What to do with the Melbourne Storm?

As a AFL supporter to say the Storm are doomed is totally wrong. The Storm do well and have penetrated the bias that the Melbourne Media has. AFL will always be #1 in Victoria and why should not it be that way? But, i get so tired of people continually bashing the Melbourne Storm. They do pretty good. The move to the new ground will help. If channel nine showed games at 10pm then the figures would be pretty good i feel. The NRL was the big improver last year with crowds tv ratings all going up. THE AFL all went down. Where was the A-league not so good either. I just want fairness to the AFL and the NRL. I now know peoplee who love the Storm so much passion like AFL style. Best wishes to them for sure. Yes the AFL is King but allow the Melbourne storm to the priunce.

you mean so is league in Victoria

the storm is doomed, as is rugby in Victoria, no one watches it down here, sure the NRL got the odd big crowd for the origin games they played in Melbourne but i wouldnt be going to the well to often if i were them, it was more a novelty thing than anything else IMO. As for the NRL GF outrating the AFL GF, the storm cant be in the GF every year, which is the only reason it rated higher, id go as far to say as it was a worse case scenario for the AFL having Geelong and St kilda playing off in the big one as they both have fairly small supporter bases, both from the same state as well, what would the NRL rate with 2 small syd teams playing off in the GF i wonder.

there won't be expansion in 2013... Gallop - or successor - won't go back on this...and nor will the club CEOs,,, many RL fans may clamour for expansion to places like WA but when it comes down to reality the clubs and those in charge of the NRL (by whatever name) won't be going anywhere like WA until at least the end of the next deal which is around 2018..... don't take my word for it, the NRL and NRL clubs repeatedly affirm this position.. and I'd go further - common sense says they'll never try to expand to Perth or Adel or anywhere else in Australia other than NSW/QLD - and possibly outside Aust with another NZ team.....being realistic realist the NRL will struggle to keep melbourne afloat let go ever back to places like WA & SA to lose even more money.... instead they'll try to sure up what they have and maybe add a team in QLD & NSW.... the race to national was run (and was lost by the NRL) ten years ago...

" There’ll be no re-admission of a WA team in 2013, or readmission of any new teams for that matter (the current 16 teams will be in place after the next deal, again according to Gallop and the current NRL CEOs)." -- chris What he says now and what he does in the future is unbeknown to everyone, including him. Anything can happen between now and 2013. I'm not saying he will go against his word, but I'm not going go out on a limb and say he'll stick to it. "Look with such a low population the stats can look strange so maybe whatever small RL competition there is would look like a high rate but you’re not honestly claiming NT prefers RL to AFL, or that RL has more players?" -- chris No, I'm not claiming NT prefers RL over Aussie rules. What I'm saying is there is a large interest in rugby league in the Northern Territory. "Victoria – ‘exponential growth’ – well duh. If you grow from almost nothing of course its ‘exponential. ANY growth would be." -- chris Nonsense! To argue that rugby league could do nothing other than grow exponentially over 10-11 years it has been in Melbourne is ridiculous. The Storm have been in Melbourne for 10-11 years now, thus meaning there has been enough time for rugby league's growth in Melbourne to stagnate or decline or grow exponentially. This is simple logic chris, yet you seem to be incapable of understanding it. "contracts – wow you are dumb. ANY contract may be re-negotiated. There is nothing in our legal system preventing contracting parties from re-visiting and re-negotiating terms od ANY agreement – I don’t need to see the NRL contract." -- chris You reckon I'm dumb because I have not read up on the intricacies of the law system's stance on contractual agreements? That's news to me. I bet the persons from the major dictionary companies who define the meaning of words would scoff at your definition of 'dumb'. It would be somewhat dumb of me to make an error about contractual law after saying I am familiar with the subject, but only if the former succeeded the latter. I never claimed to be an expert on contractual law -- I said I don't know what the NRL and Channel 9 can and cannot do, which ws a rational comment to make considering I was not in a position to comment on contractual matters. The fact remains that the NRL does not have the legal clout to force Channel 9 to broadcast the NRL into Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne at a viewable hour and obtain the same money it's currently getting -- this is the is the point I was trying to make -- at least not unless Channel 9 agrees to the terms, which it is not obligated to do. There's one thing that eats away at the heart of your argument about the NRL's next television deal. DVB-T. The analogue shut-off is going to take place around the time the next NRL deal comes into effect. The anti-siphoning list's stance on keeping its events off the multichannels until they've been shown on the networks' main channels (the ones that simulcast their analogue services) or are simulcast alongside them (like Ten and OneHD do with the AFL) won't exist when the Federal Government turns the analogue signals off. This means the networks will be free to air the NRL and AFL exclusively on their multichannels. It's logical to think that Network Ten's One HD would be interested in paying a fair bit to televise the NRL Friday night matches across Australia, live. The reason Ten will want to do this is because a) it needs content for their sports channel and b) it is unlikely to be in a position to compete with Seven for the right to broadcast the AFL's Friday night matches. What this means is the next television deal will be different. I'm not saying the television deal for the NRL and AFL will be equal to one another, but there's no doubt they'll be different, thus meaning your claim about them being the same is nonsensical. Another thing we need to take into equation is the impact of IPTV. Optus are going to upgrade their network in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne so it can reach speeds of 100 mb/s. If it were to venture into the IPTV market -- which it might do as its television service will be shut down by then -- then it might look to buy the internet broadcast rights for the NRL away from Telstra. It would make sense for Optus to do this because each of the cities it services with high speed cable broadcast has a team in the NRL.

