Expansion Does anyone think Tasmania should have a team before the Gold Coast and Western Sydney?

[sherrinorburley]

^Post 75^....... absolute opposite to reality.......

 

[funkyfetlock]

^post 76^ ......living in his own reality...

West Sydney and Gold Coast must come before Tasmania. They are essential to the expansion of the game.

 

[sherrinorburley]

^post 76^ ......living in his own reality...

West Sydney and Gold Coast must come before Tasmania. They are essential to the expansion of the game.

Hi Andy,
Yeah youv'e already expanded up there mate with two teams ago.
No expansion in the NT or Tassie yet cobber

 

[funkyfetlock]

Not enough people fella

And most people in Tassie and NT already follow the AFl.

We desperately need more teams up this side of the Barassi line where the bulk of the Aussie population lives mate.

 

[sherrinorburley]

Yeah the population has increased a lot more in WA since the Eagles & Freo were added to the AFL. Might need a couple more teams from Perth too .........

 

[funkyfetlock]

NSW: 6.9 million people - 1 team
QLD: 4.2 million people - 1 team
Western Australia: 2 million people - 2 teams (already strong AFL allegiance)
Tasmania: 1/2 million people - no teams (already strong AFL allegiance)
Northern Territory: 1/5 million people - no teams (already AFL allegiance)


NSW and QLD is where the battle for the hearts and minds of the Australian population is being fought. We need reinforcements at the frontline right now. (Sorry to buy into the NRL marketing campaign again cos but it's true)

 

[Chuq]

^post 76^ ......living in his own reality...

West Sydney and Gold Coast must come before Tasmania. They are essential to the expansion of the game.

If the AFL can have two sides in NSW and Queensland, it will strengthen the code.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

This time, try to make an actual argument.

I don't really get how putting teams in places where people don't give a shit about AFL strengthens it.

Despite what people here may think, AFL isn't some magical thing which, as soon as people are exposed to it, they fall in love with it. People living in WS and GC are fully aware of the existence of the AFL already.

The AFL would be propping up a Tassie team for years? What a load of crap. 23% of Tasmanians said they would considering becoming a member. If only half that number actually do it, that is 55,000 people, which is more than ANY other AFL team. The other threads on this topic describe the success the bid committee is having with major sponsors etc. so I won't go into detail here. Even if worst comes to worst, the state government would act as guarantor for the team, the same as they are backing the Hawthorn games at the moment.

On the flipside, the AFL's business case for WS and GC involve hemorrhaging money for the next decade or two, just like they have with the Swans. Even after all that, the Swans have only 28k members (many of which are "three game passes" to the "big event" games). This is in a population centre eight times the size of Tasmania.

The AFL is all but publicly admitting that they only care about money and don't care about their fans.

 

[sherrinorburley]

NSW: 6.9 million people - 1 team
QLD: 4.2 million people - 1 team
Western Australia: 2 million people - 2 teams (already strong AFL allegiance)
Tasmania: 1/2 million people - no teams (already strong AFL allegiance)
Northern Territory: 1/5 million people - no teams (already AFL allegiance)

Well done. I will underline the important part of your post regarding Australian Footy.

 

[funkyfetlock]

Thank the Lord Sherrin and chuq aren't running the AFL the game would be broke in months.

Surely the importance of increasing market share isn't lost on you guys? What on earth is the point of putting a team where the following is already there? People in Tassie and NT already support the AFL and make the tv rights dollars.

Irrespective of what the doomsayers would have us believe, WS and GC will be very successful in the long term and will not only make more money but will also make the sport truly national.

This is not a decision to be made based on sentimentality. But if you love the AFL like I do then you have to recognise that new GC and WS sides are what is best for the game long term.

Since 1996 I have been dreaming of a sell-out Homebush Stadium each time two Sydney AFL sides play off. The dream is almost a reality.

 

[sherrinorburley]

we're not worthy...no really....

 

[Thiele66]

I don't know about beofre the other teams, but Tasmania should have a team.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I don't really get how putting teams in places where people don't give a shit about AFL strengthens it.

Did the introduction of the Brisbane Bears and the Sydney Swans strengthen the code?

Of course it did. It took a while, but those sides are now integral to the AFL's status as the number one code.

Imagine if we only had sides in Victoria, SA and WA. If everyone had your attitude, that's where we'd be and we wouldn't have any kind of edge on league.

 

[sherrinorburley]

Did the introduction of the Brisbane Bears and the Sydney Swans strengthen the code?

