Crowds in 2006 - AFL vs NRL

[akazie]

I'd like to see it. Not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see the figures. I had the impression the Wallabies were way more popular than the Kangaroos due to the "care factor" alone. I'm sure the Wallabies draw bigger crowds, but once again I don't have figures.

No doubt about the AFL V NRL threads, they grow legs. This is another one that's hit 40 pages. Suppose once you've gone through the crap, called each other idiots, w@ankers etc (which I've done too in moment of frustration and regretted it later given they're just opinions, and I'm sure I'll do it again....many times...lol) it's a subject that seems to inspire passionate debate amongst it various supporters.

yep and 15 years ago the wobblies couldn't even sellout concorde oval.

 

[akazie]

Oh and heres the thread that shows all the ratings.

I think a few people will be surprised.

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

RU is the smallest of all the sports by along way, the only game of RU that has ever done any good is the WC final in Sydney 2003.

 

[gaelictiogar]

good question.

If it smells like an elephant, feels like one and sounds like one it is more than likely an elephant. If Lions are outdrawing Broncos it is because thay have more fans willing to support the club. Simple.

 

[D/MoN]

Littleduck, but you know what Victorians are like, they're generally speaking very vic-centric, the rest of australia doesn't matter, etc.

If there was any number of rationalized teams in the AFL, they'd vomit. The afl IS the old vfl to most of them, with just a bunch of interstate usurpers ruining OUR (vic) game.

They would be forced to deal with the changes, like SA and WA had to, if their teams got the bullet one by one in mergers/relocations/foldings, in seeing their old vfl (aka afl) turned into a less vic-centric comp, with only 4-5 vic teams in a total of 16 or 18 teams. You'd think they'd ultimately just deal with it and accept it.

But I think there's more chance of the fanbase revolting. The majority of the fanbase.

Theyd turn to soccer and RU, (the latter if there was a Melbourne team in place by then), in bigger droves and long before they'd turn to RL and the Melbourne Storm.

NSW and it's RL dominance can only be countered IF (it's a big if), Vic turns away from AFL (due to those reasons), WA already RU embraced, then SA follows suit, and there'd be slow Axis of territorial advancements made from the West thru SA towards VIC, with QLD and NSW already partial to RU, RL could be surrounded all sides with a growing interest in RU/Soccer.

Very, very fanciful scenario, indeed.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I realize that, D/Mon....just hypothesizing.

 

[littleduck]

If it smells like an elephant, feels like one and sounds like one it is more than likely an elephant. If Lions are outdrawing Broncos it is because thay have more fans willing to support the club. Simple.

average crowds are the sole determinant then... even if merchandise sales, tv audiences, etc overwhelmingly favour the other?

 

[gaelictiogar]

average crowds are the sole determinant then... even if merchandise sales, tv audiences, etc overwhelmingly favour the other?

No not the "sole" determinant but the main one since it is "active" "membership" based support rather than the passive consumer "support" you implicitly accept is the best the broncos can get from their support.
LD the fact is the marquee team in NRL is frequently second in attendance to a johnny come lately AFL team in Qld. It would be like the Storm outdrawing the magpies.

Can you imagine the sing at the NRL if the Pies were reduced to saying "OK the Storm draw more than us but we sell merchandise"? Just think about it.

 

[littleduck]

No not the "sole" determinant but the main one since it is "active" "membership" based support rather than the passive consumer "support" you implicitly accept is the best the broncos can get from their support.
LD the fact is the marquee team in NRL is frequently second in attendance to a johnny come lately AFL team in Qld. It would be like the Storm outdrawing the magpies.

Can you imagine the sing at the NRL if the Pies were reduced to saying "OK the Storm draw more than us but we sell merchandise"? Just think about it.

I cant and wont defend Broncos crowds.

 

[Exe Gesis]

No not the "sole" determinant but the main one since it is "active" "membership" based support rather than the passive consumer "support" you implicitly accept is the best the broncos can get from their support.
LD the fact is the marquee team in NRL is frequently second in attendance to a johnny come lately AFL team in Qld. It would be like the Storm outdrawing the magpies.

Can you imagine the ****** at the NRL if the Pies were reduced to saying "OK the Storm draw more than us but we sell merchandise"? Just think about it.

Excellent analogy there, gaelictiogar.

 

[Ronin]

No not the "sole" determinant but the main one since it is "active" "membership" based support rather than the passive consumer "support" you implicitly accept is the best the broncos can get from their support.
LD the fact is the marquee team in NRL is frequently second in attendance to a johnny come lately AFL team in Qld. It would be like the Storm outdrawing the magpies.

Can you imagine the sing at the NRL if the Pies were reduced to saying "OK the Storm draw more than us but we sell merchandise"? Just think about it.

