The Great Dane

Anecdotes are the worst form of evidence, literally meaningless. You're right though, the Swans did see a big jump in support, right around the same time that they became the force that they are in the AFL and won their first premiership in 72 years. Coincidence? I think not! That doesn't mean that it's a good choice. They shouldn't even be considered for a license unless they agree to a re-brand that totally disconnects the NRL club from Redcliffe and the Dolphins brand, and to play all of their games at Suncorp (or another centralised stadium). They need to be forced to do what the Queanbeyan Blues were forced to do to join the NSWRL in 1982. The Suns main target audience is the large expat population from Victoria that has moved to the GC (and surrounding regions). The vast majority of that expat population were never Titans fans and are never going to be Titans fans no matter what. So no I don't think that Gary Ablett and the money invested by the AFL has had any major effect on the Titans (yet), and it's pretty obvious that the Titans lack of success and chronic mismanagement has had a much more significant effect. If the Titans weren't constantly having financial problems and drama off the pitch, weren't constantly letting their fans down, didn't have the worst brand in the league, and weren't totally hopeless on the pitch for pretty much all of their existence, that'd go a lot further to fixing their problems then the Suns fading into history. Trying to blame the Titans problems on the Suns is just a lame excuse for incompetence of multiple Titans administrations.

This is a thread about NRL expansion (or rather the current lack there of). You can't talk seriously about NRL expansion without talking about the Australian sporting landscape and the impact that other codes have on the NRL.

Redcliffe would be a disaster, it'd be Brisbane's version of Manly, a tiny suburban club in a disparate part of the city. The NRL doesn't need more suburban clubs, it needs big clubs with city wide appeal. Any new Brisbane club needs to be aiming to be the Man City to the Broncos Man Utd, not a tiny club getting 12k out of a suburban ground. The only time that the Titans averaged 20k was in their first two years in the competition, and there's absolutely no evidence that Suns had any significant impact on their numbers whatsoever. The biggest impact on the Titans crowds is the fact that they've been absolute for most of their existence. There's zero evidence that ever happened on a mass scale. It's just a myth that has been repeated so many times that it's been accepted as fact. What is actually a fact, that a lot of people want to ignore, is that the Swans, Brumbies, and Lions, all went into golden periods, where they had once in a generation teams that had heaps of success and won a ton of premierships. Something tells me that had way more effect on their success in the early 00s (and the Swans continued success) then SL...

Apart from mismanagement (which has been a consistent problem on the GC) there's no reason why the Titans can't be successful on the GC. The Titans have a larger support base and are more successful then at least half of the Sydney clubs, and if most any of the other clubs had experienced the set backs that the Titans have then they would have folded years ago. Just consider this statistic: There's been a Gold Coast club in the national first grade competition for 24 seasons (1988-98, 2007-19), in those 24 seasons the various GC clubs have only made the finals 4 time (97, 09, 10, 16). With a record like that any club is going to struggle to cement themselves in a market, and most of the other clubs would have folded a long time ago if they had a record like that. Also the Titans can't be allowed to fold or move from the GC for strategic reasons, because if the Titans go while the Suns still exist it'd be a PR nightmare for RL and it'd give the AFL a once in a lifetime opportunity to totally cement the Suns into the GC. There's only one NZ based bid that is publicly bidding for an NRL license, and it's a fanciful bid called the South Pacific Cyclones who would be based in Wellington but would play games all over the Pacific, i.e. it's not really a bid for an NZ team and it's not what the NRL needs in a second NZ club. If/when the NRL call for bids new NZ bid teams could come out of woodwork, but as things stand there isn't really a bid for a license in NZ, which pretty much puts NZ off the table. If only for financial reasons alone Brisbane is a must, but there's plenty of benefits aside from just the money. However relocating the Titans to Brisbane would not only be a PR disaster and a massive leg up for the AFL on the GC, but the vast majority of Brisbane wouldn't support them because they'll see them for what the are, a re-branded Titans, and they won't support the GC's sloppy seconds, especially when strong competition like the Broncos is right next door. Brisbane definitely needs a second club, but it needs to be a new club otherwise it'll be a #######how that never meets it's true potential.

$10mil is just under a third of what the NRL spends on grants to the state leagues in Australia. There're 5 million people in NZ, so if the NRL gave NZ a yearly grant of $10mil that'd almost certainly make NZ the region that the NRL gives the largest funding per capita (except maybe Queensland). So the region that the governing body of RL in Australia would be investing the most money into per head wouldn't even be in Australia, not only that but they would be just handing that money to a separate organisation that they have no institutional control over, who could then spend the money as they wish. Knowing the NZRL, what little of the money actually made it to the grassroots wouldn't be invested evenly across the country anyway. So it wouldn't really be $10 mil for 5 million heads, it'd be $10 million for Auckland and a handful of other places on the north island, while the rest of the county continues to fight a losing battle all by themselves. Meanwhile back in Australia, only half the country is exposed to RL on a regular basis, and outside of Sydney, parts of northern NSW, and Queensland, the sport is barely hanging on because of a lack of resources to compete with the AFL who are pumping ludicrous amounts of money into the eastern state, and often with the support of local governments backing them up. But sure, the Australian governing body of RL should continue to totally ignore all of the problems back home to prop up the NZRL without any hope of a return on their investment, why not I guess. BTW, $10 mil a year is still a lot of money to the NRL, especially when considering that they normally make a loss or only a small profit.

