Crowds in 2006 - AFL vs NRL

[gaelictiogar]

So...the gist of the whole thread or the pro-NRL posters, for all these pages, is simply - "afl > nrl in crowds and tv/radio ratings, but nrl is not a gimp product"...?

Ok, well no one's really at odds then if this is all the gist is. All pro-afl and pro-nrl people therefore acknowledge that AFL/AR > NRL/RL but that the nrl and rl product has its problems but is still in a productive economic position.

So what are we arguing anymore about in essence? Is there anything else? (Not me as in you and I, but pro-nrl v pro-afl.)

I assked the same question afes ag g.g. WHAT are they areguing about?

In brief WA,SA, VICT, TASSIE, NORTH: There is no semblance of a contest with only the poorly supported Storm (8,000) existing

Qld. NSW: RL ahead but AFL pulling 7 times as many fan - and participation rates growing rapidly as is independently verifiable - in RL heartland as RL are in AFL land.

I repeat. THERE is no argument. Outside of a few rep games and the Qld derby NRL simply doesn't get the interest AFL does. EVERYONE in Australia knows this and sure as hell the TV execs knew it when dealing with contracts. Get real everyone. NRL is a decent product able to enthuse about 16,000 people per game - not bad, better than basketball or soccer but nowhere near the market leaders who are AFL. Can we not all see the blindingly obvious? Isn't it absolutely remarkable that in Brisbane in the heart of RL land the one club Broncos, NRL's marquee club, struggle to beat the Lions crowd wise? Stunning. Imagine RL beating the Crows and Power combinded or the Eagles and Freo combined. That is the comparison.

 

[littleduck]

how many RL FTA games a week are there?

2, soon 3.

 

[swanster]

2, soon 3.

And none of them live.

 

[swanster]

It's probably been said before, if so it's worth repeating. The very nature of the games makes one very good for television, and the other much better live. RL is a compact sport with the majority of players able to fit into the confines of the camera lens - perfect for television, and whilst seeing a game live is preferable there is no great dimishment of the game itself. AFL is the exact opposite with a viewer only seeing the small amount around the ball and very little of the wider action happening outside of the lens.

Thus, any comparison needs to take into account that AFL will always have better attendance figures because supporters see only a fraction of the 'product' via television. RL on the other hand, should always have (percentage-wise) good TV ratings as many supporters are happy with the TV offering and rightly don't feel that they miss out on much by not being at the game.

 

[Exe Gesis]

It's probably been said before, if so it's worth repeating. The very nature of the games makes one very good for television, and the other much better live. RL is a compact sport with the majority of players able to fit into the confines of the camera lens - perfect for television, and whilst seeing a game live is preferable there is no great dimishment of the game itself. AFL is the exact opposite with a viewer only seeing the small amount around the ball and very little of the wider action happening outside of the lens.

Thus, any comparison needs to take into account that AFL will always have better attendance figures because supporters see only a fraction of the 'product' via television. RL on the other hand, should always have (percentage-wise) good TV ratings as many supporters are happy with the TV offering and rightly don't feel that they miss out on much by not being at the game.

All good points, Swanster. However, that's still an excuse. Rugby Union is just as compacted for television, but gets large crowds in Sydney, ACT (especially), Qld, Perth and Melbourne.

Sure, it's a Super14's or International, but the crowds (NZ, AUS, SA) on average are higher than the NRL. Around the world too, in England, Ireland, etc. Big crowds.

The compact nature of Rugby (RL/RU) fit for television is no excuse for poor crowds. The NFL is a similar compacted sport, but gets ave crowds in excess of the AFL by double. Different country with 300 million people, I know.

But RL's reasons are excuses.

 

[Hicham]

All good points, Swanster. However, that's still an excuse. Rugby Union is just as compacted for television, but gets large crowds in Sydney, ACT (especially), Qld, Perth and Melbourne.

Rugby Union in New South Wales, at anything above club level, stages no more than about 10 games a season. This includes Test Matches and Super 14. The NRL and ARL stage over 100.

