Don’t believe the hype, the code war is a myth
By Steve Kaless, 28 Aug 2009 Steve Kaless is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- A-League, AFL, football, NRL, Rugby League, Rugby Union
102 Have your say
Related coverage
- Football news
- A-League news
- Rugby Union news
- Rugby League news
- NRL news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news

Dallas Johnson from the Storm is spear tackled in the NRL by Gold Coast Titans players AAP Image/Action Photographics/Jeff Crow
I don’t want to be the one who tells you that Santa Claus may not be who you think he is, but all this talk of code wars is about as close to reality as a bloke who breaks into your house and leaves you iPods instead of taking them. There I’ve said it.
I’ve read a lot about the apparent code wars that are occurring on my doorstep, but never heard a lot of concrete proof.
In fact, the only things I’ve heard which are apparently proof actually make me even more convinced it is a lot of hype, whipped up by media types who are fighting their own losing battle against dwindling ad revenues and circulations.
Sure, people are protective of their favourite codes. They don’t like them being bagged, or worse still, told they won’t be around in 30 years. But in the end, it is just an extension of the age old art of naval gazing.
Here’s why:
1. “People I know”
Surely the most commonly used phrase in the code war. One conversation with one particular punter is apparently enough to write the death certificate of any particular sport or confirm its dominance. That this particular punter may be wearing a Bulldogs, Waratahs, Mariners or Dockers jersey is rarely seen as any bias, as we agree with them.
Importantly, we see comments that reinforce our own bias as unheralded pieces of wisdom.
An opinion piece we agree with is ‘great journalism’ one that we don’t is ‘terrible, lazy journalism’. We ignore the fact that just because we don’t agree with something, doesn’t make it a good piece of writing.
Another example, a certain columnist attends a nameless charity lunch in Melbourne. He speaks with an unnamed member of the basketball world and apparently a number of unnamed people from AFL.
The columnist returns from his lunch convinced that others now share his view of the sporting world, because they may or may not have agreed with him over a few wines on a few points.
A compelling piece of social research? No. A piece of hype in a Sunday paper to get the blood boiling? Yes.
But let’s return to all that later.
2. Mutual exclusivity
The only time a “code war” actually exists is when you are forced to choose spending on one sport over another. In reality, this occurs very rarely.
The A-League shares largely a different calendar to the rest of the football codes, so is not really any form of direct competition.
A spectator who turns up in July to Energy Australia Stadium in Newcastle to watch the Knights is not then banned from doing so in February to watch the Jets.
Even when the time frames are shorter (in relation to the other football codes), people can still choose to spread their income across sports. The fact that matches are largely played across four days gives the organisers plenty to work with and they largely look to avoid a conflict which would harm their own gate.
3. The GFC
The Global Financial Crisis has added pressure to some household budgets and was meant to intensify the code war.
The reality was different.
Australia is apparently already on the road to recovery. Unemployment may have risen slightly, but people are hardly choosing the soup kitchen over attending a sporting match.
More than 90 percent of the workforce remains employed, their income unchanged. This is not the dire scenario predicted by our beloved media and therefore should not alter our sporting landscape in the slightest.
4. No code stands still
The biggest problem with people who espouse a code war is that they always do so from their own code’s development perspective. It’s naïve.
For argument’s sake, let’s take Craig Foster again.
Foster argues that in 20 years, football will be number one. This is by imagining his particular code with 20 years of development.
But Foster, like so many before, think that all other sports will, in 20 years, be in the same place they are today.
This is wrong
Every football code in this country will have made significant advances on where they are today. Of course, some may do it better than others. Which code does it best will be decided … in 20 years time.
5. The dual enemies
I’d argue that sporting codes have two real enemies: the concept of nothing and the enemy within.
First the concept of nothing.
The real enemy for footballing codes isn’t other footballing codes. It’s things like shopping, dining and other forms of entertainment.
Hen pecked ‘men’ choosing to spend their weekends wandering around large shopping malls with their partners looking for cushions and crockery and the many variations of the Stepford Husband is what will kill sporting clubs.
