Expansion methods of the local football codes
By The_Wookie, 28 Jan 2011 The_Wookie is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL expansion, Expansion, NRL expansion, Rugby League
554 Have your say
Related coverage
Never before have so many football codes been on the lookout for expansion, and each code uses different criteria and methods to establish what they all hope will be a successful franchise system.
In this article, I want to take a look at the various methods used by governing bodies to expand their premier leagues in this great country.
I have deliberately not included the A-League in this article due to its relative newness which would make for unfair comparison. Similar applies to Super Rugby, for the simple reason that it has a far shorter history.
It’s important to acknowledge that soccer played its role as the pioneering National League in 1975 with the formation of the National Soccer League.
Although this league no longer exists – subsumed as it was into the A-League after its collapse – it was the first to be truly national with a presence in most states and territories with the usual obvious exceptions.
The AFL Experience
In 1979, the then Victorian Football League began to explore the possibility of playing matches in Sydney, leveraging greater television exposure not then available to it in Victoria.
By 1980, the VFL were looking at sending the hapless South Melbourne to the Harbour city, and by 1982 the Bloods were completely based in Sydney.
In 1986, the VFL decided to expand further seeking interest from WA and SA state leagues, when SA opted out, the VFL setup the Bears in Brisbane. It would be another 4 years before Adelaide would be represented, in 1995, Fremantle were admitted, and in 1997 Port Adelaide finally received entry.
To date no expansion teams have come near collapse, in fact most of them are doing extraordinarily well, especially in Perth and Adelaide.
Sydney and Brisbane have both been harder sells to their respective cities, both clubs dabbling in private ownership, requiring the VFL/AFL to bail them out and take them over before turning them over to the membership structure common to all AFL teams (except Fremantle).
The only VFL/AFL clubs to cease operating at the top level, have been University (due to the first world war where most of the team was involved), and Fitzroy, who merged their AFL operations, but still exist in the Victorian Amateurs, and remain the only club to play at all levels of the Victorian club competitions since inception (AFL/VFL/VFA/VAAFL).
The NRL Experience
In 1982, the New South Wales Rugby league expanded outside of Sydney, to Canberra and Illawarra, and in 1985 decided to go beyond New South Wales to Brisbane, where it was voted down in 1987.
Nevertheless in 1988, the Broncos joined the NSWRL, along with Gold Coast-Tweed Heads and Newcastle. Of these clubs, only Gold Coast-Tweed no longer exists.
The NSWRL expanded to Perth in 1992 with the Western Reds, and the competition became multi-national with the Auckland Warriors (now New Zealand Warriors) joining the league in ’95. The NSWRL became the Australian Rugby League in 1995, introducing the Auckland Warriors (now New Zealand Warriors) and North Queensland Cowboys.
This period later set off a chain of events leading to the infamous Super League war. Super League introduced two teams of its own the Adelaide Rams, and Hunter Mariners.
No one from rugby league likes to rehash the Super League days, but I must briefly dwell upon it. The 1998 NRL season could have had as many as 22 teams sign up to play. Three teams had to go, and room had to be made for the new Melbourne Storm.
The financial basket cases at the Western Reds and the South Queensland Crushers were closed, and News Ltd. closed the Hunter Mariners believing the region could not support them, and the ARL premiership winning Newcastle.
At the end of 1998, News Ltd. closed the unprofitable Adelaide Rams, while the ARL inexplicably closed the Gold Coast Chargers despite them being profitable and having more than $3 million in the bank when they were wrapped up.
Further changes as a result of the peace agreement was the forced reduction of teams to 14 by the year 2000 in the premier competition. Stringent criteria were laid out that included crowds, finances, sponsorship and success rates.
Clubs were offered a great deal of money to merge. St George merged with Illawarra in 1998, Balmain and West, as well as Manly and Norths merging in 1999. Souths were eliminated at the end of the 1999 season for failing to meet the critera.
Its important for non-rugby people to understand that mergers werent the result of any financial insolvency, and most merged clubs have maintained a second division team in the level directly below the Telstra Premiership.
Norths are attempting to be reborn as the Central Coast Bears and are currently pressing for a bid for inclusion in the 2013 season.
The Reds have arisen again in under 18s, due to the diligence of the WARL. And like a phoenix, a new Gold Coast side (take three) has become a success.
The only league failures can really be pointed at the Western (Perth) Reds in their original incarnation, the Adelaide Rams, the South Queensland Crushers, and two seperate versions of the Gold Coast. The Chargers were not a failure, and the reasons for its closure remain baffling to me (although I’d love to be enlightened from a more knowledgeable person).
Today
In recent years we’ve seen a flurry of expansion activity as the A-league ramps up, the AFL moves out of its heartland into hostile waters, Rugby Union goes to Melbourne and Perth, and the NRL gains its much awaited Independent Commission.
The Australian Football League announced teams into the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. Pundits from the NRL community have continuously mentioned that both clubs aren’t wanted, and bring up the fact that no one bid for them.
This ignores the process.
Besides Port Adelaide (SANFL) and Southport (QAFL), the AFL doesnt use a bidding process to determine where its next teams come from.
Over the years we’ve seen excellent bids from Tasmania which have been ignored for the moment, and Southport, where a compromise of sorts has been reached with Southport being the patron sponsor of the new Suns.
The NRL are currently receiving bids from the WA Reds, Central Coast Bears, Central Queensland, Ipswich, Brisbane and rumours abound of a possible second New Zealand entrant.
In almost all cases, these are being driven from the ground up, instead of an AFL style top down approach.
The AFL has taken a very business like approach, based on population centres, market research, income streams and growth of the game itself. It then uses this information to determine where a team is most desirable.