With regards to Queensland, I find your assumption that Rugby Union attracts large crowds (whilst drawing comparisons to Rugby League) laughable. The Queensland Reds, having moved their home base to the larger Suncorp Stadium, are still averaging under 20,000. Hardly comparable to the Broncos, Cowboys and Queensland in Rugby League.

And this is provincial sides we are talking about who play in an international competition with no FTA coverage in Australia.

I say Rugby Union's reasons are excuses, g.g, particularly in so-called heartland states.

Sure, it's a Super14's or International, but the crowds (NZ, AUS, SA) on average are higher than the NRL. Around the world too, in England, Ireland, etc. Big crowds.

No one disputes Rugby Union's appeal at the very top level (national sides) in the aforementoined countries. In many countries, in fact.

But if you intend on drawing comparisons to the NRL, essentially a domestic club competition, you'd need to have a look at Super League's appeal in Britiain compared to Union's equivelent.

At that level, Union's popularity is a myth, and very similar to the situation in Australia.

Super League is now winning the ratings battle regularly whilst its crowds dwarf anything club Union has to offer.

With regards to ratings, here a couple of examples from Sky.

Here are the latest viewing figures for sky tv in the UK

Superleague live Fri 21/4 1930 228,000

European rugby live Sat 22/4 144,000
European rugby live Sun 23/4 124,000

Here are the sky tv figures in the UK for the easter weekend up to 16/4:

live superleague thursday sky sports 1 (20.00) 242,000
live superleague friday skysports 1 (12.30) 189,000

Guinness rugby live friday sky sports 3 (17.30) 106,000
Guinness rugby live Saturday sky sports 1(17.10) 169,000

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=104804&page=31

So...the gist of the whole thread or the pro-NRL posters, for all these pages, is simply - "afl > nrl in crowds and tv/radio ratings, but nrl is not a gimp product"...?

Obvious, but that's exactly right. That should be the end of it.

All pro-afl and pro-nrl people therefore acknowledge that AFL/AR > NRL/RL but that the nrl and rl product has its problems but is still in a productive economic position.

Problems? What problems? Rugby League is on the up in all areas. If you see that as a problem then you're a hard man to please, g.g.

 

[Mickey]

Problems? What problems? Rugby League is on the up in all areas. If you see that as a problem then you're a hard man to please, g.g.

It can't sink any lower otherwise I could see another mine rescue.........but I'm sure not many would care.

 

[littleduck]

And none of them live.

1 of them live, maybe 2.

 

[FuManchu]

Problems? What problems? Rugby League is on the up in all areas. If you see that as a problem then you're a hard man to please, g.g.

well, lets face it, its starting from a very low base, anything would be up when it comes to RL

 

[littleduck]

well, lets face it, its starting from a very low base, anything would be up when it comes to RL

low? only 1 sport ahead of RL in this country, the rest are sadly at a much lower base.

 

[Ragnarok14]

low? only 1 sport ahead of RL in this country, the rest are sadly at a much lower base.

Soccer if you take out NZ aren't doing half bad.

 

[cos789]

do you have a point?

Soley East coast comparison .

Your mantra of late , isn't it .



.

 

[cos789]

low? only 1 sport ahead of RL in this country, the rest are sadly at a much lower base.

Depends on your criteria LD .
If you use for example participation or general interest then RL is way down in the mix .

 

[FuManchu]

low? only 1 sport ahead of RL in this country, the rest are sadly at a much lower base.

in a country of 20 million anything would be a low base, granted

UNLESS.... of course you are the third best attended national game in the world (per game)

Where does RL sit in comparison to other national comps per game?

 

[littleduck]

Where does RL sit in comparison to other national comps per game?

dont know... all i know is that nothing rivals RL for crowds, tv audiences, general interest in winter months in half the nation. the rest of oz and the world can get stuffed. its irrelevant.

 

[pcpp]

All good points, Swanster. However, that's still an excuse. Rugby Union is just as compacted for television, but gets large crowds in Sydney, ACT (especially), Qld, Perth and Melbourne.

