Are Brisbane irrelvant in Queensland. A lions supporter says they are..

[Sausages]

Appalling reading from a Brisbane and Lion's angle. The rampant indifference is clear when looking at data like that. And contrary to perceptions, the viewership won't really change even when the Lion's are winning. Look at Sydney's figures to see that - without a cultural shift from both the public and the AFL, their presence is justified only when viewed in the context of the broadcast deal and only then in an economic sense - there is no other reason for their existence and this is displayed as indifference by the local community.


From a report here, News Ltd, May 4: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-new-rights-deal/story-fni3gv5x-1227332898850

The last paragraph:
The Lions’ past two AFL games were watched nationally by 113,000 and 158,000, with Brisbane’s games against Richmond and West Coast being watched by only 22,000 and 26,000 respectively on 7 Mate in Queensland.

Not much to interest even a local business with ~24k viewership in a city of 2 million.

 

[Rob]

Appalling reading from a Brisbane and Lion's angle. The rampant indifference is clear when looking at data like that. And contrary to perceptions, the viewership won't really change even when the Lion's are winning.

lol, rubbish.

 

[Sausages]

*edit - apologies for the OT response*

lol, rubbish.

You are not understanding the point - YES, more people will watch the Lions when they are winning and when they lose, they change channels. And therein lies the whole problem my friend. they don't actually care about the game, nor the team - just want some feel good sport to watch. You won't win Mum and Dad over long term here, just generate a 12 month family membership AT BEST.

So, 3 peat Lions = extra membership. Consider the predicator well there - "3 peat Lions". And all the ramifications that statement has. You are suggesting this cycle is satisfactory? (~!)Artificially build 'em up, tear 'em down, wait a while, rinse, repeat? To get some memberships, which history shows us disappear not long after?

Furthermore, put the Lions winning head to head on TV with the Broncos winning and watch the result. THIS shows you the people who, perhaps during those 3 peat years, bought a membership and stuck it out. You can argue about broadcasters maximising revenue etc all you wish, but the point stands - the AFL broadcast would be slaughtered. Everybody KNOWS IT, but what executive producer would put his nuts on the line and programme it, "just to see" ?

The figures do not represent the true picture - sometimes what ISN'T measured has a story to tell nevertheless.

And the story is simply this - the product, the game, isn't all that relevant nor interesting to the local populace. And the evidence abounds that this is the case, yet it serves a great many interests to suggest otherwise. If those interests can't influence the operational activities of clubs via head office, then that's one thing. When they can, that's another - because then you have inaccurate, self interested arguments justifying rules and regulations and applied to a third party, in this case the Lions. That's poor governance at best.

You cannot have it both ways - either accept the Lions will need ongoing assistance, across all areas of the enterprise, from field to boardroom. Or, acknowledge that the relevance of the club is almost entirely related to broadcast dollars and we can all be happy with the status quo.

And the status quo for the Lions (and the other expansion teams as well) isn't the cycle of success, rebuild, success. Our cycle is success, decay, life support. We start off with the good stuff. From then on, we are kept around simply to justify revenue. If you disagree with this point, show me an expansion AFL club that has operated differently. There isn't one. Only been 4 expansion clubs. So nobody has any idea what they are doing anyway, there's no history here.

If you agree with that point, that our success is entirely dependant upon AFL intervention to make us competitive - link that with your position on the viewership and penetration of the code up here, re:Lions winning. And what you are saying is that:

Lions winning = more viewers
More viewers = more participants
More participants = more revenue etc, all the good stuff that makes CEO's snuggly at night.

Lions winning = AFL handouts
AFL handouts = uneven, unfair competition

It's just a shit cycle. You know it, I know it, we all know it. And it needs to bloody change. And not solely with salary cap concessions or other field-centric approaches, but REAL efforts to market and promote the game.

 

[The_Wookie]

*edit - apologies for the OT response*
You are not understanding the point - YES, more people will watch the Lions when they are winning and when they lose, they change channels. And therein lies the whole problem my friend. they don't actually care about the game, nor the team - just want some feel good sport to watch. You won't win Mum and Dad over long term here, just generate a 12 month family membership AT BEST.

Rubbish. Absoluite rubbish.