"of course they’d get more viewers but this is beside the point… it’s not that they’d get more viewers of the RL games but they’d get far LESS viewers than they otherwise would with their normal programming!!… how old are you… 10?…. it is very hard to have a ‘debate’ wit such a simpleton…" -- Chris Since when were we arguing about the best interest of the commercial FTA networks? Oh that's right, we weren't. We were talking about how many viewers the NRL could draw if their matches were broadcast into Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne at a viewable hour. At no stage did I say the stations would receive equal (or higher for that matter) ratings if they aired the rugby league in place of a 7:30pm movie/program each Friday night, so don't divert the debate down that road. However, since you have gone down that road, let's look at Seven's stance on airing its Friday night AFL matches into Brisbane and Sydney. If my memory is correct, they don't air them at a viewable hour because it would hurt their ratings. I guess that's just something you AFL fans don't like to admit because it hurts your claim that Australian rules is "marketable" across Australia's five major television markets..... I respond directly to the tangents you raise, whereas you expect me to respond to everything you've thought but haven't said. Then you call me a "simpleton" for only responding to what you said. I suppose you'll now raise another point that you haven't expressed, then claim it was the point I should have responded to all along.

also - "Sorry, but I cannot understand your logic. The ratings would increase if the matches were broadcast live into WA, SA and Victoria because they’d have a larger audience to tap into." of course they'd get more viewers but this is beside the point... it's not that they'd get more viewers of the RL games but they'd get far LESS viewers than they otherwise would with their normal programming!!... how old are you... 10?.... it is very hard to have a 'debate' wit such a simpleton...

wow... you are clutching.. 1. WA - there is almost no interest in RL.. it is a died in the wool AFL state. I grew up there for 30 yrs so I have some idea. You want facts - most people in WA would struggle tell you the difference between Rugby Union and RL and commonly refer to both as 'rugby' - there are some ex-pat poms, kiwis & south africans that follow RUnion but that's it. Gallop has several times gone on record, including in the last 3 mths, to say there is not sufficient interest in WA to go there. So don't argue with me about WA - speak to Gallop. There'll be no re-admission of a WA team in 2013, or readmission of any new teams for that matter (the current 16 teams will be in place after the next deal, again according to Gallop and the current NRL CEOs). 2. NT - I recall seeing participation rates for Aussie rules for NT men and it is three times the rate of Victoria. Look with such a low population the stats can look strange so maybe whatever small RL competition there is would look like a high rate but you're not honestly claiming NT prefers RL to AFL, or that RL has more players? - if you are I suggest you take another look. And your point about NT & QLD interaction is irrelevant. 3. Victoria - 'exponential growth' - well duh. If you grow from almost nothing of course its 'exponential. ANY growth would be. Whatever amateur competitions they get going the long term viability of the Storm remains in serious doubt (and please don't give me the apologist rubbish about the new stadium - I've heard it). The NRL may cling to Vic through the next broadcast deal but if the Storm doesn't stop racking up $6m annual losses you'd have to wonder how long the other clubs will support them...perhaps there'll be some sort of indefinite subsidy arrangement. 4. contracts - wow you are dumb. ANY contract may be re-negotiated. There is nothing in our legal system preventing contracting parties from re-visiting and re-negotiating terms od ANY agreement - I don't need to see the NRL contract. This semantic tangle is just a distraction from my substantive point - the NRL deal isn't one with national scheduling and it could have been because the NRL negotiates the terms; if national scheduling was a must then it could have insisted on this and negotiated around this requirement but it didn't- there isn't a national schedule NRL for a very good commercial reason; there isn't the demand for one and the NRL would gain nothing by doing so!! Look what I think you should be doing is not writing to people like me. Why don't you write to the NRL - you seem to have all the answers; if they listen to you how could the NRL they go wrong!! What these broadcast deals do is affirm RL's secondary position in Australian sport and then we have RL journos and RL fans on forums like this scrambling around with their apologetics and their fantasies...and then we'll get the next deal and it'll happen all over again... it's an article of faith with RL that their game is the number one 'TV game' in Australia and the inconvenient truth that it isn't that is periodically exposed by these broadcast deals has to be explained away by RL journos and fans...