The NRL is a business, a business that has spent the last 25 years developing it's business in the NZ market, what they do with the money that they make from their labour in NZ is nobody's business except their's and the NZ governments. Whether you like it or not you (i.e. the NZRL) aren't entitled to a cut of that money simply because they are making money in your country. Go on tell me about these changing sentiments. I bet your anecdotes are totally representative of the population of NZ. Who cares what Shane Richardson thinks! You are demanding that the NZRL be given a cut of money that they played no part in the labour of earning simply because of the fact that the money was made in NZ and they are Kiwis. . . Believing that you have an inherent right to something that you haven't earned is pretty much the definition of entitlement! Lets say you get what you want and the NZRL gets an annual grant from the NRL no questions asked, what precedent do you think that will set? What do think the leagues from other countries that the NRL operates in are going to do if they see the NZRL getting a cut of all the profit made in NZ? What do you think the NRL is going to do when they see every major governing body of RL in the pacific and maybe even further abroad come cap in hand demanding millions of dollars a year to be payed off to go away? What impact do you think that is going to have on not only the NRL it's self but everybody under the ARLC's umbrella, including the Warriors?

Fireworks have been illegal here for a decade now. Pot isn't legal and never has been. It's decriminalised so long as it's small quantities for personal use and you aren't selling it. Public servants aren't any more or less likely to "have a thing" for RU, it's people that were private school educated that are more likely to follow RU, and people from all classes work in the public service and the vast majority of them aren't rich. And coming here "loads of times" doesn't mean that you "understand" the place, in fact you've demonstrated that your understanding of Canberra only goes so far as stereotypes of Canberra. That simply isn't true. Just because something has collapsed doesn't mean that it can't be rebuilt, and RL has proven that time and again. Just like John O'Neill, Peter FitzSimons, and others predicted that RL would be dead in a generation while RU was riding high during and after the RWC, you now predict that RU will be dead in a generation or less while RL is riding high. Yet instead of RL dying in a generation like was predicted by the O'Neill's and FitzSimon's of the world, RL has rebounded from the SL war and it's aftermath and come back stronger then ever, and proven (again) how much things can change in a short time. You'd do well to keep that in mind next time you're ready to consign something to history, otherwise many of the things you consigned to history before they were dead and buried will come back to bite on the ######.

You didn't actually read/understand what I said did you. . . If the Brumbies were the first choice to be killed then they would have been killed off. The proposal to merge the Brumbies and Rebels was thrown out there by supporters of the Force who were desperately looking for a way to save them from being cut from Super Rugby, the proposal was thrown out instantly, and hasn't been brought up since SR dropped the Force. Do you realise that the Raiders have had crowds as low as the Brumbies in the past? The ACT is probably RU's strongest heartland left, and the Brumbies struggles aren't necessarily a reflection of the strength of RU in the ACT either. Finally stop trying to compare Canberra to Sydney/NSW and Brisbane/Queensland. Canberra is culturally and historically significantly different from either of them, and has a totally different sporting landscape, trying to compare them is like trying to compare pineapples and oranges.

I'm born and raised in Canberra, and I've lived the majority of my life here. I've also followed the Raiders more or less from the beginning. So I think I know a little about the culture and the workings of Canberra and the Raiders. The only difference this time is that the Brumbie's problems have been compounded by the fact that the ARU and the sport it's self is doing so poorly, other than that their current struggles are pretty much par for the course of being one of the two big rugby clubs in Canberra. Any talk of the Brumbies folding is nonsense , because even if the current mob of people running them send them broke the Tuggeranong Vikings will just buy them and bankroll them. The Vikings need the Brumbies (or another professional RU club) and the Vikings are just as loaded as the Raiders, so if they had to they could bankroll them for quite a while. Truth be told the Vikings have had their eye on owning the Brumbies for years, they just haven't had the opportunity to buy them yet. Any talk of their not being an Australian professional RU competition in at least some form is also nonsense, it may be a shadow of what it once was, but even if the ARU pulls out of Super Rugby and goes broke there'll still be pro Rugby in some form, and the Brumbies (or at least a Canberra team) will always be a part of that. The exodus of Raiders fans in the 00s wasn't because of SL, pretty much everybody in Canberra was behind the Raiders in that fight. The exodus was the bandwagon jumping off the club after the Raiders weren't winning anything anymore (and because the club was being openly hostile to the fans at times, but that's a whole other thing). BTW most of that bandwagon that left the Raiders went over to, you guessed it, the Brumbies. That is kind of just how the sports market works in Canberra, whatever the most popular team is at any given moment is determined by fads created by whoever the most successful team is at any given moment . From 1987-2012 the Raiders were in the finals at least once every second year, and it made no difference to the Raiders popularity for most of that time because people don't care about finals appearances unless you are an actual competitor, and from about 99-2012 (with a couple of notable exceptions) the Raiders were just making up the numbers in the finals. So unless that decent run of finals appearances are top 4 appearances were the Raiders go deep into the finals, it won't make much difference, and even if they do go on an extended period of being premiership contenders that won't last forever, and once the run is over the Brumbies will be waiting in the wings to capitalise.