So, 3 peat Lions = extra membership. Consider the predicator well there - "3 peat Lions". And all the ramifications that statement has. You are suggesting this cycle is satisfactory? (~!)Artificially build 'em up, tear 'em down, wait a while, rinse, repeat? To get some memberships, which history shows us disappear not long after?

Teams go through down periods, some further than others. Look at Carlton.

Furthermore, put the Lions winning head to head on TV with the Broncos winning and watch the result. THIS shows you the people who, perhaps during those 3 peat years, bought a membership and stuck it out. You can argue about broadcasters maximising revenue etc all you wish, but the point stands - the AFL broadcast would be slaughtered. Everybody KNOWS IT, but what executive producer would put his nuts on the line and programme it, "just to see" ?

TV ratings don't show you the people who stuck it out at all. Any one can turn on a tv. Besides if we talk head to head, lets put the Broncos on on Saturday twilight or sunday arvo and see how their ratings go. What did happen when the Lions were winning is that Lions crowds and memberships reached levels even beat the Broncos - and remember this, the League places almost equal value on crowds and members as it does on ratings.

[quoteThe figures do not represent the true picture - sometimes what ISN'T measured has a story to tell nevertheless.[/quote]

What isn't measured is code for what can be made up to support any theory.

You cannot have it both ways - either accept the Lions will need ongoing assistance, across all areas of the enterprise, from field to boardroom. Or, acknowledge that the relevance of the club is almost entirely related to broadcast dollars and we can all be happy with the status quo.

The AFL has already all of this.

And the status quo for the Lions (and the other expansion teams as well) isn't the cycle of success, rebuild, success. Our cycle is success, decay, life support. We start off with the good stuff. From then on, we are kept around simply to justify revenue. If you disagree with this point, show me an expansion AFL club that has operated differently. There isn't one. Only been 4 expansion clubs. So nobody has any idea what they are doing anyway, there's no history here.

We have a great idea when it comes to Brisbane. They are nearly 30 years old after all. Finals - near bankruptcy - finals 95 - flattend out - grand finals - 2001-2004 - flattended out. The Swans, Eagles, and Port can all tell similar experiences.

If you agree with that point, that our success is entirely dependant upon AFL intervention to make us competitive - link that with your position on the viewership and penetration of the code up here, re:Lions winning. And what you are saying is that:

Lions winning = more viewers
More viewers = more participants
More participants = more revenue etc, all the good stuff that makes CEO's snuggly at night.

Theres no link between participants and revenue. If there was, soccer and netball would have billions in the bank. Theres no real link between viewers and participation for that matter either, or Rugby League wouldn't need to merge with Touch to inflate its figures.

 

[Sausages]

No real link between participants and revenue? Cool, I can make my own TV station broadcasting to 300 people and charge big advertising dollars then? The participants ARE your revenue, whether they participate through attending, playing, watching - all of this is participation. Soccer DOES have billions in the bank, just not Australian Soccer - Netball is another "sleeping giant" of Aussie sport and is largely ignored because it's a chick sport.

As far as our cycle you outlined, 1 of those 3 needs/needed extra assistance, as did the Lions. Your perception is altered because you view the flags as evidence of success in creating a club - it didn't and doesn't. It generated massive interest for a short time - like the Sydney Olympics did. Would you contend during the 2000 Olympics that we were suddenly an athletics nation? No, you wouldn't - after the fire died down, the REAL level of interest, activity levels, all returned to normal. The irony here is you put forward exactly the same argument regarding RL SoO and Melbourne RL participation. It's the same reason nobody will really care if Little Timmy scored a double hundred for the under-10's....it won't make the awareness of anyone outside of a select crowd, hence it isn't widely considered important or relevant for distribution. Again, a point you fail to understand, because it is a cultural barrier.

Where are the feted Queensland-born and VFL/AFL successful past players? Why aren't they more vocal and aggressive in their staunch support of growing the game up here? The answer lies in the perception of importance - and to be a footy player, you need to split Brisbane and Queensland ASAP. That ALONE should tell you a great many things...they don't have time? No money in it? Can't be arsed? Pick any of them, they all lead to the same conclusion - to have credibility as a player or coach, gtfo to Melbourne.

