Jump to content

The Great Dane

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. Yeah, Adelaide had been scheduled to host a one of this years SOO games for a couple years now. The NRL will probably give them another one for cheap to make up for this one being ruined by Covid as well.
  2. If participation rates are directly linked to support of the professional game, then using your logic you'd expect soccer's participation numbers in Australia to result in absolutely huge ratings and support for the top soccer leagues in the world. For example, since their participation rates are so much higher you'd expect that the EPL would out rate the NRL and AFL in Australia, but that simply isn't the case at all. In fact if people disproportionately value a competition based of it's perceived quality, i.e. they're much more likely to support a competition if it's the "best" in it's sport, then surely you'd expect that to be repeated across the world. In other words wouldn't you expect there to be a disproportionate amount people in England supporting the NRL exclusively over the SL just as there are a disproportionate amount of Australians supporting the EPL over the A-league? Also if Australians don't concern themselves with things that the nation can't claim to be, or have been, the the best at, then surely they wouldn't concern themselves with soccer and it wouldn't have the highest participation rate of all the football codes in Australia...
  3. You didn't present a hypothesis, you presented a claim without any supporting evidence, and a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If what you said was true then you'd at least expect a huge amounts of anecdotal evidence to support it, and I simply do not see anybody, let alone a potentially measurable group, complaining that they can't find the time in a week to both play the game and watch it.
  4. You are the one making the claim mate, not me. The onus is on you to provide evidence that it is real not me.
  5. It's happened before and the money has disappeared down a bottomless pit. Besides they are dependant on the NRL as it is, throwing money at them would only make that worse, and that's not in anybodies interest. They're in a hole they can only get themselves out of and the way to do it is to start building income streams that are as independent of influence from the NRL as much as possible.
  6. Because they do nothing to earn it! The NRL (and if we are frank RU) produces all their talent and allows the Warriors to take part in the NRL at their own risk. In other words the NRL along with the Warriors have basically been the only thing that has stopped RL in NZ from falling into total obscurity while the NZRL themselves have done nothing to better themselves for decades now, yet now that the NRL is seeing some kind of return for their trouble people have the gall to demand no strings attached money from the NRL for taking the privilege of doing their job for them. Well no, the NRL and Warriors took all the risk, they should get all the reward, and if you want the same for yourself then get off your ###### and start building something for yourself. Now if you want to work together then I'm open to it, but that means you've got to sacrifice some control to the NRL, and historically they haven't been willing to do that.
  7. Nope experience is definitely the right word. The army of people whom can’t afford the time to both play the game and watch it just isn’t a thing.
  8. Or instead of being leeches the NZRL and grassroots in NZ could get of their ###### and do something for themselves... Honestly the entitlement is astonishing, and tone deaf considering that the NRL has only got the money because of a massive cost cutting spree.
  9. Nothing's stopping you from watching Thursday, Saturday, or Sunday... Why are we creating this weirdly specific situation that isn't at all representative of the vast majority of people's experience?
  10. The ratings simply don't bare that out. Most Aussie football 'fans' you see wearing big European clubs' jerseys are posers frankly. It's more a fashion statement then an actual symbol of their fandom. The same is true of a lot the American sports. Also there's no chance in hell that an EPL team would average 60k a season, well not after the initial novelty period at least. When an EPL team draws 100k in Australia it's because they are drawing people from right across Australia and neighbouring countries because it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the team live. You simply wouldn't be able to sustain that sort of support on a bi-weekly basis.
  11. I can say with absolute certainty that that is wrong just from my own experience. If it was correct though then surely you'd want to keep participation as low as possible to maximise the amount of people who have time to watch the professional game.
  12. They probably wouldn't, but then again nothing in PNG generates a great deal of money. If they were played in Australia on the other hand. . . Well who knows. Look I'm not necessarily saying it should happen, in fact because of the impact it'd have here in Australia I'd be pretty against it, but you can't deny that it might be a good way to get them a games more regularly against strong opposition (stronger than most test teams frankly) that might also be more commercially viable. Also an organised calendar will never happen unless the rest of the RLIF agree to let the NRL organise it, which will never happen.
  13. Anybody can pull good numbers for a one off or rare novelty event. Look at the Olympics, every four years everybody is suddenly a massive fan of track and field, gymnastics, dressage, shooting, etc, etc, etc, when a year earlier you couldn't have paid 99.999% of them to watch even 10 minutes of any of them.
  14. I'm not writing it off, I'm simply saying I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it is actually true. For all I know it could be true, but so far as I have seen there's little to no actual evidence to suggest that it is the case and a fair bit of evidence to suggest that it's not. Also we don't know that Richard Hinds is more informed than us, nor do we have any reason to believe that he is, and given his track record on any sport that isn't Aussie Rules I highly doubt that he is more informed than your average Joe. At this point I'm an old ###### man, and for at least the vast majority of my life, and possibly even all of it, soccer has had the highest participation rates of all the football codes in Australia, and possibly all other team sports as well. The only sport that might have pipped them is Cricket on occasion. My whole life Australian soccer has utterly failed to convert those massive amounts of participants into supporters, and on top of that they were failing to convert them into supporters long before supporting European leagues was accessible or trendy in this country. If all it took was time for those participants to suddenly start supporting teams then it would have happened by now, in fact it would have happened at least 30 to 40 years ago, so obviously it's a little more complex then simply persisting for an extended period of time. On top of that you have Basketball whom have had good participation rates since at least the late 60s or early 70s, and have been growing at a steady rate since then (and had boom periods in the 90s as well as recently). Yet despite those facts it has also utterly failed to convert those participates into supporters as well. So without looking at other counties (because I know for a fact that soccer has had a similar experience in all of the Anglosphere outside of the UK) we have the start of a pattern where sports with good, and in soccers' case the best, participation rates for decades now and that hasn't resulted in strong support for the local top competitions. Now it could turn out that there are other factors in play and that participation does have a big impact, but given the evidence to hand it really doesn't seem like it does it!?