The Gold Coast and Western Sydney are huge population centres, with untapped sporting populations where not everyone likes rugby league. Further boosting its national profile – the AFL remains present in all major states, with a massive bid in its pocket from Tasmania, where Hawthorn play four matches a year.
The AFL does not allow private ownership having spent some years battling issues in Brisbane, Sydney, and more recently at North Melbourne.
The AFL has strict deadlines for each new club to meet, which includes more than 100 sponsors and stadium arrangements to be in place before the teams place in the league is finalised.
In contrast, the NRL does take bids to determine popularity and team requirements, the Central Coast Bears and Central Queensland bids are populist, grassroots driven movements from the heartland of Rugby league and cannot be easily dismissed by anyone with a heart for the game.
The Western Reds, while a theoretical success in potential crowds, is more of a business call to make if for no more reason that its historical antecedents. Second teams in Brisbane and New Zealand also make a lot of sense from a commercial perspective.
There is currently no word on NRL criteria for teams, but NRL officials have been quite favorable in their opinions on several of these entries lending hope for their inclusion in 2013.
Neither side is wrong in their approach. The NRL is to be commended for their commitment to the heartland, and its supporters are to be commended for keeping the dream alive for so long and despite so much opposition and adversity.
Likewise, the AFL is to be commended for its business approach and attention to detail, as well as its ability to assemble media, government and sponsor support for its new ventures.
Neither side just creates a team for the sake of expansion. As long as NRL and AFL can commit to these new enterprises and support them, there’s no reason to doubt their success.
The Crowd Says (554) | Page 2 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- Four observations about State of Origin 2013 game 1 (321)
- Is Gallen brave or just plain stupid? (264)
- Violence or apathy? Rugby league at a crossroads (239)
- UPDATE: Blake Ferguson charged, suspended by NRL – will miss Origin (211)
- Is everyone in rugby league completely mad? (163)
- NRL prepared to condone violence for the ‘good of the game’? (131)
- Smithy looks punch-drunk after less than a season in charge (127)
- 2013 State of Origin: game two preview (0)
- League right to ban the punch (0)
- Stupidity costs Raiders a realistic shot at glory (0)
- Why is rugby league missing the slow boat to China? (0)
- Bring back the biff? I’ll pass (0)
- How the Twit was covered by Twitter (8)
- The NRL joke that just isn’t funny (43)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL expansion, Expansion, NRL expansion, Rugby League

January 28th 2011 @ 10:25am
King of the Gorgonites said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Does any one know what happened to Oikee?
January 28th 2011 @ 12:31pm
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Geez mate ,you miss him already.
January 28th 2011 @ 6:09pm
p.Tah said | January 28th 2011 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
I hope he’s OK, he lives in Toowoomba
January 28th 2011 @ 10:26am
Fussball ist unser leben said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Surely, you need to differentiate between:
a) the expansion of a code – i.e. the number of people, who actively participate in the sport; and
b) the expansion of a professional league
I would submit that only certain “team sporting codes”, including: cricket, football, field hockey, basketball, netball, are actively played in all major cities of Australia and “the percentage of participants” i.e. “the number of participants in any city:overall city population”, would be relatively constant in for all the major cities of Australia.
None of the aforementioned sports needs to “expand” b/c they are already well established everywhere in Australia. It’s only the respective “elite national league” of each of these sports that is not well-established.
This is definitely not the case for Aussie Rules or either Rugby code – the participation rate will vary dramatically across the major cities of Australia.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:42am
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Differentiating on the basis of participation as you suggest is only one way of looking at it.
Participation does equate to spectators. This has been proven time and time again.
Some sports have low participants but manage large spectatorship, others have high participation but achieve low spectator numbers.
The AFL & NRL in non traditional markets are using expansions teams to grow both spectatorship & participation.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:03am
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
that should read: “Participation does NOT equate to spectators”
January 29th 2011 @ 12:31pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | January 29th 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Participation may not equate to spectators but, unless a sport is being played by a large number of youth, the quality at the elite level will drop dramatically.
Compared to the 2010 season, AFL clubs have to discover 80 more players, who are capable of playing Aussie Rules at the elite level. It is ludicrous to suggest that last year or the year before, etc. there were 80 AFL-standard players running around in the lesser leagues around Australia.
So, the standard of AFL has to drop unless they capture new participation markets. I have no doubt that the top AFL teams from 2010 – Collingwood, St Kilda, Geelong, Footscray – will each beat Gold Coast by 10-20 goals.
Additionally, any game played by The Suns in Victoria, WA or SA will be such a thrashing it will be embarrassing for all involved.
In fact, pencil the date 6 August 2011 into your diary. Gold Coast will travel to Kardinia Park, Geelong, for a Saturday afternoon encounter with Geelong. It is likely that several AFL records will be broken that day: highest score, biggest winning margin & lowest score.
And, when GWS enters the market in 2012, the standard of the AFL competition will drop even further.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:45am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:45am | Report comment
actually I dont – and no one else appears to be confused by it either. You bring this up in every thread that doesnt involve your chosen sport for some mystical reason, presumably because participation numbers are the only way soccer even gets a look in with the big boys in this country.
You are, as far as Im aware the only person who turns these discussions about expansion where everyone knows we’re referring to new clubs and territories, into a discussion about particpation numbers like its relevant to the profitable operation of a professional league or club. Soccer is proof that its not the case. So is netball to a lesser extent.
For the record, Soccer was the last of the codes to be played in Australia at the club level. And even then it was in Tasmania. By that time Australian Football and Rugby were being played across the country in every state. Every region has a rugby union AND league competition – even Adelaide and Tasmania – and every region has Australian football competitions that are every bit as developed as anything assocation football can put on the table, and generally more so. Dont try and sell us soccer as some high and mighty code because of a national presence the others lack because its flagrantly not true.