Rugby League hasn’t been blown away by AFL on the box, AFL hasn’t been blown away by the NRL. They were both slammed dunked by shows like Australian Masterchef, Packed to the Rafters and The Biggest Loser.
Live sport is up against shows that play on people’s competitive instincts (like sport) but also their vanity, greed … or stupidity.
It is similar with the battle for juniors.
Turn away from the sports pages and you don’t get stories about Australian society being filled with exhausted kids who have been flat out playing four different football codes in an effort to make one final grand decision.
No, you hear about Australian children, playing less sport and being some of the fattest in the world.
If there is a war going on for the hearts and minds, the football codes are getting hammered by PlayStations and junk food (another industry which seems content with multiple providers).
The other enemy is within themselves: The fair-weather fan.
The codes’ biggest battle is not converting others to follow their game, but convincing those who already do to get out to grounds and support their side.
The A-League provides the best example of this, but it affects every sport.
Quickly again to Foster who argued that every goal by Lyon convinces an Australian that football was a beautiful game. Maybe, but Australians watching Ligue One is the last thing the FFA wants.
They want people being convinced that football is the beautiful game, but by watching Sydney FC or anyone else in the A-League. There are enough football fans in Australia to fill most grounds a number of times over.
But A-League crowds suffer because people follow teams from European towns they have never visited and look down their noses at the local product.
Perhaps the best question for Foster is: How many Lyon backheels and scissor kicks will it take to fill Dairy Farmers Stadium?
But if every goal by Lyon or Barcelona convinces people of value in the beautiful game, wouldn’t every mark from Buddy Franklin do the same for AFL? Wouldn’t a Jaryd Hayne chip ‘n chase do it for the greatest game of all?
Wouldn’t a flick pass from Berrick Barnes do it for the game they play in heaven?
6. Population
How can the Gold Coast support three football codes when they previously couldn’t support one? That is a question I’ve heard many times. The answer is simple, it can because it has changed.
The Gold Coast is no longer just some tourist strip and a few hungover schoolies. It is the fastest growing area of Australia, in terms of population.
Codes are flocking there, not because they are looking for a fight, but they see a market that can support professional sport. Sure they will have to work hard to get people to back their team, but more to get them to turn off the plasma rather than turn up because they already own one type of jersey.
Public Enemy were right all those years ago. Don’t believe the hype.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- A-League, AFL, football, NRL, Rugby League, Rugby Union

August 28th 2009 @ 10:15am
AGO74 said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Good article with some good lines. For the record I love NRL and football (though Craig Foster is a complete nob), AFL is ok to watch on TV and Rugby Union is blah. What I prefer is not really that important but what annoys a lot of people in Sydney (regardless of the sport they follow) is Andrew Demetriou going on all Rev Billy Bob evangelical style over the West Sydney whatevers. I don’t dislike AFL as a game and I admire the way AFL is followed so passionately by its fans especially in Melbourne (I would love NRL to have even half of that bums-on-seats passion), but I sincerely hope that West Sydney Whatevers falls flat on its face and that the AFL focuses on its real fans issues (e.g. a Tassie franchise, growing the Swans core market rather than neglecting it, doctoring a comp to make two new teams competitve at the expense of other 16, making tix available to ‘real’ fans for AFL GF rather than these $1000 corp packages – i.e. we’ll happily take real fans money all year but come the big game you can pretty much forget about getting in). Demetriou’s blind faith on Western Sydney shows that he just doesn’t get Sydney. Steve’s point on cross over seasons is spot on as there is only a small overlap between a-league and nrl/afl/aru seasons. For me as a football fan, it means I can follow two sports that I love year round.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:32am
Michael C said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
$1000 corp packages help keep our clubs alive – - had the State Govt come on board 30 years ago, we’d be playing GFs at a 160,000 capacity Waverley!!!
In about everything the AFL has put forward on this topic it’s been focussed on real long term and more the consideration of results of NOT doing it.