"i.e. because showing live into WA, SA and Vic would hurt its overall ratings….nothing earth shattering about that conclusion…." -- chris, Sorry, but I cannot understand your logic. The ratings would increase if the matches were broadcast live into WA, SA and Victoria because they'd have a larger audience to tap into. "I don’t need any so called ‘evidence’ to come to this conclusion…and I don’t need to buy into nonsense about having to run equivalent broadcasts…the statement of Gallop, the actions of Ch 9 and commercial reality allow a perfectly reasonable and logical inference …." -- chris Quote David Gallop. Don't paraphrase, just quote and cite the source(s) of your information. "you’re the one making unsupportable and unrealistic claims about RL matching the AFL in national broadcasts not me – you’re arguing that live broadcasts into WA, SA and Vic could deliver a bigger national TV audience for the NRL than AFL…the onus is on you buddy not me!!..where is ‘evidence’?…..there is none – all experience and logic points to the opposite conclusion…SA & WA have no teams and the people in those states don’t follow RL – switching on live broadcasts into those would be commercial suicide which is why it’ll never happen…" The promising ratings for the Storm's two or three live telecasts into Melbourne in 2009 suggest the cumulative audience for the NRL would increase if all of the Storm's matches were televised at a prime time viewing hour. I'm not saying the ratings in Melbourne would always be as high as they were during the few times their matches were televised live into the Melbournian market, but I think they'd be much higher than they are at present. There is interest for rugby league in Western Australia: the WA Reds drew large crowds to their Jim Beam Cup matches at Members Equity Stadium; the WARL's junior and senior competitions have a solid core of players and are growing; the game is reaching more children each year via the WARL's school development program; Western Australians have played in the NRL; last year's Dragons vs Rabbitohs match in Perth drew a very large crowd. The attendance for the Dragons vs Rabbitohs game in Perth blew away the dismal numbers chalked up by the few AFL games that have been played on the Gold Coast over the last 2 or so years -- one of the AFL matches on the Gold Coast that drew a poor attendance involved the Lions! These facts mean it's not unfeasable to believe that a Perth-based NRL team could rate just as well in Perth as the Lions and Swans fare in Brisbane and Sydney. This leaves Adelaide as the only major city that seems unlikely to take a liking to live NRL broadcasts, though even it cannot be ruled out entirely. The Cowboys vs Sharks game in Adelaide drew a respectable crowd considering the state has almost no exposure to the sport. For the record, one of the reasons the AFL selected the offer from Seven and Ten was because Mr. Packer wasn't going to broadcast the Friday night matches into Brisbane and Sydney until the early hours of the morning. The AFL wanted its main terrestrial television partner to broadcast the matches into all five of Australia's largest markets at a viewable hour. Seven and Ten bowed down to the AFL's request because they (especially the former) needed the AFL rights in order to compete with Nine, who were number 1 at the time.

