Rugby league is under siege in its traditional heartland – the broad, expansive swathe of Sydney suburbia stretching west of Strathfield, south west to past Camden and north west beyond Dural that marketers and lazy AFL franchises like to call ‘Greater Western Sydney’.
On one front, the NRL has the deep pockets of the AFLs GWS Giants to contend-with.
The soulless, implanted franchise has hardly created a stir in terms of crowd attendance or local impact, though the professional way the AFL is infiltrating schools in the West, the undoubted potential of the teams’ elite draft picks, and the patience and financial clout of the AFL mean the Giants are in it for the long haul.
On the other front, there are the passionate upstart Western Sydney Wanderers.
Though not in direct competition with rugby league, the hype generated by the Wanderers in their debut A-League season, including sellout, multi-generational, multi-racial crowds and growing sponsorship support indicate that things just became that ‘little’ more complicated for the NRL.
With all of this as context, it brings me to the topic of this post – the sleeping giants of the West, the Parramatta Eels.
Amid the cold or warm sporting war that is evolving over time in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, the Parramatta Eels are experiencing arguably their worst few seasons in 40 years.
Unfortunately for the huge number of active and latent Parramatta Eels fans, and for the NRL in general, there is seemingly no positive news regarding how and when this club will reverse its (still declining) fortunes.
Since 2009, the club has been impacted by boardroom drama and instability, with several factions emerging and battling behind the scenes.
In this period, the club has changed Boards three times, has appointed four CEOs, hired and fired three coaches and most recently picked up two wooden spoons for the first time since the early 1970s.
The most recent salt being liberally sprinkled on the wounds of the Parramatta club is in the form of the currently divided board being unable to appoint an NRL coach for the 2014 season.
A vote earlier in the week for Manly assistant coach Brad Arthurs to be appointed was voted down, with current Eels Chairman Peter Sharp being overruled by opposing factions on the board.
The Parramatta Eels are in the papers deep into the post season, with every headline being more comical and cringe-worthy than the last.
The boardroom situation cannot be having a positive impact on the mood of senior Eels players or the culture of the club, especially seeing members and supporters of the various factions cannot stop leaking stories to the media and airing their dirty laundry.
With a sleeping giant like the Eels seemingly in overdose territory, pressure may begin to mount for the NRL to act strategically to ensure Parramatta does not anchor itself to the bottom of the table for the better part of a decade – as happened from 1987-1995.
The code is under increasing pressure to maintain its market share – let-alone grow in the Sydney market, and to have such a large, well-supported club shooting itself in the foot so endemically cannot be good for the game.
Perhaps it is time the NRL made a few demands of the struggling NRL clubs, including the Eels.
Suggesting strongly that Parramatta Football Club/Leagues Club redrafts its constitution to resemble those of well-run NRL clubs as well as reflecting industry best practice may help.
The breadth of experience and business acumen of board members at many NRL clubs (in particular at Parramatta) leaves a lot to be desired.
With the exception of only a handful of NRL clubs (Bulldogs, Brisbane maybe 1-2 others), the AFL is miles ahead on this front.
Given the size of the Parramatta Eels franchise, its importance to the game in the West and the diabolical way the club appears to be run at the moment (and for the last four years) it is high time the NRL became more proactive and started outing the elephant in the room in order to affect real and meaningful change.
I fear rugby league’s sleeping giant is at serious risk of falling down the figurative beanstalk, the impact could be a turning point in the ‘long game’ battle for sporting control in the greater west of Sydney.
Casper
Guest
so what are we saying here in response to an article about club names & growth, I don't go to a ground because of the brand of beer they sell? get serious!!! Suncorp is close to the inner city, accessible from both sides of the river (no harbour here) and near a rail line. Friday night footy suits people having after work drinks in town or on caxton street & then walking to the stadium where the beers too expensive anyway. Parramatta is sydney's equivalent of Logan or the Gold Coast regions so that's not comparable. Suncorp stadium has the Brisbane Roar as a tenant in the nrl off season, conduct large concerts & that may not happen at Parramatta. I hope the Eels become competitve again, because that's good for the game.