So are you saying that if a person does not go to any live games, but watches every match on TV is not a real supporter?

 

[Ragnarok14]

So drawing from the above conclusions would the profit made by each club with in a competition be a better indicator of how the competition is doing? I suspose you would also have to add in the yearly earnings from the tv rights as well. Anyone wanna do this?

 

[littleduck]

So drawing from the above conclusions would the profit made by each club with in a competition be a better indicator of how the competition is doing? I suspose you would also have to add in the yearly earnings from the tv rights as well.

Yes it would.

Anyone wanna do this?

No, but it would reveal AFL and NRL are well ahead of the rest of the pack.

 

[FuManchu]

Yes it would.

No, but it would reveal AFL and NRL are well ahead of the rest of the pack.

actually the Southport Sharks and the SACA would be well ahead of everyone

 

[littleduck]

actually the Southport Sharks and the SACA would be well ahead of everyone

The Penrith Panthers empire might be far bigger than Southport Sharks Mr Chu..

 

[gaelictiogar]

So are you saying that if a person does not go to any live games, but watches every match on TV is not a real supporter?

Assuming the person is able bodied that is presicely what I am saying.

The team can't hear you barrack from your armchair !!!!

 

[Exe Gesis]

Assuming the person is able bodied that is presicely what I am saying.

The team can't hear you barrack from your armchair !!!!

I like your attitude gaelictiogar. That is why crowd figures, or crowds themselves, are priority #1 before TV. TV brings exposure and dollars, but sports survived and sports died on the basis of crowds. That traditional need for crowds won't ever be diminished by any amount of TV ratings.

I firmly believe that big consistent crowds is what drives TV honchos to decide that there's money to be made from that sport and those people and others who may not be aware of that product. If there were very poor consistent crowds, or none at all, literally, then there would be no TV stations interested in that product.

In sport's case, the chicken (actual crowds) comes before the egg (potential crowds).

 

[littleduck]

I like your attitude gaelictiogar. That is why crowd figures, or crowds themselves, are priority #1 before TV. TV brings exposure and dollars, but sports survived and sports died on the basis of crowds. That traditional need for crowds won't ever be diminished by any amount of TV ratings.

Broadcast rights is the major source of revenue, so on that basis it's more important. But you're right, good crowds are needed in the background for the overall quality of presentation on television, which in turn can affect audiences.

I firmly believe that big consistent crowds is what drives TV honchos to decide that there's money to be made from that sport and those people and others who may not be aware of that product.

I agree good crowds are necessary, but bigger crowds doesnt necessarily equate to bigger broadcast rights reveneu. At some point in time the size of the crowd is big enough, and beyond that is just a bonus for gate receipts revenue. I think that point is reached in both RL and AFL, considering RL generally has well accomodated venues of 20-25k capacity and AFL has well accomodated larger venues of seemingly unlimited capacity.

If there were very poor consistent crowds, or none at all, literally, then there would be no TV stations interested in that product.

Naturally...

 

[wagstaff]

While the AFL crowds are down on last year, it seems that NRL crowds aren't doing much better:

Attendance drops 1000 a game
By Josh Massoud
June 10, 2006

NRL crowds have dipped considerably from boom figures last season, with attendances down almost 1000 fans a game.

The halfway mark of 2006 sees games attracting an average of 15,912 people.

After 13 rounds last season the mark stood at 16,822 - 910 more per game.

The worrying slip is a stark reverse trend amid growing TV ratings, soaring merchandise sales and unpredictable results.

Clubs struggling to match the heady days of 2005 are blaming everything from chilly temperatures to rail maintenance for the downturn.

And with football and State of Origin certain to dominate attention over the next month, the NRL concedes there is little chance of exceeding last year's record average of 16,468.

In a concerning development, nine of the 15 teams are attracting fewer punters than at last year's midpoint.

Six of those outfits - the Bulldogs, Roosters, Sharks, Panthers, Raiders and Warriors - have experienced a drop of more than 20 per cent.

Sharks CEO Greg Pierce said the team's miserable 1-4 start explained the dive from 17,110 last season to 12,689 now.

"Three of those losses were at home and when we upset the Cowboys [in round 7] there was not a big crowd here to see it," Pierce said.

Rail maintenance on the day of the club's biggest home game against neighbours St George Illawarra didn't help.

"That probably cost us a couple of thousand people," Pierce said.

The Sharks would also prefer to play certain games on Sunday afternoons - a stance at odds with the club's modern era Saturday night love affair.

"You do get more families on a Sunday and travelling fans will come from places like Newcastle because they can get home earlier," Pierce said.