"the NRL makes the calls at all negotiations whenever they make the deals… they are in control…" -- chris. Rubbish. The NRL's broadcast deals are not brokered until all parties are happy with the terms and conditions. This means all parties involved play a role in shaping the deal. "they didn’t include national scheduling requirements in the last deal and logically they won’t in the next deal….and for the same reasons…outside NSW/QLD there is very little interest in RL and no teams (except the Storm)….in contrast the AFL does have teams in all States, and in Tassie & NT it has State/Territory leagues that feed to the national competition -so you would expect the AFL to once again place importance on scheduling nationally….it horses for courses…national schedling is less important for the NRL because the game is not followed nationally…simple" -- chris Your conclusions are based on faulty premisses. 1. Rugby league is quite popular in the Northern Territory -- its participation rate is equal to Queensland's. Would you like me to cite the source of my information? 2. The Western Australia Rugby League holds their own junior and senior rugby league competitions -- the latter is sponsored by a reputable company, Tooheys -- and fielded a team, the Western Australia Reds, in NSW's Jim Beam Cup competition last year. The WA Reds attracted fairly large crowds to the Jim Beam Cup matches that were played at Members Equity Stadium in 2009. The WARL is going to field the Reds in a lower age NSW competition this year -- its seniors will play in the WARL's competition -- so they can develop enough juniors to fill an NRL squad should they gain re-admittance into the NRL in 2013. They want to base their prospective squad around local juniors. The NRL games that have been played at Members Equity Stadium have drawn very good crowds. Rugby league players from Perth have reached the NRL. 3. The governing body for Aussie Rules in the Northern Territory, AFLNT (or whatever it is called) fields a team in the QAFL statewide competition. This means the NT's competition(s) feeds players into the team it fields in the QAFL, thus meaning the QAFL plays some role in the development of AFLNT's best players. 4. Rugby league isn't played in Tasmania, but this does not have any affect on the value of the NRL's television deal: Tasmania only has 500,000 to 600,000 people and; the major commercial television networks do not have a base in Tasmania. The two major commercial FTA networks, Channel 7 and Channel 9, don't give a rat's backside about the viewing habits in Tasmania it does not have any stations in Tasmania -- their affiliate networks rebroadcast their content into Tasmania. 5. Rugby league is growing expontentially in Victoria. Each year it records a record growth rate in junior and senior development. The strength of rugby league in will be much higher in 2013 than it was when the last deal was struck. These facts -- yes they are facts -- mean South Australia is the only mainland state that does not take much interest in rugby league. There's enough interest in Victoria and Western Australia to lobby for live terrestrial television broadcasts of NRL matches into their capital cities. This leaves Adelaide as the only major city that has "little interest" in rugby league. "and incidentally, there is nothing stopping the NRL to attempt to re-negotiate the current deal to get live broadcasts…they could try and given the right price then Ch9 would probably have a look at it…why wouldn’t they?… but it won’t happen…the NRL can’t afford to do it as Gallop has explained…" -- chris Since when have you viewed the terms and conditions of the NRL's current terrestrial television deal? If you haven't viewed the deal's terms and conditions then you're not qualified to say "there is nothing stopping the NRL to attempt to re-negotiate the current deal to get live broadcasts".

Pablo to say "Sheer revenue is supporting poor structure in the AFL in some ways." seems an odd thing to say. Aren't all professional comps in need of revenue, and lots of it? If the AFL is successfully driving good revenue figures (and it most certainly is), then maybe it's a good structure rather than a poor structure?

Talking of disturbed individuals, how many posts do you make in League threads as compared to AFL ones which you obviously prefer as a sport. Something like 100 to 1 I suspect. If that's not fear I don't know what is. Why not just enjoy your sport, and let us enjoy discussing ours. We don't need your so called "facts". I am sure you will enjoy life a lot more talking about the Swans vs West Sydney blockbusters.