You’re right about Tassie – - the AFL can’t afford Tassie to be the next Canberra.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:19am
Luke W said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Sorry, don’t buy it. I’d love to sit in around a big campfire with all types of football fans and sing Kumbaya, but the fact is that despite our love of sport, Australia is a relatively small country. Certainly a small country with regards to four competing football codes. No time in our history have four football codes successfully competed together, so what’s changed now? I agree that none of the codes will “die” in the next 20 years, leaving one dominant football code, but I feel that Australia is too small to have four successful football codes, so for one to grow, some others have to shrink.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:50am
Sean Fagan said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Sydney has had 4 football codes successfully competing since 1908. Sure RL has been dominant, but the SCG has hosted many RU & soccer internationals from the 1920s onwards with crowds >40K, as well as VFL club games (usually at least 1 each year) of similar sized attendances long before the Swans. All four codes have been played at the junior & school level throughout that time as well, with soccer having more juniors than the others since the 1930s.
I agree with Steve’s conclusions. This “code war” may exist, but only in the sense that it always has (in NSW & Qld at least) and always will. The potential expansion of “the war” is for the rugby codes in the new frontiers of the AFL-states, but any gains there are not going to ultimately resolve any perceived “code war”.
In fact, it is 100 years ago today that 14 current Wallabies joined RL on the one day. And, yet even that severe blow, was not fatal to RU, the popularity of the Wallabies, and did not reduce the codes from 4 to 3.
[More: http://www.RL1908.com/blog/wallabies.htm ]
August 28th 2009 @ 11:13am
Michael C said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
However, certain ‘constants’ that supported the status quo demarcation that existed – included particular schools being almost exclusively Union schools, or League etc etc.
Australian Football locally was restricted to certain enclaves and games were fly in/fly out (or up on the “Southern Auruara” or “Spirit of Progress” from Spencer St into Central Station).
Looking form outside, if feels like some of those constants have taken a bit of a hammering. Sydney is a very perculiar city in the whole world perspective with respect to the ‘competitive’ nature of it’s football landscape. I just wonder how well Union for example can continue to re-invent itself in the Australian context should it lose it’s key foundation plank of the private schools in Sydney and Brisbane?? (is that a real danger or not??)
August 28th 2009 @ 12:14pm
Sean Fagan said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
RU in Aust is 4 (soon to be 5) professional clubs over not even a full season – so what does RU need – 125 players all up? I don’t see any lack of teenage males wanting to make a career out of being a professional footballer. Opportunity will do the rest.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:23pm
oikee said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Good point, the international game keeps union healthy. Union wont ever die. Might be sick, but wont die. Mind you, they are not doing themselves any favours with the blood-gate incident. Nobody likes poor sportsmanship.
August 28th 2009 @ 11:26am
mitzter said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
ooo Sean Fagan on this website good to see haven’t seen you here before. Love your stuff!
August 28th 2009 @ 11:38am
Pippinu said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Sean does make the occasional appearance on the Roar – which is always good to see.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:58am
Pippinu said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Luke
In one sense, what you’ve said makes intuitive sense, but Steve does touch on some scenarios where that’s not necessarily the case.
It is certianly true that as the sporting pie gets bigger (and the pie has plenty of growth left in it), the four codes will get uneven chunks of that growth – that is certainly true.
So in reality, you get all four codes growing, but in effect, one or two will get a smaller share of the overall pie (although we’re talking tiny amounts in percentage terms).
For arguments sake, let’s say the total sports pie grows by 8% in the next few years (as it will at a minimum, no problems there), each of the four codes will not get an equal share of that growth, nor will they get a share of that growth that reflects their current share, most likely, one or two will get a smaller share than the others, with the effect that in total terms, you get a tiny percentage shift downwards for one or two codes.
However, another thing that people don’t factor in is the chunks of market share that are grabbed out of other sports. The four footy codes might only make up 50% of the total sporting and leisure market, maybe less.
So anytime someone stops playing korfball in favour of soccer, that’s growth in soccer that has not affected the other codes one bit.
