Robbo repeating a lie doesn’t make it true… kids outside QLD and NSW are playing ‘soccer’ and ‘football’. That’s the situation whether you like it or not. Kids saying they play ‘AFL’ is a NSW/QLD thing – kids in other states just don’t say this…. And I too have lived in several states but now reside in Sydney – before coming to Sydney I’d never even heard a kid say they play ‘AFL’ and found it a little odd to be honest when I heard Sydney kids saying it. So yes that’s what kids in NSW and QLD say but in other states kids play football – they might refer to playing football for the school or local suburban club – no kid in these states is walking around saying they play AFL – it’d sound very odd. Kids play junior football for their school or club and if good enough they get drafted to the AFL when they’re 18 – that’s how people talk. And if you lived in those other states you know this.

I think the NRL should change to the National Rugby League League… that might help.

No. If you ask a kid what they play they say ‘football’, and if you’re not living in QLD or northern NSW that is a reference to Australian Rules. Only in NSW and QLD do you have this confusion – for the rest of Australia it’s football, soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby… there is no confusion. Very simple. It’s in NSW/QLD where confusion reigns with both soccer and Rugby League keen to claim the word ‘football’ – this is genuinely a non-issue in other states.

I don’t think there is much of a connection… the main point being made though is that Rugby League is an unfortunate name because in America, and most for the world (including Australian States other than QLD and NSW), the use of the word ‘League’ is synonymous with an association etc. So newcomers to the sport would assume the sport is ‘rugby’, and in fact even in Australia that’s what it’s commonly called if you’re not a QLD/NSW resident. Whether you like it or not the yanks will be referring to ‘rugby’ being played in Las Vegas, those that even realise the game is on.

Have you heard of CTE? AFL players are unfortunately subject to forceful, and brain damaging, collisions. AFL, and other codes, are being forced to turn their minds to this issue and changing rules to lower the frequency and force of impacts. You seem a bit uneducated on this issue which is not necessarily your fault. Do some reading. Having forceful collisions is nothing to brag about – it’s a massive class action in the making. The last season in particular saw AFL players refine their tackling techniques to reduce slingshot type actions which damage the head, and more evolution in this area will occur as players comply with stricter rules. AFL I think is headed towards less collisions but it’s not there yet, and it’ll probably never be totally collision free.

In terms of US players, the AFL is ahead already ahead of the NRL. Collingwood has Mason Coc, and North Melbourne and St Kilda have had US players in their squads. I’m not sure whether they still do US combines – if they do they’ll keep picking up the odd US player here and there. Have US players in the AFL does generate some US interest (aka Cox appearance on US 60 minutes).

Playing a game on US soil is much harder. Most US stadiums just aren’t big enough to fit an AFL sized playing surface. The AFL has played games in England, South Africa, China, New Zealand and Canada – and presumably there is somewhere in the US that could do it. I think the AFL should perhaps stick to cricket playing nations where appropriate stadiums can be used. I don’t think the AFL needs to die in a ditch over a game playing overseas games – if it happens it happens. It’s not a core strategic initiative for them – they need to support the new Tasmania team and make that work, turn their minds to a new 20th team (to balance the draw), continue to expand AFLW, expand junior participation and maximise broadcast revenues. That’s the main game. International games, if they happen, are icing on the cake… they’re not the cake.

And let’s face it, despite some of the hyperbole already creeping into some comments quoted in articles written on this one weekend in Las Vegas, the NRL still has some pretty basic challenges that aren’t going anywhere. PVL is trying to crack the psyche of the US sporting public – that’s fine but one wonders what’s wrong with attempting to do that a little closer to home in places like Perth or Adelaide who are on your doorstep and close enough to actually participate in the NRL with their own teams if enough local interest is generated. And fun fact – both Adelaide and Perth are significantly larger cities than Las Vegas – yes the populations of WA and SA are much smaller than the USA population but they’re nothing to sneeze at if they could be engaged. An engaged WA or SA is far more useful to the NRL I would have thought.

You’ve got to be in it to win it and all that… I guess what you can say is that PVL won’t die wondering whether a US game can work. At some point the stakeholders (NRL clubs) are going to want to see a real return – and media sound bites won’t be enough. It’ll have to prove itself as viable, or not, over the long run.

No pads?…mmm… that’s not actually true though is it. This sport with no padding does in fact use padding. It’s nice for a quick grab in advertising but it’s just untrue.

Now now.. I’m saying PVL is delusional not you. Why so upset? Look it’ll prove itself as a concept or it won’t. To me it’s obviously a loser … it makes no sense long term as afar as I can see. You do recognise that PVL has every reason to believe his own hype? I think there are NRL clubs out there who think that this is a bad idea – a very bad idea and a waste of money. My prediction is this Las Vegas concept lasts two years… quote me on that.