Dr Yes
Guest
@Sheek. I grew up with a school and local team that went through AFL doctrination in Syd. Used to absolutely love playing it and would never miss a game. Do I know the rules & tactics? Yes Do I know the positions & skills? Yes Do I know the game's teams & major personalities in the media & papers? Yes Do I *ever* watch a game today? No Did I ever watch games in the past? A few times when Swans were first making finals. Did I watch games when I was playing? No Did I play RL as a kid, or at any stage? No (except in the school yard at lunchtime) Did I go to the games of my local RL side as a kid? Yes Did I watch RL on TV as a kid? Yes Do I watch NRL today? Whenever I can. Will go to games. Will always watch every final & rep game. Fact is, people follow the sport with skills & contests & tactical thinking that excite them. Over the short-term they might "follow the herd" when some local team's performing. But, for many, if they're interested, they'll follow even when others aren't. Sure, it helps if others in social group and community are also following. In early youth, strong performances can help to form a lifetime bond to a team. But in competitions with salary cap, performances will always bounce up & down. And even the biggest dollars can't override the raw association with the sport itself. So I don't agree with you. I think the GWS insertion has been poorly done. The region hasn't noticed at all. There's no curiosity. There's a culture mismatch. Can the AFL afford $15M in salary, plus millions in operations, to get 4,000 fans for a quarter of the seasons games? I don't think even their pockets run that deep. "Would everyone have been talking about WSW if they finished their first season with just a handful of wins?" Well, probably yes (just a bit more muted than now)! Because it's a sport the target audience has been following around the world, and have been waiting passionately for. Not something that has been artificially engineered upon them.
Dr Yes
Guest
"business groups use that name and do the councils" ... be still my beating heart, lol.
Australian Rules
Guest
I realise you're a kid, but accusing others of naivety when your post is littered with assumptions and inaccuracies just makes you sound silly. Your passion is commendable, but try and edit the lengths of your posts. cheers
doubledutch
Guest
I lived in Hawthorne Brisbane for 2 years as a teenager so it's just one of those things I don't really think about when I type at over 100 WPM when spelling Hawthorn. There will also be typos and grammar issues (I've even left a few in for you to pick over) when you type as much as I have. However, what I find pretty sad is when people on threads like this like to bring up minor spelling mistakes in order to strengthen their argument and make them look intelligent. I've seen it on numerous threads and the person you kind of remind me of is Sammy Newman. I guy who clearly is stupid but makes himself look smarter than what he is by using big words and picking people up on the grammar to make himself look good. Nice job, it's typical of an insecure individual. If you don't believe me look at the knobs on this site that do the same thing, they are exactly that, insecure Now you are sounding like code 13 and here is why. It's easy to pick a team at the top of the curve as in the reigning premiers and say they are successful at the moment. Hell you can even pick a stupid stat like Hawthorn has the highest average attendance at the MCG when they are winning. After all you tend to love twisting and taking stats out of perspective and using them however you please, but here is the thing. I'm the one that is going out of the box and trying to explain how a club like Hawthorn, the reigning premiers and cashed up as you mentioned potentially are not a viable entity in Victoria. Seems absurd to you but I'm not the one that went down this path initially mentioning them, you did. I'm making a case for it and I asked you about what clubs you felt would not last, yet conveniently you left it out because you know I'm right when it comes to some of these clubs. Which ones we can debate if you like. I simply said the so call 'Big 4' will most likely not be gone, everyone else is potential cannon fodder starting with the ones I have mentioned, not Hawthorn. After all AR, why did the Hawks outsource some of their home games in the first place if they are so powerful? You can call it a stroke of genius, masterful, the biggest sponsorship deal in the history of the Tasmanian government, but at the end of the Day no AFL club wants to move and change it's identity unless it HAS to. I stand correct on the AFL paying them and indeed it is the Tasmania government, but just like code 13 with his now 5 on average EPL clubs in London instead of my 4, it just doesn't change the argument I am making what so ever. So you have made your point that is is indeed the government which pays them a sh...t load of cash. I made this comment is relation to your comment about the Hawks not asking for cash from the AFL. It's kind of hilarious the way people like you work when debating, because just like CC (who you