August 28th 2009 @ 11:41am
Luke W said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Will the sporting pie grow 8% in the next few years? Other than a major event like the Olympics or World Cup, I don’t see why the sporting pie would grow 8%? I would assume the two biggest factors affecting the sporting pie would be population growth in sporting areas and economic growth. So pretty much more people to attend events with more disposable income to do it. But neither of those figures are anywhere near 8%.
August 28th 2009 @ 11:46am
Luke W said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
But I agree, there are points for and against. Also, I know this is a big generalisation, but it can even be argued that the growth of the A-League, NRL and AFL has impacted of rugby union (although I think there are other factors, such as the standard of play).
August 28th 2009 @ 12:03pm
Pippinu said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Luke W
That’s 8% over a three year period – which translates to roughly 2.5% growth per annum compounded.
If the economy overall grows by that amount, you can be assured that the sports and leisure market will grow by an equivalent amount, absolutely no problems at all.
Why? Because each successive growth in a market economy directs more money to the tertiary sector, and that includes all form of entertainment, which includes sports and leisure.
If there is one thing we can be sure of in Australia, is that sports and leisure will grab its fair share of growth plus some.
Furthermore, the strategic plans of all the codes is pretty much about tapping into this growth in the economy – if the economy is strong – the professional leagues are strong.
Take the AFL side in West Sydney – the AFL might be able to develop a club out there with decent support without the NRL losing one single supporter.
Why? Because it’s a massive population, all of whom aren’t attending NRL games – we know that – there are people attending no games of any description – so naturally the AFL will be wanting to attract some of these people.
This effectively grows the sports and leisure market, and yes, it might grow the AFL’s overall share, but if that happens, we’re talking about tiny percentages.
To use Fos’ very good adjective: “imperceptible”.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:19am
Michael C said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Part 2-
general demography variation. Population growth via migration – - with any new wave of migrants, various sporting codes may or may not be at a natural advantage – and the existing codes need to re-invent themselves (or not) to take advantage of or simply to access that migrant community.
Pacific Islanders are an example – - large numbers of BIG kids in junior Rugby is in some respects an advantage, for example, in suburban Melbourne, there’s rugby teams were previously there were none. Made up in the main with kids from this background. So, a ‘natural advantage’ helps create something where previously there was effectively nothing.
However, in RL heartland in suburban Sydney, there’ve been many articles and stories relating to the problems of BIG PI kids in age groups, and forcing a ‘re-invention’ into weight divisions to avoid losing kids to other football codes.
Let alone, normal aging suburbs, new growth suburbs etc. Within existing cities/states that are ‘heartland’ – the constant change means that there’s constant work to be done. Let alone, any code protecting any form of national spread. The AFL as an example did NOT protect/support it’s old ‘VFL’ days presence in Canberra. They’ve lost ground. They know they can’t afford to just let Sydney and Brisbane just ‘exist’, they need to act to support, protect, sustain and grow in both real and relative terms. Not growing is to go backwards.
In the codes flocking to the Gold Coast on the back of the population growth (some natural, some via relocation – thus, codes seeking to ensure they retain a ‘contact’ with existing ‘customers’) – the interesting thing is that they are attempting to insert ‘LOCALISM’ into that market.
i.e. a local team. It’s not good enough for the Gold Coast to be a bunch of kids wearing Collingwood, Manly, SFC and Man Utd tops – - they are provided a local shirt/jumper to buy, wear and support. This very much goes in the face of a the ‘globalisation’ advocates. This to me, is the interesting thing. Perhaps for every globalisation ‘action’, there’s an equal and opposite ‘localisation’ reaction.
