Sydney will NEVER be an AFL city.

[Hoops]

Is queensland going to seperate into 2 states anytime soon?
Surely with such a large growing population and a huge land mass. It's not out of the question (afterall isn't brisbane closer to hobart than cairns?) Perhaps Victoria will stay the 2nd largest state afterall.
just a thought.

 

[littleduck]

CITIES
2051

SYDNEY 6,587,600 -- 1 AFL team - 9 NRL teams
MELB 5,561,700 -- 10 AFL teams - 1 NRL team
BRIS 3,776,900 -- 1 AFL team - 2 NRL teams
PERTH 2,752,200 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams
ADEL 1,241,700 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams

20,955,300 -- 16 AFL teams

STATE
2051

NSW 9,593,200 -- 1 AFL team - 10 NRL teams
VIC 6,971,700 -- 10 AFL teams - 1 NRL team
QLD 8,093,900 -- 1 AFL team - 3 NRL teams
WA 3,573,900 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams
SA 1,615,500 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams


Traditional RL heartland -- 17,687,100 -- 2 AFL teams - 14 NRL teams
Traditional AR heartland -- 12,161,100 -- 14 AFL teams - 1 NRL team


These population projections prove that the RL half of the country is increasingly more valuable than the AR half of the country as RL:AFL heartland is projected to grow to 60:40. What this means is that it's far more important for the AFL to expand into Sydney/NSW and Brisbane/QLD, whereas its not as important for RL to expand into traditionally AR heartland, apart from Melbourne.

If you assume that the most high profile code in a region will pick up the majority of extra people, then it bodes well for the future of RL growing within its heartland. On the flip side, AFL must grow outside of its traditional heartland to maintain its national relevance.

I would also like to know the 2051 population projections for NZ because by that time its highly likely that there will be established an Auckland-based and Wellington-based NRL team.

 

[happy hawker]

Re: Sydney will NEVER be an AFL state.

you have the classic vic mentality about the rest of the country [that it exists!]
you'd think you'd actually have a look at the ABS projections [as above]before giving someone 'ignorance is bliss'

No figures or projections prove me wrong.

Brisbane and the Gold Coast are separate cities so you can't join them however much you would like to.

I have seen more population numbers and projections then you can poke a stick at. Stop talking crap.

 

[happy hawker]

CITIES
2051

SYDNEY 6,587,600 -- 1 AFL team - 9 NRL teams
MELB 5,561,700 -- 10 AFL teams - 1 NRL team
BRIS 3,776,900 -- 1 AFL team - 2 NRL teams
PERTH 2,752,200 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams
ADEL 1,241,700 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams

20,955,300 -- 16 AFL teams

STATE
2051

NSW 9,593,200 -- 1 AFL team - 10 NRL teams
VIC 6,971,700 -- 10 AFL teams - 1 NRL team
QLD 8,093,900 -- 1 AFL team - 3 NRL teams
WA 3,573,900 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams
SA 1,615,500 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams


Traditional RL heartland -- 17,687,100 -- 2 AFL teams - 14 NRL teams
Traditional AR heartland -- 12,161,100 -- 14 AFL teams - 1 NRL team


These population projections prove that the RL half of the country is increasingly more valuable than the AR half of the country as RL:AFL heartland is projected to grow to 60:40. What this means is that it's far more important for the AFL to expand into Sydney/NSW and Brisbane/QLD, whereas its not as important for RL to expand into traditionally AR heartland, apart from Melbourne.

If you assume that the most high profile code in a region will pick up the majority of extra people, then it bodes well for the future of RL growing within its heartland. On the flip side, AFL must grow outside of its traditional heartland to maintain its national relevance.

I would also like to know the 2051 population projections for NZ because by that time its highly likely that there will be established an Auckland-based and Wellington-based NRL team.

"AFL must grow outside of its traditional heartland to maintain its national relevance."

Well LD, IT IS!

Some people have too much time on their hands.

 

[littleduck]

"AFL must grow outside of its traditional heartland to maintain its national relevance."