Of course it did. It took a while, but those sides are now integral to the AFL's status as the number one code.

Imagine if we only had sides in Victoria, SA and WA. If everyone had your attitude, that's where we'd be and we wouldn't have any kind of edge on league.

again...

If everyone had your attitude we wouldn't be anywhere near a truly national competition.
NT and Tassie aren't represented. Queensland and NSW already are.
ACT can get rooted.

 

[funkyfetlock]

Again I point out the population figures sherrin

NSW: 6.9 million people - 1 team
QLD: 4.2 million people - 1 team

Tasmania: 1/2 million people - 1/2 team (Hawthorn)

I believe the AFL will only truly be a national competition when NSW have at least 2 sides, Qld 2 sides and Tasmania 1 side. But again I say WS and GC must come first.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

If everyone had your attitude we wouldn't be anywhere near a truly national competition.

How so?

I am in favour of the AFL conquering new frontiers, like NSW and Queensland.

How can you say that this attitude would prevent a national competition?

It makes no sense.

 

[sherrinorburley]

How so?

I am in favour of the AFL conquering new frontiers, like NSW and Queensland.

How can you say that this attitude would prevent a national competition?

It makes no sense.

Like the dog chasing its own tail.

Queensland are represented. NSW are represented. Capiche?

The attitude you have of not wanting a truly national competition is obvious in regards to Tassie & NT. Wont be Australia wide comp until they are.

 

[funkyfetlock]

What about the ACT, Lord Howe Island or the Australian Antarctic Territory? Should they be represented?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Like the dog chasing its own tail.

Queensland are represented. NSW are represented. Capiche?

The attitude you have of not wanting a truly national competition is obvious in regards to Tassie & NT. Wont be Australia wide comp until they are.

Well, do we have to have a side in Canberra as well?

You don't have to have a team in every little shithole for it to be a national competition.

It's much more important that we consolidate in the markets that matter i.e. NSW and Queensland.

It makes no commercial sense to have a team in Tassie or the NT. It won't grow the game. It won't strengthen the code.

 

[sherrinorburley]

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

That's a nice little picture, mate.

But to persuade people, you actually have to make a coherent argument at some point. You struggle to think in a straight line.

Try again.

 

[Gibbke]

Money makes the world go round. You sound pretty naive when you talk about the AFL being interested in money as though that's some kind of sin.

It's about making sure that AFL stays number one, and that's absolutely about "strengthening the code" - I don't see how you could disagree. And of course, money is a big part of that.

Of course you don't see, because you don't get it. You've been sucked in by the hype. Don't confuse a desire to hold true to the reasons we all follow footy in the first place with naivity. Of course selling out will make you money. And of course it's not a sin to try to make money in a capitalist society.

But it sticks out like dog's balls, and the more gullible like yourself lap it up because you think you know all there is to know about business. The AFL is expanding to ensure that the next round of tv rights bargaining hits the $1b mark - they've said this is their target. And if you were up here, you'd know that they'd never hit it with the current set up. 14 Lions and 11 Swans games on Saturday nights in 2008, 8 is the next best for ANY timeslot anywhere, a commitment from Ten to broadcast live AFL games every Saturday night in Qld and NSW, and shocking ratings whenever a local side isn't playing - you work it out! Believe me, you guys down there have no idea just what a stretch it is for Ten to be doing this in Qld and Sydney, because it's all nice and cosy in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide...it's midnight here right now, and Adelaide v Geelong (5v1 and 1 of only two games this weekend) is starting the second quarter...

You all think it's a grand plan to curb the spread of soccer and League, and convert missionary style - it isn't! Mostly, anyway. It's to ensure that national broadcasters, half of whose audience is in rugby league states, will cough up the cash next time, despite publicised comments on their part that the rights as they stand aren't worth any more than they've paid. Put two sides in those exact areas the networks will tell you are problem areas for them in this deal, for a $100m each, and once that's all spent, you've had two rounds of 5-year deals worth a billion each...that's nearly half a billion in profit they wouldn't have gotten otherwise (notwithstanding indexation), folks, do your maths ye who are so fond of monetary figures...and yes - they are prepared to sell your team and their own souls (and in Andy's case his old club) to make this happen...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against expansion per se. But the AFL isn't being honest about its motives, or doing the right thing by the member clubs it said in the 5 Year Plan (remember that?) it would protect. In years to come when you're in Victoria watching Saturday Night footy between the West Sydney Whogivesafux and the Gold Coast Meter Maids (both sides almost entirely SA/WA/Victorian) in front of 9000 at Carrara, and there's no local derby in Melbourne because while the AFL is raking in billions and Andy has covered his body in 24 carat gold like Homer Simpson wanted to when he won the lottery, none of that profit is being given to the clubs (although Auskick in Dubai, South Africa, Russia and Mexico is doing very well) and half of them have died because the plug was pulled after their failure to sign up 370 000 members each...if this happens, don't come grizzling to me, because I f###ing told you so...