Are you betting on next week’s Gaelic games? You can you know. Why not? Look I think most people who gamble on sports gamble on sports they know – they see a team they think could win, or win by a certain margin. People in the US don’t have a clue about NRL, and two games per year isn’t going to change that. If you believe the PVL hype about gambling revenue then you believe the hype – in the end this will pay for itself or it won’t, and if there is a net cost to the NRL don’t expect it to be published in the telegraph. I think NRL clubs will want transparency and accountability for this Vegas exercise – if it is a net loss (and it probably is) then that’s money the NRL could be spending on other things. I think the notion that US citizens starting gambling on NRL in any meaningful way is just a PVL fantasy – he hasn’t even managed to sell the game to the people of Adelaide or Perth and he thinks he’ll conquer Las Vegas. Delusional. I think enjoy it for what it is – an annual exhibition type match, and recoup as much of the running costs as you can. I don’t think there’s a need to start telling porkies about gambling revenue.

No one sleeps in Las Vegas is a nice line… but they do actually sleep nevertheless. Watching and gambling is a ‘live thing’ isn’t it? Sleeping prople are not watching or gambling on NRL. Joe six pack isn’t getting up on a Sunday (or Monday) and tuning into a replay of an NRL game played the day before… if you believe then good for you. PVL and his chums are on annual junket – that could be a better explanation. And assertions that the junket pays for itself doesn’t make it true – at some point the NRL clubs will want to see this so called gambling revenue. Time will tell. If they can get it to a point that the break even ior make a modest loss then great… but don’t kid yourself that US citizens will be tuning in to watch the NRL – they’ll be asleep.

I’m not sure you’re right… my understanding is that this is costing the NRL. The ‘return’ long term could be worth it but in the short term the NRL aren’t making any money – this is loss making. That’s not to say they shouldn’t have a crack – longer term it might be a good play. As for US following NRL – as spectators or gamblers- there is the basic fact that we live on a spherical planet, and when the side we’re on is facing the sun the side the US is on is in darkness … sleeping US citizens are not watching live NRL, or live betting on NRL games… I do think there are practical hurdles to the NRL ever cracking the US market, a spherical planet being one major hurdle..

Are you sure this is fully funded? How do you know? Not from what I hear – this will not be generating enough revenue to cover costs is what I’ve heard from the NRL clubs involved. The cost of travel, venue hire, insurance etc is massive…loss making is what I heard. Loss making but with the idea that it’s an ‘investment’ to raise the profile of game, future gambling revenue etc… so I think it is a calculated risk. The NRL can reassess its position after they run the event- they say it’s a multi-year deal but if they lose money each year then it won’t be sustainable in the long run. Time will tell. Not a bad play for the NRL – worth a go… but they need to honest with the NRL clubs about costs, and the opportunity costs.

Exactly….every five years there’s another excuse. Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is that the NRL is worth less than the AFL. Period. Simple. RL tragics do gymnastics to deny the obvious and attempt to explain away the inconveniently higher AFL broadcast deals. There’s a long list of excuses… at least they theme to vary the explanations from deal to deal.

Oh dear. You know you’re struggling when you pull out the old ‘eastern states’ or ‘eastern seaboard’ concept to underpin your argument. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and gone to a single metric from which all others are serviced – revenue. The NRL competition, and NRL clubs, are significantly behind the AFL and AFL clubs… significantly. And profits are not the metric to monitor- the AFL isn’t trying to maximise profit in any year… they are investing surplus in game development and returning most revenue to the players and clubs. On expansion, it is a difficult and long process but the basic fact is the AFL has established four teams in NRL territory and the NRL has only managed to establish one team on AFL territory – thems the facts….

Sam probably jumped straight on his phone to his lawyer who advised him to rush off the get a third yes after the first two police tests… who knows whether a urine test, at an unspecified later time, would have picked up the drugs flagged by the two police drug tests. Why can’t these athletes just admit what they’ve done – it’s always a false positive whenever it comes to testing.

It does get its true worth. Every time. If you want a direct comparison of popularity you simply need to compare whenever there are night preliminary finals in each code, or the few occasions where the AFL GF has been at night. Whenever there is a directly comparable game the AFL isn’t just ahead of the NRL – there is a gap in the order of 1million viewers. It’s not even close. Next season pay attention to the night prelim figures – the AFL will be well ahead of the NRL. The only thing that keeps the NRL GF close the AFL GF is that the later is played during the day. Whenever there is an apples v apples comparison (same time slot) the NRL comes up way short – and the simple reason is that it’s far less popular. The statistics you quote have all sorts of issues, including that you can’t simply add crowd numbers to TV viewers. Bottom line is if the NRL was more popular it would be able to monetise this popularity and get a bigger broadcast deal. It has never done so, and it never will. You gots to accept what you are… and PVL empty bluster doesn’t change reality. Simple.