Well LD, IT IS!

I didnt say it wasnt..

I was just supporting my earlier view that the NRL dont need to expand to Adelaide or Perth, but the AFL need to expand into Sydney and Brisbane, which some people completely disagreed with.

 

[big bear]

Sydney may never be an AFL city but that dosesn't mean that many of us can't be passionate footy supporters. Many love footy in general and our club in particular. You supporters in Melbourne should experience coping with the pathetic coverage of the great game up here. Middle of the night stuff. eg Bombers v Saints 5AM Saturday. Pathetic.

We support our club. Missed 3 home games since 1996 (overseas) and travel to Melbourne to watch games. Give us some credit.

 

[mocaholic]

Welcome to BF Bear.

Dunno if you're another RWO refugee (there's a few here at the moment) but the more Swans the merrier.

And a good first up effort. Pity you didn't bag Eddie, but we can't have everything.

 

[1908]

NZ population currently is 4,097,064 and is expected to grow to 5,050,000 by 2051.
PNG pop is currently 5,261,200 and is expected to grow to 10.5 million by 2050.
If league starts to invest in the Pacific Islands there is another 1.2 million.

As I said before leave the southern states to the AFL the're going to need it.

 

[big bear]

1908

please look at the facts. NRL basically in two states. AFL represented in the national comp in 5 states with games played in Tasmania,ACT and NT. Your reference to southern states shows your blinkered vision. Why knock AFL if you are so confident about the NRL. Did you get 44,000 at any game in Sydney last weekend. I think not. Has Cronulla ever played in front of that many people in a home and away game.

 

[1908]

If you want the big corporate dollars you need TV ratings. Which is what AFL needs to fund it's increasing costs. Whilst league may be strong in only two states, they are the one's that matter, and will have strong growth for the future. We also have a major presence in NZ. You may have got 44,000 on the weekend but you still haven't got the TV audience in Sydney and probably never will.

 

[big bear]

If you want the big corporate dollars you need TV ratings. Which is what AFL needs to fund it's increasing costs. Whilst league may be strong in only two states, they are the one's that matter, and will have strong growth for the future. We also have a major presence in NZ. You may have got 44,000 on the weekend but you still haven't got the TV audience in Sydney and probably never will.

What about the National TV audience. If the AFL doesn't rate nationally why such a furure over the rights that expire next year. The NRL presence in NZ to is minor compared to super 12 and All Blacks. AFL may rate poorly in Sydney but see how NRL rates in Melbourne, and other state capitals. Australia is not Sydney alone.
ps What happened to Western Reds and Adelaide Rams.

 

[1908]

Rates well enough in NZ for them to pay 10 million a year. Reds were a victim of Super League war as were a number of clubs.

 

[big bear]

1908

You didn't address the national tv audience. Why your continual refernce to NZ.

NRL is strong in NSW and Queensland but Nationally more people watch AFL at the ground and on tv. You admit that no NRL game had 44,000 spectators at the ground but you had higher ratings in Sydney. Why not play your games in a giant studio. Is you game a tv show or a spectator sport? Are people really supporters if they can't get out of their lounges and go to games? Remember 44,000 at game and live tv.

 

[1908]

All sport today is a TV show/entertainment. Regarding NZ, what we lose in SA and Vic we make up for in NZ. TV audience equals corporate dollars, look at the trends in world sport not just afl.

 

[Vulcan]

CITIES
2051

SYDNEY 6,587,600 -- 1 AFL team - 9 NRL teams
MELB 5,561,700 -- 10 AFL teams - 1 NRL team
BRIS 3,776,900 -- 1 AFL team - 2 NRL teams
PERTH 2,752,200 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams
ADEL 1,241,700 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams

20,955,300 -- 16 AFL teams

STATE
2051

NSW 9,593,200 -- 1 AFL team - 10 NRL teams
VIC 6,971,700 -- 10 AFL teams - 1 NRL team
QLD 8,093,900 -- 1 AFL team - 3 NRL teams
WA 3,573,900 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams
SA 1,615,500 -- 2 AFL teams - 0 NRL teams


