Cross-code competition is actually healthy for all

I don't think it's quite the right analogy. McDonalds is rubbish. It tastes good, but it's rubbish, and it can not compare to fine dining; and I don't think even its biggest fans would claim that it does. Opera is an art form, and like all art forms, it features works of genius, and presumably works which as so horribly bad that they would make one want to kill oneself. The great opera works get most of the attention, but considering how many centuries opera has been around, we can't pretend that all operas have been masterful. In fact, on a kinda related subject, a few years ago I read an article by a literature critic who pointed out that published literature has always had its Danielle Steeles and Twilights. Soccer may or may not be as sophisticated as opera, however it does not mean that opera is superior. I'm a much bigger fan of football than soccer, but I think all sports can be compared to the very best of art. In fact, considering that ballet is one of the great art forms; I don't see any reason why sport can not be regarded as an art form, even if it the fact that it is competitive probably prevents it from being considered art.

Australian sport has been professionalised and corporatised away from its traditional community support and participation basis. This is part of a wider process thoughout Australian society intent on turning us all into media guzzling brand driven obesifying consumption addicts. The only people who can spot this as a bad thing are people who can remember things before they were like this (or live in NZ which is sort of like 20 years ago anyway). Anyone who comes out in support of this process or these organisations (yes you know who you are) is either being paid or or is insane, although it is very hard to tell the difference.

Now my post in this go back over 60 .... very strange... Zac what is going on ... not worth posting

Yes but McDonalds isn't a simple food it is highly proccesed and relies on technology and marketing(rule changes, video refs and expansion warchests). Football doesn't use technology, expands largely by word of mouth and has barely changed in 100 years. Football is more like bread or rice, the sustenance of life. AFL would be dampier, based on established ideas, but really just bread. Regarding the Elephants, I'm sure they would go real well in the World Cup. Though if you could get them to hold a ball in their trunks they would go alright in the Rugby codes.

Just on Irish at the goldfields, between 1851 and 1860 over 100,000 Irish arrived at the goldfields in Victoria, that is a lot of people back then, many found their way back to Melbourne or dispersed around country Victoria, NSW, or went to new goldfields in QLD, NZ and WA, when the Victorian diggings were petering out. The Irish that moved back to Melbourne formed the backbones of Collingwood, Richmond, Nth Melbourne, (renowned catholic working class clubs) the Irish that moved to other goldfields also took the new Australian game with them, together with English, Scottish, European and native born Australians from the diggings. Interestingly Castlemaine xxxx was originally brewed by 2 Irish brothers on the gold diggings.

The introduction of GWS & GC may be healthy for the NRL for about 5 years before the AFL begins it's takeover of QLD & NSW in becoming the number one sport it will happen sooner than later the beginning of the end for the NRL.GO AFL!

Hey Jared your comments on Jan 13 pretty much sum up the main thrust of your argument, did you have a latent phrophetic moment in the last week ;)

That's it? That's what makes 1982 so different to 2010? One professional club? Rugby wasn't professional in 1982. It has a domestic professional league. Which has moved forward more?

That's very devious of y'all isn't it, making the Universe go backwards on me ;) Anyways what I was trying to say was that even tho the NRL's now bringing in an Indie Comm, that it's quite likely it was actually inspired by American sport leagues, it may have nothing to do with the AFL supposedly taking the lead at all! I mean the financial viability (or not?) of AFL's membership model works for the AFL, but just like the Independent Commission the AFL had it's own reasons for bringing it in, particularly various clubs failing to look after themselves properly. It's far too simplistic to assume that just because the biggest fish goes somewhere, the smaller (but not small) fish will find it in its own interest to follow it. If anything because NRL folks don't like Aussie rules usu, they'll go elsewhere one would think... So back to my point, presumably y'all think that AFL's financial model is for the good of all of Australian sport...but doesn't being a member of one club, not exclude you from being a member of another club in another code, in fact the whole idea of being a member is about identity and one can't identify with more than one club can one ;) Maybe you can, but if in anyway it's made difficult or disadvantageous to the multi-sports fan, that their involvement with one code excludes them from involvement in another or in making suggestions about one code using their background in another...Australian sport will not be healthier for the struggle for mine