 

[The_Wookie]

No real link between participants and revenue? Cool, I can make my own TV station broadcasting to 300 people and charge big advertising dollars then? The participants ARE your revenue, whether they participate through attending, playing, watching - all of this is participation. Soccer DOES have billions in the bank, just not Australian Soccer - Netball is another "sleeping giant" of Aussie sport and is largely ignored because it's a chick sport.

Ausztralian soccer doesnt have billions in the bank though and it has by far the largest Australian participation of any sport. Or is this one of those "unmeasurables" that you made up?

As far as our cycle you outlined, 1 of those 3 needs/needed extra assistance, as did the Lions. Your perception is altered because you view the flags as evidence of success in creating a club - it didn't and doesn't. It generated massive interest for a short time - like the Sydney Olympics did. Would you contend during the 2000 Olympics that we were suddenly an athletics nation? No, you wouldn't - after the fire died down, the REAL level of interest, activity levels, all returned to normal. The irony here is you put forward exactly the same argument regarding RL SoO and Melbourne RL participation. It's the same reason nobody will really care if Little Timmy scored a double hundred for the under-10's....it won't make the awareness of anyone outside of a select crowd, hence it isn't widely considered important or relevant for distribution. Again, a point you fail to understand, because it is a cultural barrier.

And if the Olympics went for 30 years, or Origin in melbourne, you could argue a pattern. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that crowds follow success - even with the Broncos and the Reds in Queensland sport. As a queensland born, i think you for lecturing me on my own cultural history though.

Where are the feted Queensland-born and VFL/AFL successful past players? Why aren't they more vocal and aggressive in their staunch support of growing the game up here? The answer lies in the perception of importance - and to be a footy player, you need to split Brisbane and Queensland ASAP. That ALONE should tell you a great many things...they don't have time? No money in it? Can't be arsed? Pick any of them, they all lead to the same conclusion - to have credibility as a player or coach, gtfo to Melbourne.

Only two coaching jobs in the AFL in Queensland. How many opportunities for Brisbane players to coach exactly?

 

[papabear]

Wookies main points are right.

The link between participation and viewing is overrated/non existant. There are more examples Ping Pong, BBall and NBL, pool / billiards , lawn bowls etc.

People watch tv because they enjoy the show, not because they play the sport... obviously there are a lot of people who both enjoy the sport and the show but they are separate things. Look at the soccer world cup, heaps of people watch it regardless of whether they play soccer or not, they enjoy the show and the nationalistic pride/failure they don't go watch a league because they don't enjoy that show.

As for rugby league merging with touch to increase participation numbers despite having very good viewership numbers. That was a business case copied from the AFL who created a non contact version to artificially increase player numbers and obtain government grants. League just copied the business practice.

Oddly enough I am pretty sure touch (again essentially rugby league) is considered union in England. Odd that, considering how difficult most union people find rugby league and rugby league concepts.

As for the Brisbane lions, I think once a second Brisbane / another se qld team is created in rugby league it will further nail in the coffin of union, but the lions will continue what they have always done and that is give another option / operate for a niche, obviously the other option is more enticing when they are winning. Anyways its qld viewers for the afl they provide that and I am sure that more then covers any loan costs otherwise the afl wouldn't do it.

 

[Sausages]

*shrug*

Your forums, have the sycophantic discourse you wish. When the AFL coughs up another flag to the Lions inside 10 years, don't bitch about concessions.

 

[Rob]

Brisbane don't need to be winning flags to be making money. They just need to be not shit, and playing finals now and then. Have a look at their crowds a few years ago when they were in that boat - around 30k average. Big difference between 20k and 30k a game - that's 110,000 people, and at $30 a piece that's $3.3 million dollars. Never mind the corporate boxes that are a shitload more marketable when you're not consistently bottom 4. Sponsors also don't particularly like rubbish teams either.

 

[Sausages]

Brisbane don't need to be winning flags to be making money. They just need to be not shit, and playing finals now and then. Have a look at their crowds a few years ago when they were in that boat - around 30k average. Big difference between 20k and 30k a game - that's 110,000 people, and at $30 a piece that's $3.3 million dollars. Never mind the corporate boxes that are a shitload more marketable when you're not consistently bottom 4. Sponsors also don't particularly like rubbish teams either.