I tentatively agree with you, but only because the ARU doesn't have the balls to attempt what would have to be done to resurrect the sport in Australia. On the Brumbies. I wouldn't worry to much about them, they're just struggling because the Raiders are so successful at the moment. Unfortunately the Raiders current successful streak won't last forever, and eventually things will swing back around in the Brumbies favour again. That's kind of just how the Canberra market works, whichever of the two pro teams is more successful at any given moment dictates which of the two sports is more popular and successful in the city at any given moment.

I said that they (the AFL and NFL) don't value international competition, not that their sports aren't valued internationally (which definitely isn't the case with American Football anyway), those are two vastly different things. So you aren't even arguing against the point that I made, but if you had read on in the discussion you'd know that if the AFL wanted to they could easily field international teams built mainly of full time professionals for at least 4-5 nations (and I imagine that similar is true for the NFL). So it wouldn't be a group of amateurs cobbled together (which BTW describes most of international RL as well), it'd be teams very similar to the Tongan RL team, which is made up almost exclusively of players who weren't born in Tonga and most would say are actually from Australia and NZ (the only exception is Konrad Hurrell who was born and raised in Tonga), but who qualify on heritage grounds and have chosen to represent that heritage. Now the question is if the AFL could have serious international competition, which we've established that they could, then why don't they? Well that is simply because, for whatever reasons, they don't value international competition!

It seems that the Wolfpack are quickly becoming one of those teams that every manager connects his players name with to boost the value of their contract when there's no competition for his signature. BTW, I'm surprised that Israel Folau hasn't been connected with them yet. If the Wolfpack played their cards right he might actually be a good get for them as well.

Which is exclusively contested by amateurs, has only ever been held in Australia (and I'm pretty sure it's only been held in Melbourne as well), is only broadcast in Australia (and IIRC, that was only once on a national broadcaster), isn't marketed to overseas markets at all, and an Australian team is excluded from participating in it. It's also an initiative by the AFL's development arm, with the objective being to get more ethnically diverse Australians (i.e. people living in Australia) interested in and hopefully playing the sport. AFL Asia, the USAFL, AFL Europe, etc, etc, are all run by expats (partially funded by the AFL to some extent I admit) and almost all of the participates are expats. They do not participate in international competition with the AFL it's self, and none of them have any means by which to do so. Pretty much all of the AFL's international stuff exists as a weird form of self aggrandisement, so they can do exactly what you are doing, by saying 'look we have international competitions and participation', when really they don't have any of any note, and everything that they do internationally is the most token gesture possible. It's all designed to appeal to the insecurities of the audience that seeks it out back home in Australia, and not as any serious attempt to grow the sport internationally in any meaningful way. If such a day comes when either the AFL starts to regularly put on proper professional international fixtures with the best players available, or they start bankrolling either a professional AFL team or league internationally (all of which they've had the means to do for decades now if they wanted to, BTW), I'll agree with you. But until that day it's all smoke and mirrors and not a serious concerted effort to grow their sport internationally.

That is a very good example, but you don't even have to look outside of RL for an example. Many people around here aren't going to like me saying it, but just look at the way that most NRL teams treat the WCC and World Club Series (or whatever it was called). Most of them put in the bare minimum necessary to get the payday with as few injuries as possible, that is unless they can get out of it altogether.

Firstly, they don't need to be born a bred, using RL's standards they only need to have a grandparent from said country. A quarter of Australia's population is either born overseas or has a parent that was born overseas. It'd have to be very close to half (if not marginally more then half) of the population that has at least one grandparent born overseas. So taking that into account a huge portion of AFL players would be eligible to play international RL, and using RL standards they could easily field reasonably competitive Irish, Kiwi, English, Scottish, and American teams, they'd probably be able to pull off less competitive (you could call them second and third tier) Lebanese, Sudanese, Papuan, Turkish, Greek, and Italian teams, and maybe even a few of the other Pi's as well. Secondly, they don't have to be regular first graders to be eligible for internationals, let alone competitive. If we held that standard in RL then outside of Aus, NZ, Eng, and some of the PI's, none of the teams would be able to field a team. Let me also not so subtly remind you that a Lebanese 9's team made up mainly of second and third graders recently beat an English team built exclusively of NRL and SL players, and within the last decade an Italian team of similar makeup beat the full English team. . . So yeah maybe I wouldn't be so quick to play down the abilities of players that haven't made first grade if I was you. Yet despite the above the AFL doesn't hold international fixtures, because they don't value them.