I deliberately did not include Soccer in this article, because I didnt want to be the guy to discuss how despite its heavy particpation numbers, it cant sustain a decent professional league without implding every couple of years, or that it completely bollixed its second sydney team, when its first sydney team didnt warrant the inclusion in the first place because no one bothers to go and see it. Or how the introduction of a second Melbourne team hasnt grown attendances, they remain almost identical…but spread across two teams now. Or how soccer is so popular you can only see it with paytv. or a host of other reasons that if even one of them were slightly different would make its contribution to this discussion worthwhile.
January 28th 2011 @ 2:39pm
The Bush said | January 28th 2011 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
*snap*
January 30th 2011 @ 3:27pm
Jon said | January 30th 2011 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
At this point, participation numbers as offered by the ABS are one of the few statistics I tend to trust. News Ltd and Fairfax have been accused of ‘fudging’ numbers to entice advertising revenue. Given you cant trust the media, how can I trust the viewer figures that NRL and AFL say watch their sports on FTA – how are they calculated? Given doubts have also been raised over attendance figures at sporting venues, how can I trust the numbers thrown around by AFL and NRL? Given time, I too could create 1 Million fake friends for my facebook site – is this the way we are to decide popularity? ABS is at least a trustworthy source.
January 31st 2011 @ 10:59am
BIG BEN said | January 31st 2011 @ 10:59am | Report comment
How can you suggest the NRL attandance figures are fudged. How embarrassing!
February 10th 2011 @ 3:57pm
Jon said | February 10th 2011 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
How embarrassing indeed:
http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3266&sid=8912e482c0b65e91674e9761f3a9bb69
As I said, at least the ABS is trustworthy to a point.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:30am
tigergerry said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Punter I couldn’t agree more. I truly believe GWS will struggle to average 10 000 a game after the novelty wears off. As part of this 10 000 will be the usual relocated melbournians in Sydney as well as the oppositon supporters.
The AFL will finance the club so it can allow as many free tickets that are taken so bums will be put on seats. As history shows NSW sport followers only really turn up to support a team that is winning and if the Giants flop on the field so will the whole franchise.
The AFL will be more than aware of this and will be looking to get the best possible playing roster to ensure immediate results. The whole franchise smacks of desperation to enter the Sydney market ASAP and get some fresh and local rivalry for the Swans.
The whole swans episode peaked during the super league war when supporters of the traditional ARL clubs perhaps started attending swans games as well as other disollusioned fans. This is backed up by the simple facts that swans crowds have been in decline in recent years as well as very dismal tv rating of under 50 000 viewers for some games. This is in Australia’s most populous city!!!
Be careful what you wish for AFL as you will never capture the minds and hearts of Sydney.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:04am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:04am | Report comment
waiting 30 years to introduce a new team isnt a sign of desperation at all. its more of a patience thing. It is the number 1 national league team in any competition in Sydney by a long shot, averaging more than 10,000 people at matches more than any NRL team in Sydney. And this is in Australias most populous city! The swans have consistently topped 30k crowd averages since 2003…when most NRL clubs stuggle to reach 15k, and a good club will get 20 if they are lucky. Sure you can blame the antique stadiums the NRL play at during the H&A Season but its not the Swans fault.
For all the positive effects people claim Superleague had on the Swans, attendances did pick up during the Superleague season – which coincided with a premiership season in 1996, but dropped almost straight away and didnt pick up again until 2003.
For the record: taken from stats.rleague.com
2010: 30675 ave (better than any NRL club bar the broncos)
2009: 30505
2008: 32834
2007: 35632
2006: 34260 (premiership year)
2005: 32346
2004: 31646
2003: 33198
2002: 26614
2001: 27982
2000: 25563
1999: 30539
1998: 31549
1997: 35818 (superleague year)
1996: 24574 (premiership year)
The AFL doesnt have to win the hearts and minds of Sydney, just some of it.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:21am
tigergerry said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:21am | Report comment
TV viewers?? Remember this is where the real money is! You couldn’t possibly talk up the swans ratings. Remember this is the real gauge as to who is really interested in a team and who isn’t. If 25 to 30 000 show upto a swand game but only 50 000 viewers tune in what does this really say?
An NRL sydney club may only have 16 000 at there 20 000 capacity stadium but over 400 000 viewers on tv, this will tell the real story of Sydney supporters and what people are really interested in.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:27am
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
“TV viewers?? Remember this is where the real money is!”
The bulk of TV money for the AFL comes from Melbourne, NRL Sydney.
The AFL GF in Sydney easily outrated the NRL GF in Melbourne. There is a market for AFL in Sydney its not as big as the NRL, but neither is the NRL market in Melbourne bigger than the AFL.
January 28th 2011 @ 12:21pm
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Not comparing apples with apples.Until such time as all cap cities are cobvered by both codes at respectable hours,and with a Perth Reds team.then go for your life.
January 28th 2011 @ 12:31pm
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Yes it is. I’m not talking about overall National TV ratings, but specificially the AFL GF ratings in Sydney and the NRL GF ratings in Melbourne with neutral teams in each GF.
There is a market for AFL in Sydney its not as big as the NRL in Sydney, neither is the NRL’s market in Melbourne bigger than the AFL, so what?
January 28th 2011 @ 11:35am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:35am | Report comment
tv viewers are nice for the league, not so beneficial for the club at the direct level. AFL is not a made for TV sport, it never has been.
Again the AFL dont need hundreds of thousands of viewers for ONE team. IF Sydney can get 100,000 viewers – and they usually do – then that compares favourably to the million or so the other 9 NRL teams get in their home territory. They hold their own, and thats all the AFL asks.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:53am
tigergerry said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Totally disagree, for a ‘one team’ town, city really, the most populated city, 50 to 100 000 viewers is a massive fail for the AFL . Most life style shows on at the same time smash the swans in the ratings.