RU has 4 CLUBS in WA, NSW, ACT, QLD. They play 6/7 HOME games a year.

RL has 14 (15) CLUBS in VIC, NSW, ACT, QLD. They play 12 HOME games a year.

Where do you come up with all this sh*t?

"RU has higher averages" - so what? RU would kill to get 17,000 people on average a game, with 14/15 clubs playing 12 home games a year.

Comparison (2005 figures):

AFL - 6,761,952
RL - 3,673,528
Cricket - 1,109,612
Soccer - 1,047,233 (includes matches from 2006 A-League season)
RU - 751,059
Basketball - 630,838

The compact nature of Rugby (RL/RU) fit for television is no excuse for poor crowds. The NFL is a similar compacted sport, but gets ave crowds in excess of the AFL by double. Different country with 300 million people, I know.

Major League Baseball in America averages only 30,970.

Guess their total attendances? 74,915,268.

 

[Bentleigh]

RU has 4 CLUBS in WA, NSW, ACT, QLD. They play 6/7 HOME games a year.

RL has 14 (15) CLUBS in VIC, NSW, ACT, QLD. They play 12 HOME games a year.

Where do you come up with all this sh*t?

"RU has higher averages" - so what? RU would kill to get 17,000 people on average a game, with 14/15 clubs playing 12 home games a year.



Major League Baseball in America averages only 30,970.

Guess their total attendances? 74,915,268.

Comparison (2005 figures):

AFL - 6,761,952
RL - 3,673,528
Cricket - 1,109,612
Soccer - 1,047,233 (includes matches from 2006 A-League season)
RU - 751,059
Basketball - 630,838

Holy crap.

 

[FuManchu]

dont know... all i know is that nothing rivals RL for crowds, tv audiences, general interest in winter months in half the nation. the rest of oz and the world can get stuffed. its irrelevant.

So what you are saying is that the half of the nation you like to cite, pales in comparison with the other half?

 

[Rob]

dont know... all i know is that nothing rivals RL for crowds, tv audiences, general interest in winter months in half the nation. the rest of oz and the world can get stuffed. its irrelevant.

What absolute sh*t. In SE Queensland, RL is certainly not the unrivalled leader in every stat. Hell, the back page of the courier mail yesterday was all about Akermanis.
The only places where RL is 'unrivalled' is probably Greater Sydney and Townsville, the latter partly because the AFL has no team. In places like Canberra, the Riverina, the Central Coast (which is partly because the NRL has no team and soccer does), not only is RL not unrivalled, it's arguably not even the market leader.

 

[littleduck]

So what you are saying is that the half of the nation you like to cite, pales in comparison with the other half?

the other half can be considered the same as the rest of the world.. irrelevant.

 

[FuManchu]

the other half can be considered the same as the rest of the world.. irrelevant.

just as I suspected, your a wood duck

 

[littleduck]

What absolute sh*t. In SE Queensland, RL is certainly not the unrivalled leader in every stat.

bums on seats (brisbane + queensland + australia + wizard cup), tv audiences (NRL + state of origin + test matches), gerneal interest (all media) ... RL is unchallenged in SEQ ... to argue otherwise is plain silly. to argue the gap was closing based on the Lions premiership era and the increased AFL grassroots investment is all true, but to think RL is in danger of losing its mantle on any level is silliness.

 

[littleduck]

just as I suspected, your a wood duck

FFS why is adelaide and perth relevant in an assessment of RL????? its not. RL no longer cares about those areas.

 

[pcpp]

What absolute sh*t. In SE Queensland, RL is certainly not the unrivalled leader in every stat. Hell, the back page of the courier mail yesterday was all about Akermanis.

What was on the back page of the Sunday Mail today?

What was on the back page for the whole of the last week (except Saturday)?

Which sport has been on the back page probably 90% of the time since the seasons started?

 

[littleduck]

What code will be on the back page and 2nd back page 2moro??? Rugby Union.