Incorrect. Of the NRL deal was bigger they’d be screaming it from the rooftops. PVL especially. He isn’t, and it’s not. And it never has been.

For both the NRL and AFL I think they should come up with a way of locking most (or all) of the final qualifying teams away after one complete round… so in the AFL they were considering a 17-5 type draw – the first 17 games determined the qualifying top 8 (I think) and a different status was going to apply to the final 5 games of the season (which I think may have been to come up with a ninth finalist). The uneven draw is a blight on both codes… everyone is used to it but let’s face it, it can lead to pretty unfair outcomes.
On your idea of having weaker teams nominating the draw that they think will advantage them… even if it works, then don’t you end up with a weaker top 8 than you would otherwise get? Don’t you want the best teams in the finals rather than teams making it due to an advantageous draw? I think the aim should be in principle to come up with a way to rewarding the best teams after one complete round and then somehow hang extra games around that if necessary – or they could even reduce the season to one round only (which will never happen due to greed). I think what will happen is that we’ll just keep the draw as it is, and live with the fact from time to time it throws up a few finalists that don’t really deserve to be there. I think giving bottom teams a say in the next season’s draw would potentially make matters worse (not better) in terms of fairness.

Mate a packed Subiaco oval for a midweek game did get people’s attention… I don’t have details to hand but if you dig you will find them – that WA v Vic game in 1979 is THE reason for SOO kicked off for both codes,… OK SOO in Aussie Rules eventually faded and ultimately stopped when the game expanded nationally but through the 1980s it SOO very popular. In Aussie Rules…

I’ve got a ‘what if’… what if a WA v Vic SOO game was not played at Subiaco in 1979? You do realise that SOO in RL is a direct rip-off from Aussie Rules SOO? The origin of Origin is actually WA v Vic rivalry in Aussie Rules … had that game not gone ahead, and been such a success, there would have been no RL SOO in 1980… it may have eventually kicked off at some point but it was the WA b Vic game that was the catalyst.

To say AFL is basically a game for white men is nonsense… there’s much more variety of body types, and ethnicities, in the AFL than the NRL. And the NRL is being less and less ethnically diverse as it becomes increasingly dominated by Polynesian players who are around 2% is Australian population but 50% of NRL players. The Goodes experience was a disgrace but it’s a cheap shot, and simply untrue, to paint the AFL as a white man’s game.

Professional sportsmen travel to play… yes there is a ‘go home’ element but most players are able put this aside and pursue their career and dreams. Whether as a professional sportsman, or any other career, kids do fly the nest. Nothing wrong with a system that provides for this.

It does give the bottom teams some hope – and in a season where you know you won’t be winning many games it gives you a reason to go the game and see the new rookies do their thing. A few seasons down the bottom of the ladder, the lower ranked teams start filling with high end talent and (usually) improve – there are no guarantees of success but there are countless examples of the draft helping lower ranked clubs rise in the AFL. There’d need a cultural shift in NRL to make this happen – vested interests would need to be overridden, and players would need to embrace it. I don’t buy the argument that the rookie draft punishes junior development – not necessarily. There is plenty of junior development happening in the AFL and yet it somehow manages to have a rookie draft. It can be done. At various times the AFL rookie draft has been opposed by rich Melbourne-based clubs….and yet the AFL persisted with it to give lower ranked teams access to the best young players year on year. The draft system is now accepted. The outcome of providing a mechanism to lift up lower ranked teams is worth thinking about (as many other sports already do). Interesting to see if this initiative gets off the ground in the NRL.

The point is, the people of Perth call them the Eagles. Not West Coast. The marketing of the team, to the WA public, from the get go was ‘the Eagles’. So, the people of Brisbane/Redcliffe/surrounds could call this team ‘the Dolphins’. I’m not saying it will work, just that it’s not as unprecedented as this article makes out. Teams can, and do, function with names that don’t include a geographical reference. At the time there were some people who wanted ‘Perth Eagles’ but they opted for ‘West Coast’ which is meaningless when you think about it – where exactly is the West Coast anyway?

When West Coast Eagles joined the AFL people in Perth referred to them simply as ‘the Eagles’, and still do. People in Melbourne call them West Coast. I think it is possible to have a team that doesn’t incorporate geography in their name.