They far from hold there own, they are well in the dust of all sydney nrl clubs when it comes to ratings, even the sharks… Brisbane is something similar for the Lions, won’t be changing anytime soon either
January 28th 2011 @ 11:58am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:58am | Report comment
and most reality cooking shows smack us all into the stands. I really dont understand why networks spend so much on broadcasting sport.
Im not saying the figures dont need work, but when your outdone 15-2 in the heartland of the rugby league and union. You take what you can get and your happy.
January 29th 2011 @ 10:52pm
JVGO said | January 29th 2011 @ 10:52pm | Report comment
The Swans won a premiership in 1996 did they Wookie? First I heard of it. But i’m from Sydney. You Southerners are such experts on everything.
January 31st 2011 @ 7:15pm
Train Without A Station said | January 31st 2011 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
I think you’re onto something there. Based on attendances, league hasn’t even captured the hearts and minds of Sydney.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:31am
Jon said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:31am | Report comment
I think the AFL’s research into where it places its teams is what sets it apart from the NRL. Without making too many comparisons between AFL and Football (soccer), both sports have similar on-field tactics and off-field cultures. Both AFL and Football love a derby. Docker v West Coast, Port v Crows, Anzac Day at the MCG, and in the A-League, Heart v Victory – cross town rivalry that gets fans into stadium seats. By focusing on getting a second Brisbane and Sydney team into the comp, the AFL is targeting the culture of its fan. In comparison, the NRL’s can hardly boast full stadiums for local fixtures. The NRL’s best attendances come from its regional teams. My theory is, Sydney supporters are more interested in seeing the Broncos play so that they can assess the upcoming State-of-Origin squad than their own team’s performance. Using this theory, it would make sense to create a WA or Darwin-based team as regional rivalry is what drives NRL supporters. The NRL could then do away with the State-of-Origin concept (as did the AFL) as every weekend would become its own state v state experience.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:38am
True Tah said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:38am | Report comment
NRL will never get rid of origin and Sydney supporters are at least as interested in seeing their local team playing the nearest neighbours as much as they are the Broncos.
yes the Broncos get the biggest crowds, but they have a city of 2m and the ARL made the silly mistake of placing one team in Brisbane
January 28th 2011 @ 10:40am
M1tch said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Sydney supporters turn out to see the Broncos?
That couldnt be anymore wrong, they are a dire crowd puller for most sydney teams, Roosters get a okay crowd on good friday and thats about it.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:49am
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:49am | Report comment
The first half of your comment is fairly accurate, the second half is not.
Brisbane is not regional.
Origin in RL has reached ‘event’ status they wont get rid of it.
As for AFL derbies I agree, this will drive interest for sure. At the end of the day its Melbourne, for Essendon fans its about beating Carlton & Collingwood, dont really care about Sydney or Brisbane.
Lions v GC, Swans v GWS – look forward to them.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:06am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Broncos away crowds are as good as any home crowd for most sydney teams.
January 28th 2011 @ 12:28pm
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
They are(away crowds) in Qld but not in Sydney.The local support for them in Sydney is marginal,compared to local matches .
January 28th 2011 @ 10:56am
Jerrys Plain said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:56am | Report comment
The difference is obvious.
In the AFL there is no consortium bidding for a new team anywhere, aside from the Tasmanian government casual effort.
The AFL is force feeding two new franchises into places that didn’t ask for them.
In the NRL there are 6 private consortiums knocking on the NRL door trying to get entrty into the competition.
The NRL competition must be seen as a better investment than the AFL competition.
I put greater value in men prepared to put their own $ up rather than AFL tragics posting their opinions on the internet.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:01am
True Tah said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Jerrys Plain
the AFL offered North Melbourne $100M to relocate to the Gold Coast
how much could the NRL offer any team to relocate?
and the whole idea of having 6 private consortiums is not the strongest argument, this has been used in the HAL with very mixed results
January 28th 2011 @ 11:04am
MyLeftFoot said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:04am | Report comment
1. The Southport Sharks had been lobbying for a team on the Gold Coast for at least a decade.
2. There is no private ownership in the AFL, so it’s a waste of time for individuals to put up bids.
3. About three quarters of the AFL clubs actually make very good profits, frightening profits, off very solid revenues. Fortunately, they are all community based clubs, and the profits go back into the club.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:11am
Jerrys Plain said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Thanks True Tah & MyLeftFoot for confirming comparisons between codes are a waste of time as both NRL and AFL use different models. Neither is better than the other.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:19am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
which was the premise of the article, different methods arrive at similar results provided the leagues have the commitment to see it through the hard times.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:19am
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
MLF
That is a good concept but not necessarily the only good concept
However the privately owned or partially owned ones in the NRL channel much of their monies back into junior development.The Knights under the new proposal by Tinkler,will ensure all profits go back into the game,and members will also be involved a lot heavily than people think.
The more business people involved in rl the better.The contacts they have,the risk they are prepared to take at no cost to the NRL,is better IMO than the past one of rl being run by former players (genuinely dedicated) but lacking the business acumen needed in teh 21st century.And less and less reliane on league’s clubs/poker machines.
The model espoused by the Titans is a classic example.Years of research,community involvement,collection of sponsors,a new stadium and a Centre of excellence in order to gain a NRL berth.You can lobby all you like,but all the Ts must be crossed and the Is dotted.
Very few people involved in private ownership in the NRL expect profits.Most do it for the love of the game.There are businees people still willing to be involved ,as the 2nd Brisbane bid will attest .