are fast becoming just as bad at when constructing an argument) you get your self in a pickle with the information you have. You don't truly understand it nor can you actually comprehend what you have said. Let me educate you on what I mean. You have mentioned the Tasmanian government has paid the Hawks a lot of cash to play games in Tasmania. You have mentioned it is a huge financial windfall for the club with all the new members and sponsorship. Couple this with on field success (which is a good thing) and yes you are going to end up with a strong club... at least for now. However, what if this happens AR. What if the Tasmanian government get sick of this arrangement with the Hawks: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-26/tassie-wants-one-team-only- It's on the cards AR, sooner or later this state will want it's own team. They have basically said they would prefer that to be Hawthorn but here is what has happened. Hawthorn in desperation turned to the Apple Isle to stay alive over 10 years ago. It has worked and now they are flourishing, They don't want to give up more games because they never wanted to move there in the first place. Since they do not need more cash from the Tasmanian government they don't need to offer anymore than what they are already doing. The problem lies though with North Melbourne who are in the same position Hawthorn was 15 years ago. yes, they are doing alright, but they won't last for much longer. They want some action and if Hawthorn wont dance, then they will. What happens if and when they start losing? The reason I mentioned the big 4 is because they don't have this big issue going forward over their head and when they lose they can deal with it. Hawthorn have shown they can't and history tells me that yet again and you don't like it! If Brayshaw is stupid enough to not move his club there long term (like he should have done with GC) then I hope the team outright folds. One way or another, one of three thins is going to happen. Hawthorn will move permanently there, North will permanently move or a new team will arise. If the later or former happens, North is dead within 10 years of it happening. I think North will eventually move leaving the Hawks in a pickle because this state can not support 1 and a bit teams. Maybe the Hawks by then think great, we don't need Tasmania anymore and move back full time to Melbourne, but like you said AR, they make a lot of money from it, which they need. You don't even realise in your very comments you have actually made my point (maybe even better than myself) so I thank you for your naivety. On the topic of naive, I just loved your comment about the AFL not being involved in the deal.They just had to ok the games to be played at Aurora stadium. Lol, classic, you are now right up there with that okeee guy with comment of the year, good job champ! Finally, I'm guessing your a Hawks man and don't like listening to this. Fare enough and you keep fighting the cause for the Hawks going forward, it will need people like you.
doubledutch
Guest
Code 13 I think you will find it was not the fans that bailed them out, but a select few business men and one cashed up Russel Crowe. Even he said that he couldn't prop them up long term and the Bunnies are hardly over their hard times. I give you an example from closer to home from an article done on this site http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/04/19/russell-crowes-rabbitohs-promise-is-still-unmet/ Now you can debate on a lot of what is said in that article, but a lot of it rings home and that was only from a year ago. The only difference is the bunnies have been successful on the pitch which means you are always going to get decent crowds and support. Lets just see how they go in another 10 years time because all those issues even you could not possible be stupid enough to think have been solves this year by just having 2 good years on field, can you? As for the whole London argument thing, you are clutching at straws to bring my argument down. Second tier competitions are not top flight nor do they cost anywhere near the money required to run the premier league sides. I don't care about how many people turn up to games, it does not make a shrewd of difference when it comes to viability because it is but a small ingredient. Do you have any idea what Arsenal charges to go to a premier league game vs one of these 1st and 2nd division teams? Perhaps if you lave lived in London yourself you may know the answer to that and perhaps that's why a lot of people go to these lower tier game? it matters little because the relegation system tells me you are wrong when it comes to the viability of these other clubs long term. The only difference is we are stuck with the NRL teams, the EPL just gets rid of them and brings in someone new. Also think about this. London only has one Super League team that I am aware of. Sydney now has 2 AFL teams and 2 A-League teams. You can add those on top of the NRL teams that are fighting for corporate dollars along with crowd support. Not looking that good your argument, but nice try.
Australian Rules
Guest
What a stupid comment.