Traditional RL heartland -- 17,687,100 -- 2 AFL teams - 14 NRL teams
Traditional AR heartland -- 12,161,100 -- 14 AFL teams - 1 NRL team


These population projections prove that the RL half of the country is increasingly more valuable than the AR half of the country as RL:AFL heartland is projected to grow to 60:40. What this means is that it's far more important for the AFL to expand into Sydney/NSW and Brisbane/QLD, whereas its not as important for RL to expand into traditionally AR heartland, apart from Melbourne.

If you assume that the most high profile code in a region will pick up the majority of extra people, then it bodes well for the future of RL growing within its heartland. On the flip side, AFL must grow outside of its traditional heartland to maintain its national relevance.

I would also like to know the 2051 population projections for NZ because by that time its highly likely that there will be established an Auckland-based and Wellington-based NRL team.

"projections prove"

Now, now, littleduck even you should know those two words are incompatible.

What will you stoop to next.

Aren't the multitude of Academics,statisticians and consultants marvellous.

They get everything right and naturally always have.

 

[big bear]

English premier league...Huge TV rights and FULL grounds
NFL USA ...... Ditto
European soccer leagues...Ditto
Indian cricket....Ditto
PGA Golf Tour USA...Ditto

Spot the world trend. ie big dollars and big crowds. The AFL in Australia approaches this,the NRL does not

 

[Vulcan]

English premier league...Huge TV rights and FULL grounds
NFL USA ...... Ditto
European soccer leagues...Ditto
Indian cricket....Ditto
PGA Golf Tour USA...Ditto

Spot the world trend. ie big dollars and big crowds. The AFL in Australia approaches this,the NRL does not

In fairness it does depend on the size of the ground.The SGC is a perfect example for cricket.It has been filling up regularly in recent years and is smaller[in capacity] than 50 years ago,even allowing for a change in various standards.
Biuld em small,fill 'em up and take the money from Packer and Murdock.That's the reality.
And the US does it better than most.Put the punter behind the screen is the motto.

 

[1908]

NRL crowds may not be as big as AFL but they are comparable with the top 50 leagues in the world. In Australia they are heading in the right direction, RL has enough going on to fill the media for 8 months of the year in a COMPETITIVE market. No artifical blockbusters required. Ask yourself why Murdoch went for RL and not AFL to launch pay TV? AFL had bigger crowds in 1995. As I said before the be all and end all in the 21st century is the corporate dollar, why else do you think AFL is soooo desperate to rate in Sydney. After all if it wasn't the AFL would have teams in Tas and the NT, right.

 

[Vulcan]

NRL crowds may not be as big as AFL but they are comparable with the top 50 leagues in the world. In Australia they are heading in the right direction, RL has enough going on to fill the media for 8 months of the year in a COMPETITIVE market. No artifical blockbusters required. Ask yourself why Murdoch went for RL and not AFL to launch pay TV? AFL had bigger crowds in 1995. As I said before the be all and end all in the 21st century is the corporate dollar, why else do you think AFL is soooo desperate to rate in Sydney. After all if it wasn't the AFL would have teams in Tas and the NT, right.

"No artifical blockbusters "?

Come on, what do you think SOO is.
That's still what it largely lives on.And yes it has then helped to advance the game once Super League went.

But no blockbusters,Jesus my sides are splitting.

 

[4for brisbane]

Re: Sydney will NEVER be an AFL state.

No figures or projections prove me wrong.

Brisbane and the Gold Coast are separate cities so you can't join them however much you would like to.