January 28th 2011 @ 11:32am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:32am | Report comment
I think thats where the AFL has been very lucky to have past players who also have the business acumen to get things done. Both Andrew Demetriou (current AFL CEO), and Mike Fitzpatrick (current AFL Chairman) played football. (Fitzpatrick was a triple premiership ruckman with Carlton, and a Rhodes scholar with an engineering degree from oxford. He owns the company that operates ANZ Stadium in Sydney). before that Wayne Jackson played football in the SANFL when it was VFL equivelant, was managing director of SA brewing amongst other things. Before that Ross Oakley (now chairmen of the Victorian Rugby union and CEO of the Rebels), played football for St Kilda and amongst other things, was a professor of business and law at Deakin university.
January 29th 2011 @ 2:41pm
Crosscoder said | January 29th 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Bob Hawke and Tony Abbott are Rhode scholars.Leave to your own discretion as to what you think.
Yet a bloke like Keating without formal qualifications(who I can’t stand bTW) floated the Aussie dollar and brought in dividend imputation,absolute winners for the community.
Michael Searle is a chartered accountant and runs a club, he played the sport at senior level.
The CEO of the Tigers hads a business degree,as does Steve Price.there are many appearing within the game with these qualifications.The game should have had these types in mgt positions years ago.
But no,we had Super league and a sporting code,partially run buy a media organisation,who has no chance of understanding the passion of fans nor the aspirations of players.
I agree the AFL have had people of business acumen running the show ,and this has been of great assistance,plus having a bootload of cash in which to advance the cause ,certainly helped.
That is why the I.C. is so important for rugby league’
1) To have unbiased business expertise
2) a knowledge or experience of the game
3)able to move the code forward in a very competitive environment.
4) secure funding to achieve 3.
January 29th 2011 @ 4:05pm
The_Wookie said | January 29th 2011 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I think that as long as you can convince your supporters you are doing the best you can with what you have, then you come out a winner regardless of your education. The league community seems to believe that the NRL as it stands has let it down.
Im also in the minority that believe having Gallop remain as CEO is bad for the code. if he’d done his job right from the start, League wouldnt be in the position it is now. You can only blame superleague for so much.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:09am
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Melbourne Storm were ‘placed’ and then propped up.
The AFL & NRL are at different stages of expansion. The AFL already has one team in each capital city and are moving to second teams
In the case of the Gold Coast you are incorrect, the Southport Sharks have bidded for the AFL licence in the past.
GWS and Melb Storm have much in common.
GC and Perth Reds have much in common.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:12am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:12am | Report comment
The AFL has spent the better part of 15 years denying private bids from Southport, and before that Port Adelaide (although that was a mess anyway). Neither Sydney or Brisbane asked for teams in the 80s, and they still got them, and today those teams compare favorably to anthing the NRL fields in the homeland.
NRL clubs are easier to establish and setup, operate at the fraction of a cost of an AFL club (where the average AFL club spends more on football operations per year than many NRL clubs earn in total). Theres a lot less risk involved as a result, and the NRL doesnt disapprove of private ownership of clubs, whereas the AFL requires all clubs to be owned by members and state football leagues.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:22am
Jerrys Plain said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:22am | Report comment
The rest of the world doesn’t disapprove of private ownership of clubs The_Wookie. That’s why people looking at the NRL through the AFL model really need to look at the bigger picture instead of judging NRL by the AFL.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:44am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Its working so well in the EPL isnt it? Or in American football where teams get bought and moved wholesale from city to city depending on the owners whims. Yes, these are isolated incidents, and yes, overseas private ownership is the norm.
I havent disapporved of private ownership in this thread. Nathan Tinkler will be a hero in the Hunter region for not only his saving of Newcastles HAL team, but by merging the operations with the NRL side of things to create a sporting super power under an asute businessman. Likewise the guy who owns Gold Coast United is singlehandedly keeping that afloat. Or even Russell Crowe at Souths. These are all good men doing good things for clubs. I cant begrudge them that.
people judge the NRL by the AFL, because the NRL is doing its level best to ape the AFLs successes at the moment, and as its nearest available comparison. Whats the good of having a tv product that is best in the country if you are being paid 2/3rds of your main competitors? Lets talk introducing an AFL style Independent Commission 25 years after the AFL did.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:54am
Jerrys Plain said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:54am | Report comment
The_Wookie your first two paragraphs about overseas competitions are you judging them by AFL model. The EPL and NFL are I’m sure happy to be going along with their sports making billions and being oblivious to the AFL.
The only people judging NRL by the AFL is AFL people. Yes the AFL has an Independent Commission but so do many sports. I’m sure I read where Searle said it was modelled on the NFL and he went to the USA.
I see today that AFL umpires might go fulltime. Already happened in NRL. Does that mean the AFL have suddenly woken up to the NRL ideal or has the AFL just worked out what is best for their game?
Just because something exists in the AFL and also in the NRL or vice versa doesn’t mean that the NRL copied it from the AFL. I’m sure the NRL has the internet connected.
January 28th 2011 @ 12:11pm
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Actually its me judging them by news reports where UEFA and the FA are worried that their clubs are too deep in debt, or by many complaints from people from oh lets say, Los Angeles or Texas whose teams inexplicably packed up and left, sometimes coming back and then leaving again. I dont deny they make billions.
You’ll find there are a lot of people judging the NRL by the AFl yard stick, not the least when it came to TV rights, crowds, stadiums, new team setups. Seriously you think theres a coincidence that the AFL launches two teams and people come out of the woodwork in rugby league land with new bids? Not to mention I’ve lost count of the times Phil Gould and Roy masters have referred to the AFL when discussing the commission or some other league development over the last 12 months.
The NRL commission concept is based on the Crawford reports recommendations that were referred to the AFL as the standard that both the NRL and FFA might like to follow. Sure our umpires might not be fulltime, but then we dont have a dude sitting up in the stand deciding whether its a goal or not because the umpire is too chicken to make the call himself. That said, that day is coming soon too and the game will be worse off for it.