the 'mass consumption' adaptation requirements for Australian Football would look something like, well, like the International Rules format. Thankfully the AFL admin doesn't appear to be falling over itself to implement those rules domestically into the AFL (league). Soccer is marketed as the 'simple game' (if you understand off side and are willing to use your head to strike the ball). It can be played by elephants. It rarely requires more than the fingers of one hand to tally the score. It lives up to it's 'simple' label. The McDonalds notion seems fine. However, McDonalds has been delving into 'healthy options'.

When you say 'football' you mean soccer right? Should make the effort to differentiate the sport from the other footballs since everyone else has. In Australia it doesn't refer to one specific sport.

To the original poster. If you are so in favour of the benefits of open competition (which I thoroughly agree with you on by the way) can I ask you two questions. What do you think of salary caps? What do you think of preferential (ie worst team picks first) player drafts? They are the things that I most struggle with in some codes as they stunt real competition and induce an artificial levelling - which might seem to keep a comp even (and therefore seemingly competitive) in the short term but which goes against the idea of real long-term improvement, investment and ambition. Would be interested in your views.

Prior to the 1870's, most clubs would have been mainly protestant, either working class or middle class, after the Victorian gold rush ended, many people moved back to Melbourne, the big population of Irish, Scottish catholics settled around the working class suburbs of Collingwood, Richmond and Nth Melbourne, where they were close to the abbottoirs, factories and boot factories that Collingwood, Abbotsford etc were renowned for. The hatred comes mainy from shared boundaries, and the close, cramped living conditions similar to English cities, and a loyal tribalism to their area.

OK I still haven't heard very much about why/how this system is going to make Australian sporting landscape more healthy. Presumably Jared Newton was arguing that competition is how the Australian sporting landscape will remain healthy, memberships seem to be working for the AFL, but they also seem to be making the competition with other codes a little too much like an arms race. I just don't see how $ flooding into AFL clubs (and big million dollar expansion teams payouts to talents) is going to help other codes. I think my point was that the $ must go somewhere which means it can't go elsewhere, which means yes there's a competition for dollars but how will this make sure dollars are spent making our competitions and competitors better than they currently are. Don't get me wrong competition has to be good cert when it comes to the footballs, but could someone please at least attempt to explain how membership for AFL clubs will help NRL clubs or A-League clubs or Super Rugby provinces. As usual these code wars debates always seem to end up about whose code is best, which defeats the purpose of this topic doesn't it?

Tried again ....

I'm sure it's bug that comes into play every now and them, and it might have something to do with whenever the mods delete a post, especially a post in the middle of a thread, it seems to throw everything out. Either that or it's a deliberate ploy by the Roar editors to lower the heat, seeing we're already up to 100 posts without even trying too hard.

No idea why but my post keeps going back about 14 or 16 post back.... cannot understand why ... So as I see it no point in posting ... not Zac not the first time neither of late...

Arsenal have over 50k season ticket holders - their cheapest season ticket is a staggering 893 pounds ($1400) - the most expensive 1825 pound ($2900). Incredibly there are another 40 thousand people on the waiting list for a season ticket. That's 90k people who are happy to pay $1400 for a season ticket.

As an example, Collingwood will sell 9,000 Legends memberships in 2011, their premium membership package ($1,000 a pop), out of total memberships of 60,000. Thus, from only 15% of their membership base, Collingwood rakes in $9 million before the season begins. From the remaining 51,000 memberships, Collingwood might well rake in less than that same amount, around the $8 million mark. Honestly, by the time a footy club is raking in $17 million in membership sales - who cares whether a few of them are cheapies?