August 28th 2009 @ 4:57pm
TomF said | August 28th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Michael,
I can assure you that noe of those Gold Coast Kids will be wearing a SFC jersy (unless they’re blow-in’s on holidays!)- the loss of support for the Roar at the start of this season may be a telling factor where their allegiences were in terms of football. More broadly, the Demography angle is everything in the GC. 25 years ago, it had a population of around 128,000 people (a bit smaller than Cairns today). At present the population is around the 500,000 mark and Gold Coast has overtaken Newcastle. By 2031, it is expected to be around 740,000 (equivalent to the size of Brisbane 20 years ago). There is plenty of room for everyone, but football particularly has a strong presence at club level (look at the strength of clubs like Palm Beach etc). Much as I already hate GCU, that club will be a powerhouse in years to come, much stronger than the lilkes of CCM or the Jets. Townsville is around 160,000 people at present, however it is also growing strongly, with Cairns not far behind- a future FNQ franchise anyone (say 10-15 years)? Demographically, after Canberra and Wollongong, the next biggest urban area in Australia is Sunshine Coast (already bigger than Geelong & Hobart) and closing in rapidly on the other two. It has no professional clubs from any codes presently, and by 2031 will have a larger permanent population than the Gold Coast has today… the cleverest code will get there first and establish themselves, as SC is ripe for the picking and as the Mariners show, already has a sufficient population base to support a football franchise.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:26am
Alan Nicolea said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Steve
Well done buddy. That’s all there is to it. Great piece.
August 28th 2009 @ 10:48am
Koala Bear said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Steve,
Interesting article, however, you have totally misconstrued Fozzie’s points… Adrian’s article said it in one sentence “The code war exists, but it won’t be a battle to the death” This is how I had interpreted Fozzie’s piece and I think also Fozzie himself would agree… He would see a Football landscape here in Australia in 20 years, simular to what is happening in Northern Europe in far as a pecking order goes…
I believe he is on the money with what he has written… It’s the pecking order not the total demise of the other Football Codes; you would be foolish to think that; if you are suggesting Fozzie see the new order that way… I have loved football all my life and now as a senior citizen now living on the Gold Coast have seen the enormous inroads Football has made in catching up with the eggball shape codes in Australia…
Nothing short of an amazing climb in a short space of time (6 years) when before we were, Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters, as the Late Johnny Warren wrote in his first auto biography with his experiences as a kid and I can vouch first hand of, these, his, views with the derogatory crap we had to put up with when we as kids playing for the same Junior Soccer Club in the Canterbury-Marrickville district “The Earlwood Wanders Soccer club” some 50 yrs ago.. Yes we were Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters, then we became “Soccer Players”, now we are “Footballers”; yes indeed we now can see the whites of your eyes as Fozzie puts it and as he said in 20 years the Football landscape will change dramatically in Australia..
Don’t get me wrong I have a soft spot for the Rugbies, but you are reading more into Fozzie’s article than he wrote as some AFL pundits have done with a total hysterical response by an AFL poster with his own paranoia on Fozzie’s views when his own Melburnian scribes had wrote of Timmy Cahill’s 2 goals against Japan in the last 2006 world cup against Japan were 2 daggers in the heart of AFL.. Then as recently early on this year we had the President of the Hawthorn AFL Club say on national ABC TV on the Barry Cassidy’s Offsider’s show that the AFL push into West Sydney represents a dagger into the heart of Rugby League… Golly gee, I would have thought Fozzie’s article was very tame up against those sorts of comments…
~~~~~~~~
KB
August 28th 2009 @ 10:53am
Koala Bear said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
sorry for the double post … a glitch in my computer
August 28th 2009 @ 11:55am
oikee said | August 28th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Yes , i have given up on code wars now, a club reaching large numbers of fans all depends on where they sit on the table, Parramatta is a good example of this, crowds of about 12 thousand during the year, now inflated to around 20 thousand.
I will make one point i have stressed all year as noted below, i have mentioned that creating more teams puts untold presure on your bottom line. I have been saying that AFL will be bogged down for at least 20 years trying to push into the other states.
This is why Gallop is reluctant to take the Gamble without having full backing for such a expansion. I have also mentioned that T/V deals for the NRL were undersold, something the NRL will get right next T/V deal.