Sure, it doesnt mean the NRL copied the AFL, but perception is everything and when you start doing stuff 20 years after a similar organisation in the same country, and after that model was put forward in an offical report commissioned into the league, then you can see why we might think that surely?
January 29th 2011 @ 1:25am
amazonfan said | January 29th 2011 @ 1:25am | Report comment
You criticise him for judging based on the AFL model, however you are juging based on the EPL/NFL models. The fact that the EPL or the NBA or the NFL has private ownership does not mean it is the desirable model. Just because the rest of the world does something doesn’t make it right; and IMO based on the NBA/NFL/EPL etc… private ownerhsip is a terrible idea. I am thankful that the AFL doesn’t allow it, and even if it is the only competition in the world which doesn’t allow it, that is perfectly okay with me.
January 30th 2011 @ 11:33am
JVGO said | January 30th 2011 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Well, a lot of people would argue that franchises moving between markets as needed is more efficient than having tired old traditional suburban teams cluttering the NRL and the AFL, but it is a matter of perspective and scale. The situation where LA doesn’t have an NFL side is quite astounding and the removal of the Seattle Sonics was pretty painful. But it seems people south of the border have convinced themselves that the AFL is utterly perfect in everything it does and that it will somehow take over the world (these people have problems obviously). The reality is that it the AFL is an inconsequential provincial sport that dominates less than half of the country of its origin and it is most likely going to remain that way.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:31am
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:31am | Report comment
The Wookie.
I venture to say the crowds the Nrl clubs were getting at the GC played a big part.Many of the crowds for Carrara for the AFL ones were hardly encouraging .
I repeat having a Sl war gifted Brisbane and Sydney additional fans,breathing space, favourable Fairfax newsprint publicity,whilst rl was on a self destruct course.It took 10 years for the game to get back to any sort of nortmality,and not having the Bears added to the problem.
When you try to draw comparisons with 1 team representing a population of 7 mill representing the whole state/and ACT,with a miriad of NRL clubs throughout the state,whose fans can attend games weekly instead of fortnightly),it is not comparing apples with apples.
Agree wholeheartedly with your last para,and agree either model is suitable for the respective code.
The trouble with rl in the past,they were so dependent on the handouts from the league’s clubs,they now for obvious reasons have to look at other reliable and more socially acceptable income streams.These being memberships,merchandise,private ownership (if needed)and improved infrastructure to entice the fans.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:49am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Your last paragraph is what bothers me the most about rugby league at the moment. You say in the past, but a lot of commentators are demanding increases in the grants, rather than looking to the clubs to help themselves.
TV revenue is great stuff but people are too reliant on it, in any code. In the AFL they prop up teams that probably should have relocated, the same in the NRL, except in the NRL they feel they need it just to keep up competitvely. The A-league need it to propel them into the eyes of the mainstream sporting public. TV revenue should have been the icing on the cake, not the primary form of subsistence for clubs.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:56am
Jerrys Plain said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:56am | Report comment
The_Wookie the demanding increases in the grants are from increases in television money not Leagues clubs. Surely the clubs are entitled to a return on the product they provide? The NRL doesn’t have a team that people watch and that tv pays for. it is the 16 clubs.
January 29th 2011 @ 2:54pm
Crosscoder said | January 29th 2011 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
That is why the clubs are wanting a big and justified increase in the Tv contracts.The game has performed on the box,and should be rewarded accordingly.that is the view of the NRL CEOs,that is the view of the TV commentators,that is the view of News Ltd(who own the pay TV setup),that is the view of the man in the street,who is intelligent enough to see the last contract was let us say ,unders.More so when one side is negotiating with itself.
I agree Tv monies should not be the be all and end all,but the TV stations get a very large slice of their advtg monies from sport and NRL in particular.The fact they show a live game on Friday night and a dreadful timed Monday night game,they are taking away fans from attending.You lose at the gate,you should be entitled to recompense.
Without the NRL ,I suggest subs for Fox would drop dramatically.
The problem as i see it,we live in a country with 22m people,smaller than California.We have 4 football codes,vying for the dollar ,from a finite source.Codes have no alternative ,but to secure funding from TV,else all the star players look elsewhere.If we had 60m living here ,the situation would be markedly different.
January 29th 2011 @ 4:07pm
The_Wookie said | January 29th 2011 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
cant argue with any of that. And its no different in the AFL. TV scheduling is screwing over the likes of North Melbourne and the Bulldogs.
January 28th 2011 @ 10:57am
Stevo said | January 28th 2011 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Gold Coast should not have been folded after super league, but at the time they were drawing lowish attendances, and had been poor on the field only making the finals in the break up year, when most of the best teams were in Super League. There was a need to cut teams and Gold Coast was seen as a better option to drop.
But there’s a few major differences between the AFL and NRL. The support for NRL teams is very regionally based, Sydney is a regional city. I was suprised when first visiting Melbourne how close all the suburbs for which teams were named after were, I wondered how those suburbs could support those teams with such a low population. I’m told it’s more who your dad supported, and while there is some regional affiliation it’s nowhere near as important as Sydney.
The other is that there has been a battle for support of football codes in Sydney for years already. Whether you support League or Union is determined when you go through school (and usually depends on which school you go to). By and large League was the game of the working class, the public schools and the bush. Union was the game for the northern and north-west suburbs, private schools and new zealanders. Huge generalisations, and there were always exceptions, and a lot of people who played one and supported both. That same divide in football codes probably doesn’t occur in Melbourne, or any of the major AFL centres to my knowledge, besides maybe Canberra with League.