Australian Rules
Guest
DD, you say "Final a person I can debate with that actually knows something" ...yet you spell Hawthorn wth an "e". The Hawks have played games in Launceston since 2001. Under Jeff Kennett, the club secured a then-record Aust sport sponsorship deal with the State Govt of Tasmania and committed to 4 home games a year. It was crazy money which also allowed the club to pick up new fans in the island state. The AFL was never involved in this deal, but had to ok games being moved to Aurora Stadium. It has since spent money on teh stadium. Nth Melb never threatened to "take" games from Hawthorn. After the Roos rejected moving to the GC, and the plans to committ to Ballarat fell over, they sought to move into Hobart, where there was no AFL games previously. Many viewed this as a blow-in club trying to tap into the Nth-vs-Sth divide in Tassie in the hope of making a few dollars. By this stage, the Hawks had over 10,000 paying members from the north of the island. The expansion into Tassie has not only tapped into a new AFL fan base for the Hawks, it has secured a dime of new paying members and has been a massive financial windfall for the club (even from the sponsorship alone). Today, Hawthorn play in front of bigger crowds than Collingwood at the MCG (that is a stat, look it up), and the club is one of the most financially secure organisations in Australia. They are debt free and not going anywhere. To your other question, which clubs *should* have merged...I think the WB and NM would have made good bedfellows years ago, but not now. They could have dominated the NW region of Melbourne, had similar colours and a similar culture. Too late now though.
Australian Rules
Guest
DD, you say "Final a person I can debate with that actually knows something" ...yet you spell Hawthorn wth an "e". The Hawks have played games in Launceston since 2001. Under Jeff Kennett, the club secured a then-record Aust sport sponsorship deal with the State Govt of Tasmania and committed to 4 home games a year. It was crazy money which also allowed the club to pick up new fans in the island state. The AFL was never involved in this deal, but had to ok games being moved to Aurora Stadium. It has since spent money on teh stadium. Nth Melb never threatened to "take" games from Hawthorn. After the Roos rejected moving to the GC, and the plans to committ to Ballarat fell over, they sought to move into Hobart, where there was no AFL games previously. Many viewed this as a blow-in club trying to tap into the Nth-vs-Sth divide in Tassie in the hope of making a few dollars. By this stage, the Hawks had over 10,000 paying members from the north of the island. The expansion into Tassie has not only tapped into a new AFL fan base for the Hawks, it has secured a dime of new paying members and has been a massive financial windfall for the club (even from the sponsorship alone). Today, Hawthorn play in front of bigger crowds than Collingwood at the MCG (that is a stat, look it up), and the club is one of the most financially secure organisations in Australia. They are debt free and not going anywhere. To your other question, which clubs *should* have merged...I think the WB and NM would have made good bedfellows years ago, but not now. They could have dominated the NW region of Melbourne, had similar colours and a similar culture. Too late now though.
code 13
Roar Guru
And regarding your question, feel free to read any of my previous comments on the subject. That said I'm really not interested in sifting through any more of your specious posts.
code 13
Roar Guru
No need to get your knickers in a knot Doubledutch. For the record there were 6 teams during the last season as well and at least 5 for the past few years. I admit it does vary but again your argument was that London could only support 3-4 teams but honestly you've got your blinders on. The teams that miss out on the EPL still have strong unique fanbases and get decent attendances in the second tier so no, your argument is flawed no matter how much you say otherwise. I mean again you resort to prognostications about the Rabbitohs going the way of the dodo. Really? That's great. It's going to go down in history with the rest of the pointless prophecies that litter the internet and are instantly forgotten. I hate to break it to you but the "tough times" the Rabbitohs faced already happened. They had no team in the comp. The only thing that got them readmitted was pure fan support and yet you make out that their fanbase is weak?
doubledutch
Guest
Maybe that's because they sell a lot of popular fluffy tigers :)
Keyless sky blues fan
Guest
Whilst now the a-league is out rating afl in nsw and qld, and out rating nrl in Vic Sa and wa? All coming together pretty nicely for football considering the amount of hostility the police and media have toward us.