Year Members Finishing Position Average Home Crowd
1987 3,449 13th 8,965
1988 7,607 13th 12,781
1989 7,176 10th 10,944
1990 5,630 14th 8,887
1991 5,696 15th 8,011
1992 5,401 14th 6,499
1993 5,750 13th 11,148
1994 6,158 12th 12,433
1995 6,893 Qualifying Final (8th) 10,305
1996 10,267 Preliminary Final (3rd) 18,088

10 years into the expansion, best finish was a PF with almost 20k home crowd and 10k members.


Year Members Finishing position1 Average match crowd

1997 16,679 Qualifying Final (8th) 24,468
1998 16,108 16th 19,913
1999 16,931 Preliminary Finalist (3rd) 25,612
2000 20,295 Semi-finalist (6th) 26,951
2001 18,330 Premiers (2nd) 29,913
2002 22,288 Premiers (2nd) 32,956
2003 25,578 Premiers (3rd) 36,151
2004 30,941 Grand Finalist (2nd) 36,687
2005 30,027 11th 35,393
2006 26,459 13th 29,521
2007 23,072[26] 10th 30,242
2008 23,079 10th 28,374
2009 26,324[28] Semi-finalist (6th) 30,085
2010 29,014 13th 29,060
2011 20,792[31] 15th 25,190
2012 20,762[33] 13th 23,379
2013 24,130[35] 12th 22,909
2014 23,930 15th 21,379

Lions did well, etc. But, in the intervening 18 years, 1996 - 2014, despite all the success, the average crowd has grown by a whopping 3291.

Not shit? The reality which you all so conveniently dismiss is that the concessions, which were argued by all and sundry post-3peat as the reason for our success, were likely solely the reason we were successful. If the Brisbane sporting public thought they finally had a team they could support and who were going places , they certainly got whiteanted by the McGuire's of the AFL community during this time, who essentially dismissed the flags as AFL funded.

So, a Brisbane punter gets told by all the AFL news outlets that our concessions were unfair and were also the reason for our success.

And you guys sit there, with straight faces, and say "we just need to be not shit/do a bit better". LOL - we have been competitive only when extra resources were available. We were relevant only when extra resources available.

FWIW, I have no issue with the concessions being removed - I just chuckle when you chaps know best. You don't and all of my points stand. The AFL gifted flags, thought the job was done, and rode off into the sunset. Massive failure.

Let's not look at at how much money has been poured into the Lions/Bears for the "AFL will be the dominant sport in S-E QLD" approach....11 million dollars of LOSSES just between 2008-2013.

But no, there's zillions of Auskick players apparently....love to know where they kick for goals and play out of hours though....no goal posts up here mate, too expensive......

 

[Rob]

Not shit? The reality which you all so conveniently dismiss is that the concessions, which were argued by all and sundry post-3peat as the reason for our success, were likely solely the reason we were successful. If the Brisbane sporting public thought they finally had a team they could support and who were going places , they certainly got whiteanted by the McGuire's of the AFL community during this time, who essentially dismissed the flags as AFL funded.

So, a Brisbane punter gets told by all the AFL news outlets that our concessions were unfair and were also the reason for our success.

And you guys sit there, with straight faces, and say "we just need to be not shit/do a bit better". LOL - we have been competitive only when extra resources were available. We were relevant only when extra resources available.

FWIW, I have no issue with the concessions being removed - I just chuckle when you chaps know best. You don't and all of my points stand. The AFL gifted flags, thought the job was done, and rode off into the sunset. Massive failure.

Let's not look at at how much money has been poured into the Lions/Bears for the "AFL will be the dominant sport in S-E QLD" approach....11 million dollars of LOSSES just between 2008-2013.

But no, there's zillions of Auskick players apparently....love to know where they kick for goals and play out of hours though....no goal posts up here mate, too expensive......

Yeah, the reason why Brisbane traded the farm for Fevola and pissed off half the playing list was because they had no concessions. Then they sacked Voss just when he looked like he was starting to learn how to coach - blame the lack of concessions for that too.

 

[Sausages]

Yeah, the reason why Brisbane traded the farm for Fevola and pissed off half the playing list was because they had no concessions. Then they sacked Voss just when he looked like he was starting to learn how to coach - blame the lack of concessions for that too.