Ironically, back in 1933 both the VFL and QRL were enthused about the idea of combining the codes, given the potential for increased revenue. It was knocked on the head by the NSWRL, who were concerned about the loss of revenue from international tours.
http://www.rl1908.com/articles/AFL.htm
January 28th 2011 @ 11:12am
MyLeftFoot said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:12am | Report comment
It’s true, the original Melbourne clubs were tighly bound around the CBD, all of them pretty much inner city suburbs.
This was a major strength late 1800s, early 1900s, it was easy for the populace to go to the footy, including many away games.
Over time, support for teams became less pariochial, except for teams like Footscray, Essendon, Hawthorn and St Kilda (and obviously Geelong), because these are the suburbs further out from the CBD and which have vast suburbs heading west, north-west, east and south-east respectively.
It also explains why South Melbourne, Fitzroy, and now North Melbourne have struggled for support at various times over the decades.
However, some things never change – you don’t walk into Collingwood Tech declaring your allegiance to any team other than the Pies, if you know what’s good for you.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:13am
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
you dont walk down lygon street in a bombers jumper on a friday night either haha
January 28th 2011 @ 11:22am
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Its not the Carrrlton fans you have to worry about in Lygon St these days its the bloody restuarant spruikers!
January 28th 2011 @ 12:00pm
The_Wookie said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
true, that or dodging the drag racing
January 28th 2011 @ 11:24am
clipper said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Stevo, you could include the Eastern Suburbs in the Union zone – Randwick are one of, if not the, powerhouse Union clubs – as well as Eastern Suburbs and Sydney University.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:05am
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Jon.
Where have you been?have you ventured North of the Murray?
The derbies St george v Cronulla,Tigers v Souths,Parramatta v Dogs,Titans v Broncs,Broncos v Cowboys are all passionate local NRL derbies,with large crowds.No, they are not AFL size crowds but large crowds nonetheless,and with good TV ratings .
And rest assured should the Bears get back in,a game at Nth Sydney oval would fill up the joint.I have attended a stack of Sharks v Saints over the years,so it is unrealistic and just plain ignorant to expound that view on NRL derbies.
You state by focusing on the fans getting a 2nd sydney team.But it is hardly a heartland area therefore focusing on what fans (Swans?),is no earthly guarantee, there will be these great local derbies.In heartland areas I would agree.
Wouldn’t be anything to do with the fact the Broncos have players like Lockyer.In fact it has nothing to do with what the makeup of the Qld SOO side would look like.In fact many of the Qld SOO side come from other clubs in the NRL,even from NZ.Talk about theories.
In fact if you ask Sydney supporters,many would prefer to watch the Titans.People watch the opposing clubs @ for the stars involved b) the style of play.
The bid from the WA Reds is to utilise the players from Darwin,much the same as the Cowboys do now.
There was little research done when the Swans and Bears came into Sydney and the GC respectively.The clubs did get some unexpected huge backing by virtue of the SL war.Visualise if you will,where they would be, if such a war had not eventuated.
One thing i am sure of like death and taxes,the code will not remove SOO.It is too valuable .
January 28th 2011 @ 12:25pm
Redb said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
“There was little research done when the Swans and Bears came into Sydney and the GC respectively.The clubs did get some unexpected huge backing by virtue of the SL war.Visualise if you will,where they would be, if such a war had not eventuated.”
It is a false assumption to suggest both the Swans and Lions benefited from Superleague. You can argue about the Swans and there is some evidence in crowd figures they benefitted in Sydney.
There is no evidence the Bears/Lions were given a leg up. I the mid 1990s the club was a basketcase still playing out of Carrera before moving to the GABBA and merging with the Fitzroy Lions. Hardly a golden era for the club.
The Brisbane Lions crowds and support grew and consolidated from 1999 onwards it had nothing to do with Superleague which was from what I can tell of far greater import in Sydney than Brisbane being the clubs and fans from ex NSWRL were the most affected..
What does it say that about the Swans that their crowds have not imploded back to pre Superleague levels?
Visualise why that has not occured? I put it to you that Superleague in Sydney combined with the Swans success bandwagon/Lockett etc introduced the game to many Sydneysiders who had not tried it before, obviously many liked what they saw. A free kick? yeah maybe but the game still had to offer something for the spectator.
As Melb Storm have found getting bums on seats to give the game a go is a tough road.
January 28th 2011 @ 5:32pm
Stevo said | January 28th 2011 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
I can say that a few people I know only started following the Swans after the Super League war started. The rise in the Swans in the mid-90s coincided with the worst of the Super League war. A lot of the fans that switched were fans of teams that got the flick, or merged with their staunch enemy (the Beagles), or who got sick of the constant fighting, lawsuits, money and . Popular support for the Swans in the 1995-1998 period in Sydney seemed higher to me than it’s been since, even during the successive grand finals a few years ago.
Especially in the papers, before 1995 League would dominate the back of the paper (4-6 pages in the tele), with AFL only getting a page at most. After Super League, League got 2-4 pages at the back of the paper, but the AFL got 2 pages closer to the back now. Fast forward to today, and during the season League is getting 5-8 pages at the back of the paper, AFL is back to 1 or 2, but it’s now after the Union and a few other things.
My guess is that the Swans have a much bigger ‘core’ group of supporters now than they had in the early-90s (Saturday night games at Homebush get 50-80k, with only 120k watching at home), and that was built during the Super League war era. Given that the core supporters are your bread and butter, I would say the club is stronger, but the casual following seems to me to be lower.
The storm need to do the same, build their core group even if the casual support remains low.
January 29th 2011 @ 2:56pm
Crosscoder said | January 29th 2011 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Stevo
My point exactly.
January 31st 2011 @ 10:21am
Redb said | January 31st 2011 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Your point was the Swans and Lions. Superleague had little impact on Lions crowds.
January 29th 2011 @ 2:27pm
Crosscoder said | January 29th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
It is not a false assumption but a bare fact.