 

[funkyfetlock]

Quite frankly I couldn't give a stuff what the motives are behind Andy's decision.

Why do you think league fans and administrators are so terrified of new AFL sides entering their territory? I can guarantee you it's not just a marketing ploy to bring people back to their game as some have suggested. The fear that they are showing is genuine.

As I've said many times the support for rugby league in NSW especially is very soft as evidenced most vivdly by low crowd figures. TV ratings do not demonstrate strong followings. People DO change their sport of choice. I did and so did many of my friends. If a better option is available then eventually people will go for it. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

I am beginning to think you are a RL troll in disguise Gibbke.

 

[sherrinorburley]

That's a nice little picture, mate.

But to persuade people, you actually have to make a coherent argument at some point. You struggle to think in a straight line.

Try again.

I dont have to try and pursuade anyone into anything.

Your the one going around in circles with the same lame argument.

Emphasis on the lame.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Of course you don't see, because you don't get it. You've been sucked in by the hype. Don't confuse a desire to hold true to the reasons we all follow footy in the first place with naivity. Of course selling out will make you money. And of course it's not a sin to try to make money in a capitalist society.

I don't see it as selling out.

I see it as doing what is best for the long-term strength of the code.

That is bound up with making a profit, but it is also about ensuring the game has the largest possible audience.

But it sticks out like dog's balls, and the more gullible like yourself lap it up because you think you know all there is to know about business. The AFL is expanding to ensure that the next round of tv rights bargaining hits the $1b mark - they've said this is their target.

Of course it's about TV rights.

Is that your big revelation?

That's as obvious as it gets, mate.

I think it's a bit rich for you to be so condescending and then come up with that as your big 'intelligent' explanation.

What other great mysteries do you plan unravel today?

You all think it's a grand plan to curb the spread of soccer and League, and convert missionary style - it isn't!

I don't think that.

I think it's about maximising the audience. That translates to more money, which in turn keeps rival codes on the back foot.

Mostly, anyway. It's to ensure that national broadcasters, half of whose audience is in rugby league states, will cough up the cash next time, despite publicised comments on their part that the rights as they stand aren't worth any more than they've paid. Put two sides in those exact areas the networks will tell you are problem areas for them in this deal, for a $100m each, and once that's all spent, you've had two rounds of 5-year deals worth a billion each...that's nearly half a billion in profit they wouldn't have gotten otherwise (notwithstanding indexation), folks, do your maths ye who are so fond of monetary figures...and yes - they are prepared to sell your team and their own souls (and in Andy's case his old club) to make this happen...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against expansion per se. But the AFL isn't being honest about its motives, or doing the right thing by the member clubs it said in the 5 Year Plan (remember that?) it would protect. In years to come when you're in Victoria watching Saturday Night footy between the West Sydney Whogivesafux and the Gold Coast Meter Maids (both sides almost entirely SA/WA/Victorian) in front of 9000 at Carrara, and there's no local derby in Melbourne because while the AFL is raking in billions and Andy has covered his body in 24 carat gold like Homer Simpson wanted to when he won the lottery, none of that profit is being given to the clubs (although Auskick in Dubai, South Africa, Russia and Mexico is doing very well) and half of them have died because the plug was pulled after their failure to sign up 370 000 members each...if this happens, don't come grizzling to me, because I f###ing told you so...

The rest of this is just repetitive and long-winded.

Worst of all, it's premised on the idea that people aren't aware of the significance of the TV rights deal - that that's some dark secret that only clever little you knows about.

There's nothing wrong with the AFL wanting the biggest pay day possible when those rights get renegotiated. Good luck to them. That TV money is what is going to allow us to keep smashing the rival codes.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I dont have to try and pursuade anyone into anything.

Your the one going around in circles with the same lame argument.

Emphasis on the lame.

Yawn - keep trying.

My case is measured and consistent and, unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.

You can try to paint that as "going around in circles", but I don't think anyone reading your drivel will be fooled.

Run along now and find another pretty picture to post.