Rob misses from 50 out. Thanks though.

 

[Rob]

Rob misses from 50 out. Thanks though.

I blame my lack of concessions.

 

[Sausages]

I blame my lack of concessions.

He kicks from a tighter angle but puts it out on the full.

With my free kick, I shall take a moment to ponder the worrying trend of information regarding expansion success and the methods thereof. Specifically how much it is costing/going to cost.

Moving the ball quickly from the pocket, it is pleasing to see that despite your laughable efforts to paint a picture with statistics from google.com, there most certainly is currency in my opinion and others who share similar misgivings.

As stated elsewhere, repetitive, uninspiring and pedestrian regurgitations of excel files to illustrate a point suggests neolithic approaches to internet based discussion forums. /shrug.

Inviting people to enter into commentary is suggestive of efforts to broaden the appeal and responsiveness of the articles in question. But perhaps that would conflict with other efforts, who knows.

From 50 out, I'll again wonder why the repeated and expensive failings of multi code efforts to engage the Gold Coast by just "chucking a team in" weren't even remotely addressed by the league.

As the goal umpire waves the flags, I await the bounce and inevitable ululations of Auskick participation rates forthwith.

 

[Rob]

He kicks from a tighter angle but puts it out on the full.

With my free kick, I shall take a moment to ponder the worrying trend of information regarding expansion success and the methods thereof. Specifically how much it is costing/going to cost.

Moving the ball quickly from the pocket, it is pleasing to see that despite your laughable efforts to paint a picture with statistics from google.com, there most certainly is currency in my opinion and others who share similar misgivings.

As stated elsewhere, repetitive, uninspiring and pedestrian regurgitations of excel files to illustrate a point suggests neolithic approaches to internet based discussion forums. /shrug.

Inviting people to enter into commentary is suggestive of efforts to broaden the appeal and responsiveness of the articles in question. But perhaps that would conflict with other efforts, who knows.

From 50 out, I'll again wonder why the repeated and expensive failings of multi code efforts to engage the Gold Coast by just "chucking a team in" weren't even remotely addressed by the league.

As the goal umpire waves the flags, I await the bounce and inevitable ululations of Auskick participation rates forthwith.

Holy crap, you've given a lot of thought to me simply saying if the Lions start winning a few the crowds will come back.

 

[Sausages]

Holy crap, you've given a lot of thought to me simply saying if the Lions start winning a few the crowds will come back.

Yes, which is why you keep failing to kick a goal, because that statement, to you = no issue and problem solved.
But, to me, it represents the exact issue....if we are STILL only viable if we are winning, after almost 30 years up here, that's not much of a footy club.

Sentiments like that are exactly the sort of dismissive conclusion the AFL come to and therein lies the problem.

 

[fabulousphil]

Yes, which is why you keep failing to kick a goal, because that statement, to you = no issue and problem solved.
But, to me, it represents the exact issue....if we are STILL only viable if we are winning, after almost 30 years up here, that's not much of a footy club.

Sentiments like that are exactly the sort of dismissive conclusion the AFL come to and therein lies the problem.

The last 5 years the team has been 13, 15, 13, 12, 15 and this year ?.

Name another team in another sport that has those finishes and remains rock solid, making money and does not have problems, name another one that has those finishes and still averages over 20,000 fans, name another one that has those finishes and still has over 20,000 members.

Rob is correct, a half decent team that finishes mid table looks like it may improve would have bigger crowds and membership and start making some profits.

 

[Sausages]

Sure - but what's mid-table survival take? A look at the team since inception in 87 would broadly display bottom 4 and premier and not much else. That's the issue, I agree - but the solution the league did take and most concerningly continues to take, it to simply generate success and walk away.

If that worked, you could argue the cost as a more pressing concern.
But at this point, it doesn't work and I am leaving that alone and focusing instead on firstly that it happened at all and then secondly to display what continued pursuit of that model looks like - the Lions and to a lesser extent the Swans, though the jury remains out on their long term health as well.

The model I look at in the league is the Tiges. Continued grind and grunt through year after year after year.

To demonstrate something, the Broncos suffer the "bums on seats" thing too. Team doesn't do so well (though for them, this means not making the last 2 weeks), numbers drop off etc. Team changes a few faces, new for old....Let's focus on this, specifically, and I'll extrapolate from there. Offseason.