Like i say, we are not at war with anyone, but if the NRL have a 200 million war chest next t/v deal, watch out. We have seen the damage rugby union have done with their war chest and looks like the AFL are following suit, 2 new teams to deal with and as mentioned, Melbourne teams struggling. Soccer might end up being the winner, they haven’t got a war chest yet.
I came across this article on super footy today.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has privately acknowledged the league’s projected $1 billion price for the next TV rights deal is unattainable. As negotiations warm up, rival networks are increasingly confident they will be able to cover any bid Nine puts up for a slice of the AFL rights.
While Demetriou and AFL chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan have publicly pushed the $1 billion figure, the financial climate means such a deal is unlikely.
Demetriou is well aware of the financial picture of the networks, and their inability to offer a sum that might significantly increase the current $780 million deal.
The capacity to win a billion-dollar deal would have seen the AFL able to effortlessly underwrite the two expansion sides as well as continue to prop up ailing Melbourne clubs.
The league will have the inducement of a ninth game through its two extra teams, but it does not necessarily mean that a massive increase in rights money will follow.
The free-to-air networks will have little interest in showing games involving western Sydney and the Gold Coast, both of which will take several years to be competitive.
The AFL’s one ace in the hole is a new TV timeslot that would allow Foxtel an exclusive timeslot similar to its Sunday twilight game.
Foxtel is in a strong financial position and could fund any potential growth in TV rights, which secured the AFL $780 million between 2002-6.
It would be prepared to pay good money for Monday night football, just as it does for exclusive Monday and Saturday football in the NRL competition.
While Nine has declared it is keen to again broadcast AFL, its hopes might rest with trying to attain one specific timeslot such as Friday night football.
It has this year committed to a $500 million content deal on its main and digital channels and, with Foxtel, paid over $100 million for the 2010 and 2012 Olympic Games.
But the AFL is unlikely to cut up each of its nine games and sell them as individual timeslots to maximise its TV rights booty.
The most likely result from early negotiations would be networks Ten and Seven keeping similar timeslots and paying marginally more, with Foxtel given a Monday or Thursday slot and contributing significantly more money.
The AFL needs Nine to be a player in the rights negotiations, just as it was when Kerry Packer’s massive deal forced rival networks to eclipse it under their last-rights option.
As much as supporters are desperate for more live Friday night football, it remains to be seen if the league will force Seven’s hand if it keeps that game.
Industry sources say Seven’s decision to broadcast Better Homes and Gardens on Fridays before the football makes the network upwards of $20 million a year through its nation-wide advertising platform.
Showing football live in Melbourne and Adelaide would reduce its Friday night revenue greatly, without providing a ratings boost.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:04pm
Luke W said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
I don’t understand how the NRL TV rights deal works? The NRL is 50% owned by News Ltd., who will be bidding on the rights with one of their other subsidiaries, Fox Sports? Is this one of the reasons the previous NRL deal was undervalued?
August 28th 2009 @ 12:07pm
Redb said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
If you’ve given up on code wars, Osama Bin laden as given up on ammonium nitrate.
Ohh I dont care about code wars, but here’s this article about AFL….blah blah… Yeah right
Redb
August 28th 2009 @ 12:25pm
Allen said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Funny how bearly two years ago Mike Fitzpatrick and the AFL spin machine sold the public the two new AFL teams on the premise that they ‘would be the carrot to get TV rights above $1bn and secure the future of the game’.
Now that the AFL has established their new teams to a point of no return, they finally come out and admit what many of us have been thinking all along – these teams will add no extra value to the rights while undermining the AFLs ability to support its existing clubs.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:34pm
Pippinu said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
I think the AFL will have to settle for only 15% growth in the value of the next TV rights, which would come to roughly $900 million.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:35pm
oikee said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
I agree, but i have to say they are doing the right thing. If it takes 20 years for people to accept these teams they would have done well, The reason Qld and NSW league works so well is normally both states have at least 1 team competing in the finals, so you will always have a interest. This is why NRL needs another team NZ. Its a absolute must next expansion.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:46pm
Pippinu said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Second NZ team is an obvious choice for NRL expansion – plus it just increases the overall talent pool.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:46pm
JF said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
More queensland teams before NZ, you have RL mad fans in Central Queensland, Ipswich, Sunshine Coast, without teams to support. The NRL should be building an East Coast fortress, more teams, maybe a 2nd division comp, before further expansion.