  15. Kangaroos vs Kumuls games are at best a break-even proposition, and realistically make a loss more often than not. Maybe PNG vs the SOO teams would be a better commercial proposition, which would lead to them getting more games against better opposition.
  16. This is one of those things that I see repeated all the time but I’ve never seen any really hard evidence to suggest that it actually true.
  17. Yeah and every game a player plays was ‘a tough one’, every team a ‘threat’, every player ‘a good player’, etc, etc. It’s almost like the players get media training and always say what is expected of them and will look best in the media...
  18. PNG are mad for SOO, they’d probably love it if the Kumuls played against the Blues and Maroons. Not saying that I necessarily think it should happen, but who knows, if the business case was good maybe it’d be worth looking into.
  19. In RL sure, but again RL came after the formation of the commonwealth. In other sports, and in the Australian culture more broadly, not so much. You are massively oversimplifying the situation in Australia at that time, and now frankly, and I don't think you could do much more to devalue the international game in Australia than has already been done.
  20. Of course QLD didn't decry Inglis playing for QLD, he was on their team and wouldn't you know it's only ever a problem when the other guys do it lol. Look mate, you're just wrong about this one and I'm done arguing with you about it.
  21. I'm not sure, and I think it would depend on which colony we are talking about, but generally speaking there wasn't really the money in sports in Australia in that time period to go on what we'd call tours to other nations these days, and if there was it would have been a very rare and special thing. However, representative games between the colonies were definitely a thing (obviously not in RL because the Commonwealth of Australia had formed before RL was brought to Australia), how early on they started and how often they were played I don't know, but you have to keep in mind that holding a game between two of the colonies in Australia in 1800s would have been a much larger, and more expensive, undertaking than holding tests between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland during the same time period, which would have required the teams to sometimes take weeks off work simply for them to travel to and from the matches. For example, I highly doubt there were representative matches between e.g. WA and NSW very often, if at all, simply because of the distance and expense it would take to make them happen. I also think that whether or not the colonies played representative sports is totally redundant to the point I was making, and I think the fact that initially both the Wallabies and Kangaroos wore sky blue if they were playing Sydney, maroon if they were playing in Brisbane, and wore sky blue and maroon hoops if they were touring should tell you something.
  22. A lot of people from overseas seem to fail to understand that the thing that made SOO so successful was that it was an outlet for the real historic disdain that QLD and NSW have for each other. You take that away, you take away what made SOO what it is, and a sure fire way to take that away is if you add a bunch of people into mix whom don't really understand that history or disdain, which is what you'd be doing if you allow a bunch of people whom, whether we like it or not, aren't really Queenslanders or NSWelshmen to participate. SOO isn't a glorified All Stars match, and if you treat it as such it will die. I can see why you think that, but I fundamentally disagree. If we ever get to a point where SOO is incapable of picking most of the best players in the world then that will mean that RL growing out of SOO, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all as it'd mean that a lot more people from much more diverse groups, even just within Australia BTW, are watching and engaging with the sport to an extent where RL is truly larger than just NSW, QLD, and the redhead stepchild that is the ACT. It'd be RL becoming a national sport, which would only be a good a thing, and I think if that ever happens that you'd pretty quickly see internationals take more of the focus as SOO slowly became redundant. That's what happened when the AFL grew out of their SOO in the late 90s, but that's a story for a different time. I do however think that screwing up or sabotaging SOO before it's readily replaceable internationals, or other representative competition, would be a massive mistake, and that comes from a person who is proudly not from NSW or QLD and finds SOO to be an annoying distraction that ruins the NRL for a few months each season.
  23. Sure one or two at any one time didn't kill it, but the greater part of each team would, and if you are going to open it up to people that don't declare for Australia then why not let effectively anybody that has resided in NSW or QLD play as well? Making NSW and QLD residents teams again is the next logical progression of this line of thinking, to suggest it's not is rather silly frankly. By the way, many from within Australia and abroad (if anything more so from NZ in particular) would, and did, argue that your Uate's and Tamou's of the world had not had the time to truly become NSWelshmen, and were just mercenaries after the money. Not saying that I necessarily agree with that (I think it's too simplistic if you must know), but there are large groups of people whom do think that way.
  24. There's no interpretation needed, it's a fact, and we can't go about changing it until we accept that it is.
  25. Trust me it did. Plenty of people were genuinely furious, same is true of when Tamou and Uate played for NSW, or any number of NSW born "Queenslanders" and vice versa. Adrian Lam is the only one I can't remember causing a stink, don't know why, maybe nobody realised he was from PNG lol . Make SOO open to anybody and the controversy would eat it alive, especially if players fresh off the boat were lining up for either team.
  • Create New...