showing his strong bias again.

Not a follower of our Foreign Minister ?
 
....more generally, whilst you could see the NRL going to 18 teams given they are already at 17, there is no chance of them going to 20.

18 is going to pose immense growing pain stress on a league full of parochial interests (be it private owners or leagues club mini casinos) that don't do long-term strategy for the overall good.
 
The pafi
To project Australian ‘soft power’ across the Pacific due to China’s increasing influence in the region. These countries are rugby league mad, so I can see the rationale behind it, even if I don’t like it (for the reasons you’ve mentioned). Enhancing player pathways in Pacific countries will also help grow their talent pool, which is an important consideration for the NRL when you consider their GR participation problems.
The Pasifika players are already dominating both the RL and RU and will do more so as time goes on.
I cannot be good for a major sport to be dominated by a small ethnic minority many of whom are not even born in Australia!

It has already been reported many times that European/Anglo kids are way too small to compete against the much bigger Pasifika kids in underage games and parents are taking their kids out of junior RL because they think their kids will get hurt.
 
To project Australian ‘soft power’ across the Pacific due to China’s increasing influence in the region. These countries are rugby league mad, so I can see the rationale behind it, even if I don’t like it (for the reasons you’ve mentioned). Enhancing player pathways in Pacific countries will also help grow their talent pool, which is an important consideration for the NRL when you consider their GR participation problems.

Soft power would be promoting the 'Australian game' in Papua New Guinea, AFL use to be popular there, not a foreign one.

Albo just using this as an excuse to fund his favourite sport, so much for promoting Australian culture to the world. Also interesting to note how close he seems to be to Vlandy's, makes sense why he is trying to squeeze the AFL on tassie so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top