evidence?....scientific method?.... you are a disturbed individual...for your own sake in future I suggest you limit the use of this mindless mantra about 'evidence'...in many situations it's meaningless, inappropriate and desperate....I'm not sure whether you realise that not every discussion and every topic is susceptible to proof by 'evidence'...and in many cases even if 'evidence' were the answer if is not readily available then calling for it is more or less a disqualifying move in any debate...you're more or less admitting defeat against logic and reason calling for something you know will not be provided (as you have demonstrated several times)...if I make a point use reason, logic and quote public information then respond - don't admit defeat!!.. what have done throughout is to use logic and also where possible referred to public statements...an example - Gallop has publicly stated why Ch 9 doesn't broadcast live into Vic, WA, SA...there no interpretation or guesswork by me about his position,.....I simply referred to what Gallop has said publicly and its safe to assume he would know because he knows the detail of the broadcast deal and the negotiations.....and then from that public admission by Gallop (that less flexibility in the deal would have lowered its value) I made a very logical and reasonable inference about the reasons why - i.e. because showing live into WA, SA and Vic would hurt its overall ratings....nothing earth shattering about that conclusion.... I don't need any so called 'evidence' to come to this conclusion...and I don't need to buy into nonsense about having to run equivalent broadcasts...the statement of Gallop, the actions of Ch 9 and commercial reality allow a perfectly reasonable and logical inference .... you're the one making unsupportable and unrealistic claims about RL matching the AFL in national broadcasts not me - you're arguing that live broadcasts into WA, SA and Vic could deliver a bigger national TV audience for the NRL than AFL...the onus is on you buddy not me!!..where is 'evidence'?.....there is none - all experience and logic points to the opposite conclusion...SA & WA have no teams and the people in those states don't follow RL - switching on live broadcasts into those would be commercial suicide which is why it'll never happen... and as for hanging your hat on your journalistic skills... please now... the substance of my arguments has more than matched the error-ridden waffle you've offered...more than matched it...and the mindless and inappropriate leaning on 'scientific method' and 'evidence' is just one example of the type of nonsense you dish up time again..

Chris, I DO NOT USUALLY READ ROY MASTERS' ARTICLES! Get it? Now stop accusing me of latching onto his articles! Why are you so obsessed with Roy Masters? It's disturbing. Get help! All you're capable of doing is throwing out a few insults that apply more to you than the designated recipients. You keep on calling me a "simpleton" and "delusional", yet the only one on here who has proven to the world that they're delusional and stupid is YOU -- at no stage have you offered a single shred of evidence to substantiate any of your speculative claims. Only an idiot would uphold a speculative theory as "fact" and not offer anything to back it up! You obviously didn't understand my comment about being a journalist -- and you say my comprehension of the English language is bad! I wasn't "bragging" about my occupation, but letting you know that the charge you made -- that my English reading comprehension is poor -- is absurd because understanding the general flow of written speach is a necessity for anyone involved in journalism. My interpretation of your writing is based on the way it is written. You'll deny it all night long, but it's patently evident that what you orginally wrote is different to the meaning you're assigning to it now. The erraticism in your writing -- upholding one standard, dropping it, then holding it again -- makes it impossible to view you as anything more than an insane Australian rules football fan who hates rugby league with a passion. You, my friend, need help. It must be hard for an Australian rules fan to live in a rugby league state......

Chris we get it, you don't like Rugby League. Now go away and talk about AFL with your mates and let us talk about the game we love.

what we can look forward to is a continuation of warped articles by Roy on this topic as we close down towards the NRL's next broadcast deal..... they'll as wrong as ever - and as always they'll be latched onto by simpletons like you....

There's no getting through to you is there Chris? You'll argue that the sky is red and that anyone who says otherwise is "stupid". You're unable to follow a logical sequence -- you started accusing me of this after I accused you of it, thus showing you argue like a kid -- and you don't know the difference between "you're" and "your" -- (thus proving you're an idiot). I suppose. You love to play dumb whenever you're backed into a corner. Sorry mate, but most people will see through your cowardly tactics.