August 28th 2009 @ 1:42pm
Redb said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Allen,
Take a look around since that time the entire worlds financial system nearly collapsed. Australia in isolation has been buffeted, but our banks (more importanlty 2nd tier) are not in such good shape and the 2 of the 3 TV stations are in trouble. The world has changed. Banks just arent throwing money around anymore.
$780M was already big enough to fund expansion. The AFL would do well to hold to that number. There is has already been an offer of $820M, which was rejected, we are talking somewhere between $1B and $820M.
Why would anyone think the same flow down effect of the GFC will only affect the AFLTV rights, the NRL, soccer, cricket and rugby will all have the same problem.
The pie has shrunk.
Redb
August 28th 2009 @ 3:08pm
Allen said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
My point was that it was a joke all along to think that the networks would be falling over themselves to throw extra millions at the AFL to show Gold Coast and Western Sydney games in prime time. If anything the networks will be burdened if they have to show more low rating AFL games in the southern QLD and NSW markets every friday or saturday night.
August 28th 2009 @ 3:26pm
Redb said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Well actually the ratings in Sydney/Brisbane dont make up the larger proportion of dollars the AFl gets.
The extra moulah was because of 9 games, the potential of MNF, more live games into Melbourne,etc.
No-one would expect either the GC or WS to be ratings successes immediately.
I don’t think Gold Coast will be as a much of a burden as WS in any case. GC17 have put together sponsors, new ground to be built by Fed and State Govt, some momentum on the GC with expat Aussie Rules fans, even K Hunt will help with a bit of hype.
WS still very early days, but looks like Melb Storm.
Redb
p.s. ratings for Sydney/Brisbane are Ok for a niche sport.
http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2009.php
August 28th 2009 @ 3:53pm
Michael C said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Oooh, that’s a ripper link Redb,
it’s quite amazing when you aggregate the AFL figures over a weekend (given that the FTA chop up of games across the days and markets can be all over the shop – - and so often directly into Perth, Ade, Syd and or Bris against live Foxtel).
There’s some pretty good numbers there.
btw – does the ratings cater for a 2nd or 3rd TV in peoples homes? or just the primary tele?
August 28th 2009 @ 12:12pm
oikee said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
I have given up on code wars, i am now into war chests. Seems like if you have one you can say as you like and do as you like. The International rugby league had a 5 million war chest, and they have now created 5 new league countries. ?
War chests=good, code wars=bad.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:17pm
oikee said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
The super league war luke created a large dept, so news had to get that back, along with proping up Melbourne. When news pulls out wont mean league will receive more money, just means that news are satisfied they have got all , and more, money paid back to them. I have heard mention they are pulling out 2015- 2018.
August 28th 2009 @ 1:15pm
Luke W said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Yeah, I understand why News Ltd. is involved in the NRL after the SuperLeague drama and such, but do you think that it has an impact on the NRL’s TV deal? I’m not sure how a global corporation like News Corp works, but you would think there would be some mutual benefits going on between subsidiaries, especially given how closely they interact. So to make sense of what I am saying, do you think News Ltd being involved in the NRL affects their TV deals?
August 28th 2009 @ 1:16pm
AndyRoo said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
But do we just trust them to get out, if there making money even if it’s not money in the bank but getting a big discount on the NRL TV rights why would they walk away? They are a private business which I presume is motivated by profit.
It’s for the good of the game they move out but I don’t think we can just trust them, rugby league people have to be vocal and make sure that it happens.
August 28th 2009 @ 12:20pm
Pippinu said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I’m wondering where korfball fits into all this?
August 28th 2009 @ 1:13pm
AndyRoo said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Korfball is in big trouble. There strategy aimed at the top of the pyramid only brought them short term success and by neglecting the grass roots they are playing catch up.