It is a delusion to think whilst a code was tearing itself assunder, that the then sporting environment, did not assist,other codes in Sydney and Brisbane ,the AFL there in particular.
My own humble experience with three Bears supporters who switched to following the Swans and Tahs since they were given the toss after SL says something.How many more out there have done something similar.Plus at least another Tigers supporter,who gave it up after the merger with wests.Some gave the game away completely.Ask yourself why Crusher supporters did not move over enmasse to the Broncos.
The Broncos were at the very seat of the planning for the SL takeover,the late Porky Morgan and J Ribot de Bresac.
Ask yourself why there are a stack of brisbane rl followers who hate the ‘Broncos.
The Brisbane Lions grew from 99,just 2 years after the rejoined NRL comp,that involved mergers and dismissals,and you maintain it did not assist the Lions.Pull the other one champ.
The SL war started with the very first rumblings at the start of the 1995 rl season,all though the 96 season and court cases,then the split comps in 97.It has taken the game at least 10 years to recover,to get back to what it was,not what it could be.
Even now we get the News/SL connotation at times.
Ask people who were involved in rl the bush throughout the 90s and into the early 2000s in both NSW and Qld..
It appears you have little notion of the impact of SL on rl support in Qld and NSW.The angst about the split,News ,the game was like a fog.
When the Sl war happened,and for a good stretch after, the Fairfax press went into full gear as they were competitors,and gave the Swans more publiciity than they could dream of,and Lockett certainly assisted them in that dept.
The Swans crowds have remained static,and the TV ratings have dipped dramatically ,and the Bears are yet to come back in.All it says is the crowds have levelled off.Have a look at the crowds prior to SL war ,then during and just after the war.Suggest there is a trend.
.Yes the publicity Lockettt received and rightly so in the Sydney press,I am trying to visualise the opposite happening for an NRL player in the Melbourne press(partiicularly the Age),and the snowball’s chance in hell analogy. crops up.
I have not suggested the Swans don”t offer entertainment ,just as some Melburnians enjoy rl,I am simply stating they made hay while the sun shone,and my view is hardly an isolated one.
I have got to say this,I have never heard of a situation if one business or sport for that matter, has problems or is struggling,that competitors have not gained in some way,or seized upon the opportunity.
As a matter of fact ,when the Storm salary cap fiasco happened,an AFL Mgr Ricky.(name escapes me),made the infamous quote”Lets drown them whilst they are struggling” ..Not gaining advantage LOL>
The Storm have said from day one it will be a struggle,that revelation is hardly a scoop.It will probably be more so after the 2010 debacle,but they will survive and get back to where they should be.Not having them on FTA is a handicap also.
January 31st 2011 @ 12:31pm
The Link said | January 31st 2011 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Brisbane Bears / Lions Crowd Averages
1993 11149
1994 12434
1995 10305
1996 18088
1997 19550
1998 16675
1999 21890
Up by 100% from 95 – 00
Biggest jump was from 1995 to 1996
Source http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/brisbanel.html
January 28th 2011 @ 11:09am
Republican said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:09am | Report comment
cptn nemo
From one broken record to another then, thanks for the great substance you bring to such discussions.
January 28th 2011 @ 11:48am
Jiggles said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Since there has also been a lot of conversation out there regarding how clubs are owned in both codes, I would like to pose this question to the roar:
Are the Brisbane Broncos the only Australian Sports team listed on the ASX?
Their Ticker is BBL
January 28th 2011 @ 11:57am
Brett McKay said | January 28th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
not that that’s a big thing Jiggles, they’ve still only paid 2 dividends in 20-odd years as an ASX-listed company, both of those in the last four or five years. And one dividend was 0.5c, the other 1.5c…
January 28th 2011 @ 12:05pm
Jiggles said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Just asking a question Brett… wasn’t commenting on whether it is a big thing or not, just thought it was interesting as I know of no other Australian sports team listed.
January 28th 2011 @ 12:12pm
Brett McKay said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
no, I know, I was just adding to your question. As far as I’m aware they are the only ASX-listed sports team, by the way, should have said that above…
(I remember a thread last year where Oikee {I’m sure it was Oikee} got very excited when someone mentioned the ASX listing, and it seemed like Oiks was all set to plough his life savings into Broncos shares. The dividend info brought that to a grinding halt. As an aside, I also recall a bit of a story that emerged but never went far where after John Singleton sold his BBL shares he called on the ASX to launch an investigation into BBL, and why they hadn’t at that stage ever paid a dividend..)
January 28th 2011 @ 12:19pm
Jiggles said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Honestly I can’t really see how a sports team would be a good investment, especially an Australian team which is operating in a potential market of around 20 million (you could argue its less – Just QLD and NSW) with no real world wide market share….
I can see how it would work for a team like the Barcelona (not sure if they are listed?) but for the Broncos? Probably explains the lack of dividends
January 28th 2011 @ 12:24pm
MyLeftFoot said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
I believe Barca remain community owned, despite their gargantuan scale of operation.
January 28th 2011 @ 12:26pm
Crosscoder said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Jiggles
its called a labour of love..That is why Singleton wanted to be involved at one stage with the Bears,until they were knocked back for entry.
January 28th 2011 @ 2:16pm
Jon said | January 28th 2011 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Broncos half owned by News LTD so try buying News shares if you want to support NRL. Storm 100% owned by News and from memory Cowboys only just been offloaded (gone to community model but can never seem to get true info on onwnership/ sponsorship).
January 28th 2011 @ 12:04pm
NF said | January 28th 2011 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Great article, the Western Reds is needed just like GWS both have large population and is a untapped market. It’s interesting to see AFL deviate from heartland bids ala Tasmania to focus GC & GWS it goes to show there about the bigger picture of a greater national competion.