I have seen more population numbers and projections then you can poke a stick at. Stop talking crap.

your talking crap, in a short number of years the now very small gap between the brisbane sprawl to the south east and the northern gc corridor will be completely closed-it will be one long conurbation and in a matter of decades larger in population than all of victoria, it has one team as of now

that will change because to tv/advertisers etc numbers/demographics are king

 

[big bear]

When Murdoch made his move on league things were not good in league but AFL was healthy. No opportunity for him to make a move. Does NRL have its own channel 24/7 on pay tv as does AFL. You cannot argue against the fact that AFL rates higher on national tv figures and the crowds at the ground thrash NRL. We do not need artificial games like state of origin to prop up home and away games. 95,000 people at Anzac day Essendon Collingwood games, no matter their positions on ladder. We may not take NSW and Queensland by storm but are a much more significant game Australia wide. League may get 8 months coverage in Sydney press but have you ever read Melbourne or Adelaide papers. The position is reversed. Remove your blinkers and realize NSW is not Australia.I have enjoyed our debate and wish you well.

 

[4for brisbane]

bigbear
i largely agree with what you've stated but the half of the country that traditionally doesn't follow afl is getting bigger, the afl areas smaller re the overall percentage
IF the game is to grow it needs to address the obvious

and rupie went for nrl in the mid 90's because the content sells here and in the south pacific, nz and england, in otherwords [while league is only really big in a handful of countries] more people have a league interest than an afl interest globally

 

[1908]

A blockbuster is when the top sides clash. How can you call the top 26 players competing against one another not a blockbuster???

When Murdoch made his move on league it was struggling? Are you serious? Season 1994 was a massive year for league, it was booming. Great Kangaroo tour, SOO packed out the MCG, fantastic club comp, great Tina Turner ad promoting the game etc. It was BECAUSE of Murdoch that the game hit it's all time low, this gave other sports a chance. No-one wanted to touch league. I honestly believe that AFL people do not realise/underestimate the massive damage caused by super league. It was because of RL's massive ratings that Murdoch went for RL, we had just introduced a 2nd Brisbane team, one in Townsville, Auckland and Perth.

 

[happy hawker]

Re: Sydney will NEVER be an AFL state.

your talking crap, in a short number of years the now very small gap between the brisbane sprawl to the south east and the northern gc corridor will be completely closed-it will be one long conurbation and in a matter of decades larger in population than all of victoria, it has one team as of now

that will change because to tv/advertisers etc numbers/demographics are king

Firstly its you're.

And secondly I'm not talking crap.

Brisbane and the Gold Coast are close but they are distinct separate cities with very little chance for a variety of reasons of becoming a megalopolis. Using your theory Melbourne and Geelong would join to become one. Its pure folly.

If you said the SEQ area may become larger than Melbourne although almost equally as ridiculous is more of a realistic argument. But for you to say this area will become larger than Victoria in a few decades shows you know very little of what you speak.

Stick to the facts of today and not some dream of what may or may not happen in 50 years.

 

[Vulcan]

A blockbuster is when the top sides clash. How can you call the top 26 players competing against one another not a blockbuster???

When Murdoch made his move on league it was struggling? Are you serious? Season 1994 was a massive year for league, it was booming. Great Kangaroo tour, SOO packed out the MCG, fantastic club comp, great Tina Turner ad promoting the game etc. It was BECAUSE of Murdoch that the game hit it's all time low, this gave other sports a chance. No-one wanted to touch league. I honestly believe that AFL people do not realise/underestimate the massive damage caused by super league. It was because of RL's massive ratings that Murdoch went for RL, we had just introduced a 2nd Brisbane team, one in Townsville, Auckland and Perth.

OK so you acknowelge you have blockbusters.
Packed out the MCG,knew some dills that went,no one ever went back.
Who cares about Tina Turner.
Murdoch came and all the smartarses took the money.That's the perrenial problem with RL.They always will.
He thought he could make a National then International event out of of it.He couldn't.
He forget that to do that you need the subservience of the traditional working class to pay a weeks wages to go to a game or sit obediantly in front of the screen.
He found them all in Britain,Europe,Asia and South America,much better for his Soccer monopoly.
So It's pleasing to see you RL people got him out but don't get ahead of yourselves with meaningless statistical rubbish that doesn't add up now or "the proven future".
But we wish you well.A monopoly is not good for anyone.
Except for Murdoch.