"Sorry – I couldn’t help but respond to this fib…. far from wandering I directly replied to you on this tired old tactic … I called it “the excuse that keeps on giving”…..you call for a ‘controlled measurement’ in the full knowledge that in the commercial world it will never happen…. I pointed out that the NRL could make it happen but that it won’t because it’d cost too much….." -- Chris Chris, Neither you nor I know anything about the NRL's likelihoood of choosing a deal that forces the holder of its commercial FTA broadcast rights to televise the game in all five capital cities of the mainland at a viewable time. However, since you assume you know what's going to happen, I want you to go ahead and prove it. Do you have any proof or are you basing it solely on your opinion? If it's the latter then stop acting as if anyone who doesn't agree with your theory must be "stupid". The argument that I raised -- that the cumulative audiences for the NRL and AFL matches on terrestrial television are incomparable because the latter broadcasts more matches on this platform -- is not negated by your silly referral to the NRL choosing its deal. The fact remains that the measurement you mentioned is invalid. Your response is just a red-herring that's meant to divert attention away from the fact I exposed your logical fallacy. That's the point I've been trying to drill into your stubborn mind all of this time. I brought it because it was very stupid of you to use a measurement that does not apply to the current situation. The only reason you used this measurement is because it supports your agenda. What you did is no differen to the so-called "tricks" that you accuse Roy masters of using to "distort" the truth. There were many factors at play in 2004/2005 that influenced Gallop's decision. You make out it was just one sole reason and that it'll still exist in 2013. Your black and white portrayal of the situation paints you as a biased nutjob who uses selective information to further an agenda -- the very thing you said about Roy Masters. Your last sentence exemplifies the arrogance and delusion that is inherrent with your posts. It's based on the assumption that the black and white portrayal you've used to further your agenda will reappear in 2013. This is a stupid way to think because the NRL is in a far stronger position today than it was when it negotiated its last deal. Here's a little challenge for you. Put your money where your mouth is and "prove" my comment about the NRL and AFL deals with terrestrial television and pay television is nonsensical.

"realist… your stupidity is tiring me,,, please re-read my posts, including the quotes you’ve clipped – you fail english comprehension 101…. look what I said, and what you misunderstood, is that the NRL is/was free to negotiate the terms of its agreement… it current deal does not, but could have, included scheduling requirements – and Gallop is on record as explaining why the NRL could have, but did not, do so (i.e. Ch 9 would have given the NRL less money to make up for the loss of flexibility)….. is that clear enough for you you simpleton!!?… if not I’m afraid I can’t make it any clearer… are you now going to post more comical claims that you’ve found an error or contradiction by me?…these posts yours would be funny but your constant stupidity is starting to wear a bit thin…" -- Chris Chris, The two clauses that are written in bold text reveal I'm right. The first clause says the NRL is -- key word in it being 'is', which means you're speaking about the present, not the past -- able to negotiate the terms of its agreement, thus meaning you're practically saying they can change the terms any time they like. The second clause says the NRL's current deal prevents them from forcing Channel 9 to broadcast the matches into Perth and Adelaide at a viewable hour. If the NRL have the ability to negotiate the terms of its current deal -- which is what your statement implies -- then they have the "ability" to change the scheduling of matches in Perth and Adelaide. If you're now arguing that they cannot change the scheduling times of the matches in Perth and Adelaide then it means you're wrong when you said "the NRL is/was free to negotiate the terms of its agreement…. Sorry mate, but I'm just pointing out your error. The fact you're throwing a tantrum over it and calling me silly names does not paint you in a good light. Oh and for the record buddy, I'm a journalist. As I just illustrated, my reading comprehension is good enough to spot your inability to attribute the right tense to the situations you write about. You made this error -- a primary school student can be forgiven for making this sort of error -- because your knowledge of the English language is poor. You don't know what will happen when the next NRL and AFL broadcast deals are negotiated. You're not a fortune teller. Stoo stop pretending to be one. "and as for not engaging you in your pay TV verses free-to-air nonsense,… please… why would I bother?,….more wasted effort…" -- Chris Oh and for the record matey, the reason I've argued with you is not because I want to "prove" that the NRL scores higher ratings, but because I wanted you to see that the criteria you've used to conclude that the AFL rates higher is wrong. I don't care if the AFL draws higher ratings. All I care about is the method you use to conclude that it draws higher ratings. So far you've shown us that you don't have a foolproof method to validate your conclusion. You didn't realise that all you had to do was compare the average audience for each AFL and NRL match. You failed to do this -- and you have the audascity to call me stupid! You need to calm down and grow up.

"You constantly wander off-topic when I point out that your criteria is absurd because it does not use a controlled measurement to compare the television ratings for the NRL and AFL." Sorry - I couldn't help but respond to this fib.... far from wandering I directly replied to you on this tired old tactic ... I called it "the excuse that keeps on giving".....you call for a 'controlled measurement' in the full knowledge that in the commercial world it will never happen.... I pointed out that the NRL could make it happen but that it won't because it'd cost too much.....