Canberra CEO Simon Hawkins is even more desperate for daylight.

After watching the Raiders crowds plummet by nearly a third, Hawkins is "constantly" asking for Sundays.

"The weather down here can get very cold, especially at night," he added.

NRL marketing manager Paul Kind nominated the Warriors - now the lowest drawing team - as the biggest concern.

Despite the downturn, the NRL will not embark on radical changes such as free weekends to combat traditionally stagnant mid-season crowds.

The Daily Telegraph

 

[Beckers]

After watching the Raiders crowds plummet by nearly a third.

There is hope for the Kangaroos yet!

NRL marketing manager Paul Kind nominated the Warriors - now the lowest drawing team - as the biggest concern.

Melbourne Storm only average about 8k so how bad are the Warrior doing?

 

[Aucklander]

Melbourne Storm only average about 8k so how bad are the Warrior doing?

8916, Melbourne are averaging 9000. Not much difference really. At least the Warriors have their -4 point penalty as some form of excuse, the Storm OTOH just have no excuse for poor crowds apart from being in Melbourne.

 

[Hicham]

There is hope for the Kangaroos yet!

Melbourne Storm only average about 8k so how bad are the Warrior doing?

Currently..

Storm: 9,000
Warriors: 8,916

2nd last and last respectively.

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/2006.html

 

[scroda]

27. NRL: Where have all the crowds gone?


Jeff Wall writes:

The recent trend in attendances at NRL matches ought to be worrying the game's administrators as much as the massive media coverage soccer is receiving thanks to the World Cup.

Last weekend 103,000 attended the seven matches in round 15, certainly an improvement on the 70,000 who attended the weekend before last. But when you look at the attendances on a ground by ground basis, even the latest figures are a worry.

The Broncos v Dragons game attracted just under 33,000 spectators at Lang Park - close to half of them Dragons supporters! (The Dragons have always had a strong following in Brisbane.) There was a second game in Queensland - the Cowboys v Bulldogs match at Carrara on the Gold Coast (future home of the Titans) drew 16,200.

Close to half the total spectator numbers in round 15 attended two games in Queensland.

Inexplicably, there was no Sunday afternoon match in Sydney, with THREE games being played in Sydney on Saturday night. The Tigers v Roosters game drew a respectable 19,300 but it was all downhill after that.

Crowds in Auckland and Melbourne continue to be atrocious - there is just no other way to put it. The Warriors v Knights game in Auckland drew just over 6,000 fans, while the Storm v Raiders game in Melbourne had an "official" attendance of 7,900.

The "official" figures don't take into account attendance fudging. The "Locker Room" column in the league's official magazine Big League suggested that the crowd at the Rabbitohs v Broncos game "would have been lucky to be a third" of the official attendance - 6,537 ... at Telstra Stadium which holds 80,000!

While the 103,000 looked respectable it is much less so when considering the attendances in round 15 last year - 106,000. And the Broncos home game last year drew 8,000 less than last weekend's game did!

The NRL has rightly identified the AFL as a greater challenge than soccer - because the AFL is about to be very cashed up, and plans to target juniors in New South Wales and Queensland. Identifying how to get fans through the gates? Well, it appears they are still working on that.

 

[Beckers]

The "official" figures don't take into account attendance fudging. The "Locker Room" column in the league's official magazine Big League suggested that the crowd at the Rabbitohs v Broncos game "would have been lucky to be a third" of the official attendance - 6,537 ... at Telstra Stadium which holds 80,000!

Saw that game and it looked like Russell Crowe and his mates were the only ones there!

 

[zero]

attendance fudging?

so 2000 people turned up to a NATIONAL rugby league game and they lie and say 6000 turned up.

christ, 6000 is a pretty pathetic crowd anyway, but 2000.....

erm, hey parra eels and littleduck, how often does this attendance fudging go on?

how many of the 106 thousand that went to the NRL on the weekend actually existed?

does it happen at every game? or just the really bad ones?

can we assume a 300% increase is lied about in all crowds?

is the total attendance to the NRL actually more or less than a kangaroos home crowd?

 

[fishmonger]

thanks for digging up an old post

the purpose of this thread was not really to compare NRL crowds to AFL, but to demonstrate to some people the reality than fans are leaving the AFL in droves.

Until the AFL realises this and stops ****ing with the game, they are going to lose a lot of their core supporters.

I don't think it has anything to do with weather though. There are other economic factors affecting attendances of both codes. Rising petrol prices, rising interest rates are all having their effects.

I predict a big swing of fans of both AFL and NRL converting to both soccer and union in the next few years.

What I don't buy is AFL supporters trying to uses invalid excuses like the Comm Games, which should have had no bearing on a massive 3% decrease in attendances.