Drafted teenagers come in at the bottom. Local boys. Get a paper write up in the state newspapers, TV, radio etc. Local newspapers and junior footy club of drafted players get some exposure, everyone feels good, if it's a very small community the feelgood factor rises a few levels.

Contrast that experience from a Lions angle.

Drafted teenagers comes from other side of the country, from somewhere nobody knows or cares about. Not local boys. Some dudes. A mention once about 6 pages into the sport section, a one liner.

Ok, stop thinking now and re-focus.

THAT'S a problem, right there. A big problem. Because it demonstrates, clearly, that the game and it's players, have no relevance, no foothold. You talk of the game as a business....your market doesn't really care is exactly what that represents.

 

[fabulousphil]

Sure - but what's mid-table survival take? A look at the team since inception in 87 would broadly display bottom 4 and premier and not much else. That's the issue, I agree - but the solution the league did take and most concerningly continues to take, it to simply generate success and walk away.

If that worked, you could argue the cost as a more pressing concern.
But at this point, it doesn't work and I am leaving that alone and focusing instead on firstly that it happened at all and then secondly to display what continued pursuit of that model looks like - the Lions and to a lesser extent the Swans, though the jury remains out on their long term health as well.

The model I look at in the league is the Tiges. Continued grind and grunt through year after year after year.

To demonstrate something, the Broncos suffer the "bums on seats" thing too. Team doesn't do so well (though for them, this means not making the last 2 weeks), numbers drop off etc. Team changes a few faces, new for old....Let's focus on this, specifically, and I'll extrapolate from there. Offseason.

Drafted teenagers come in at the bottom. Local boys. Get a paper write up in the state newspapers, TV, radio etc. Local newspapers and junior footy club of drafted players get some exposure, everyone feels good, if it's a very small community the feelgood factor rises a few levels.

Contrast that experience from a Lions angle.

Drafted teenagers comes from other side of the country, from somewhere nobody knows or cares about. Not local boys. Some dudes. A mention once about 6 pages into the sport section, a one liner.

Ok, stop thinking now and re-focus.

THAT'S a problem, right there. A big problem. Because it demonstrates, clearly, that the game and it's players, have no relevance, no foothold. You talk of the game as a business....your market doesn't really care is exactly what that represents.

I would agree that local content ( players) raises the local interest, just out of interest what % of the Lions are local, i did read it somewhere but have forgotten, from memory during the 3peat the local content of players was reasonably high ! ?.

Hopefully the academies will go some way to redressing this ?.

 

[madmug]

Sure - but what's mid-table survival take? A look at the team since inception in 87 would broadly display bottom 4 and premier and not much else. That's the issue, I agree - but the solution the league did take and most concerningly continues to take, it to simply generate success and walk away.

If that worked, you could argue the cost as a more pressing concern.
But at this point, it doesn't work and I am leaving that alone and focusing instead on firstly that it happened at all and then secondly to display what continued pursuit of that model looks like - the Lions and to a lesser extent the Swans, though the jury remains out on their long term health as well.

The model I look at in the league is the Tiges. Continued grind and grunt through year after year after year.

To demonstrate something, the Broncos suffer the "bums on seats" thing too. Team doesn't do so well (though for them, this means not making the last 2 weeks), numbers drop off etc. Team changes a few faces, new for old....Let's focus on this, specifically, and I'll extrapolate from there. Offseason.

Drafted teenagers come in at the bottom. Local boys. Get a paper write up in the state newspapers, TV, radio etc. Local newspapers and junior footy club of drafted players get some exposure, everyone feels good, if it's a very small community the feelgood factor rises a few levels.

Contrast that experience from a Lions angle.

Drafted teenagers comes from other side of the country, from somewhere nobody knows or cares about. Not local boys. Some dudes. A mention once about 6 pages in the sport section, a one liner.

Ok, stop thinking now and re-focus.

THAT'S a problem, right there. A big problem. Because it demonstrates, clearly, that the game and it's players, have no relevance, no foothold. You talk of the game as a business....your market doesn't really care is exactly what that represents.

I know quite a few Lions supporters in Brisbane. They are rusted on supporters because they were always aussie rules people who originally had VFL clubs to follow as well as local aussie rules clubs to play in & follow.
I guess the problem is to get more theatre goer types to get on board as real thick & thin supporters. The local media is still a problem I'm told. They put Thugby Loige on the back 4 pages, then AFL stuffed in way back in the paper.
I think Brisbane is vital for the game & the league. I'm told AFL juniors is going well. It is a generational issue & an issue for media rights etc. Really the Lions is more important than the GC. so they will need to persevere. Given their injury problems they've had a real dip & showed some heart this season.

Real supporters appreciate the players 'having a dip'. That passion will benefit them. They have a good future IMO, but it will always be a tough & fractured market, for all sports.

 

[Sausages]

Academies will, but having muppets elsewhere in the league with big voices paint them as something else doesn't help - like it or not, the Pies chief's voice carries a long distance. Their impact has been watered down somewhat as a result.

The 2001-2004 times still had the bulk of our list non-local, much the same as now. That's a fact, but where are the voices from past greats? Dunstall springs to mind, because he is bloody everywhere on tele...does he not care? Has anyone even asked him?

These are the sorts of development issues I'd like to hear more about. PR stuff sure, but necessary to provide the link that AFL IS a Queensland sport, pure and simple. Rather than the perception that it is only a "new" thing.

 

[fabulousphil]

Looks like a few locals could be drafted from this crop ....

http://www.aflq.com.au/u18-review-queensland-vs-tasmania/

On Saturday, the Queensland Under 18 State Team got the job done by 39-points over Tasmania, making them the only undefeated team in the NAB AFL Division Two Championships in 2015.

The standout performer was Eric Hipwood, who finished with four goals, 20 disposals and seven marks in a best on ground performance.

Keays was top disposal getter with 23, Budarick finished with 6 clearances next to his name, and Allison, who kicked 1.4, also had four inside 50’s and three rebound 50’s.

 

[Sausages]

I'd hazard we have a decent number of young athletes that would love to have the exposure and kudos that goes with being on the verge of a paid professional footy player. Again, the lack of queensland born players beating a path back to the Sunshine State whilst at their peak suggests to me evidence that if you want to be big in footy and maybe have a career afterwards....you really need to stay in melbourne whilst you are playing.

Beams is setting a great example, coming back to join his brother whilst at his peak. This is the sort of thing the club can take responsibility for, as a marketing tool...but mysteriously doesn't. So we have are own issues about PR that we aren't using effectively in my opinion.

But the bottom line is still that the more this expansion style approach is pursued, the more unbalanced and unwieldy the entire competition becomes...fixturing, revenue, drafts, concessions, financial assistance....they are all linked to the concept that the league must constantly tug this string after that string in pursuit of fairness and equal competition. And the league DOES need to do that - that's what it does.

So in my mind, this issue has less to do with how the Lions go from week to week and season to season and more about how the situation could best be remedied from here for GC and GWS, because at least one of those 2 will be a very fine footy side for a spell, but after that....

 

[||-GOB-||]

Problem with the Bears/Lions is that people here are judging them by the bubble of popularity in the late 90's/early 00's. That time period was unique in a lot of ways that'll never be repeated.

I expect that they'll keep trending downward but people from outside Queensland will be making the same excuses as above.

If someone could bump this thread in five years or when they hit a 15K average again (whichever comes first) I'd appreciate it, thanks.

 

[madmug]

Looks like a few locals could be drafted from this crop ....

http://www.aflq.com.au/u18-review-queensland-vs-tasmania/

On Saturday, the Queensland Under 18 State Team got the job done by 39-points over Tasmania, making them the only undefeated team in the NAB AFL Division Two Championships in 2015.

The standout performer was Eric Hipwood, who finished with four goals, 20 disposals and seven marks in a best on ground performance.

Keays was top disposal getter with 23, Budarick finished with 6 clearances next to his name, and Allison, who kicked 1.4, also had four inside 50’s and three rebound 50’s.

People get carried away with u18 championships IMO. Someone good at 17yo isnt necessarily goint to be good against men at age 21.

Maybe a better thing for the game in Brisbane is if they, along with GC, could keep all the draft picks from Qld/NT?

(waiting for the noise)