doubledutch
Guest
Final a person I can debate with that actually knows something. It is interesting that you call them the big 4 yet at the same time classify it as an outdated classification. Well we will have to agree to disagree because I have said to many times now why I don't put Hawthorne in this category. I wouldn't invest in them long term and I actually think they are a very well run club from a football perspective. The two clubs I would heavily invest in if I wanted to make money out of it and turn that into solid gold success on the field moving deep into this century is Richmond and the Eels (if we are talking about teams in these two Cities). Both of these teams have huge a huge supporter base and one that I would love to tap into from a business perspective. Hawthorne as done extremely well, but it has also been extremely successful these last few years, just like the Bunnies have. That doesn't mean they are a long term sustainable entity going forward. I asked Code 13 this question for the NRL so I will also ask you this. Do you think all of the Melbourne based clubs will be with is in 50 years time. If not then how many do you think will fold, which ones and for what reasons? Again if you are thinking about this then you will have to go through the same critical thinking that I am. Whether you agree with me or not is a completely different argument, but I would be interested to solidify this discussion with you on whether you feel the Melbourne based teams are viable instead of talking about Hawthorne. Hawthorne is an interesting case and one that I probably shouldn't have used as one of the clubs to disappear in the next 20-30 years and it is why I didn't bring them up to begin with. Clubs like North Melbourne, St Kilda, Bulldogs and possibly the Daemons are the teams highly likely to not be with us in the next 20-30 years. Hawthorne if it can grow is presence further is a good possibility of surviving, but there is a reason those 4 are the big 4 and it is no coincidence the AFL also thinks so because they always have the block buster games between them. The AFL isn't about having a fair competition, it's about money and one of the biggest issues at present is the unfair draw. It is unfair for all the reasons I have said and the only way you make it fair is to get rid of the deadwood, otherwise these very teams (like North Melbourne) can whine all they like but it wont change anything because people like Eddie have huge influence because of the money they generate. I do enjoy these conversations with you because you do know what you are talking about. Finally my understanding is that Hawthorne gets paid a lot of cash from the AFL to play it's 3-4 games in Tasmania. They got very upset when North Melbourne also wanted games and they were considering taking some from Hawthorne and that was going to cost them financially a year ago. Correct me if I'm wrong there though, but that is my understanding of the agreement between the Hawks, AFL and Tasmania government.
Australian Rules
Guest
DD I mentioned "the traditional “Big 4″ Melbourne clubs" because that's what they are (and that's what your argument was based upon). My point is that it's an outdated classification, due mainly, to Hawthorn and its current standing in the competition. "You do know the AFL pays them a truck load of cash to play in Tasmania"... - that's just complete fiction. Tasmanian football receives an allocaiton of funding (via AFLTas), as does every other state...for grassroots, junior development and infrastructure. This is no way connected to the sponsorship of the Hawks by the Tas State Govt. I'm not sure where you've sourced that from, but it's wrong. Your suggestion, as it relates to Hawthorn, is that once the competition increases to 20 clubs and Tasmania gets bigger and stronger, the AFL would ditch the Hawthron FC in place of a Tasmanian club...basically ditching a powerhouse club for a small one from Tassie with "potential". Just nonsense stuff.
William Henry
Guest
While much of your analysis is sound, it is laughable to suggest that NRL fans are the inscure ones - it is a large section of AFL fans that cannot accept criticism or competition. Maybe it is the mentality like your own where you live in Sydney but only interact with NRL via one website. In sydney we read and watch all sports, embrace all codes with a probable preference for one over the other. The one-eyed, dare I say ignorant view of many AFL fans comes out in chats like this. I disregard the extreme pro-NRL posts, but there has been so much factual commentary on this thread from NSW NRL fans who actually live in the city and follow all codes. Rugby Leage has been under threat and unstable since the Super League War. It has survived and thrived regardless. It has no had the luxury of setting up a Commission 2 decades ago like the AFL, but the code is catching up. To go back to the original article, a problem with this catcing up is that some clubs (like Parramatta) do not have a Board as professional or stategic as it should be for its size and importance to the code. Compare the quality of the Board of even a smaller club like Port Adelaide to Parramatta and you can see why AFL generates so much more income and is a more proffessionally run sport. In closing, to reiterate, noone is suggesting that the AFL's ability as a sporting organisation. The NRL have copied their commission model. However, be able to accept constructive criticism - crying wolf as if the NRL fans are insecure is laughable given the empirical evidence that suggests otherwise....
doubledutch
Roar Pro
code 13 sorry for saying 3-4 teams when I was out by 2 for this year anyway, but you truly are pathetic when my entire point is still being made, even more so by yourself. You may have missed the part where I said the only teams that consistently are in the EPL are Arsenal, Chelsea and Hotspurs. The other 3 that I am aware of in the EPL at present either get relegated regularly or are not close from it. West Ham and Crystal palace most likely will go down this year like they always do and I would be certain they are the bookies favourite to do so. Your point is moot since it doesn't change the argument what so ever and here is why. 6 clubs equates to roughly 33 percent which is less than half what we have in Sydney for it's size. My point is an area of this size can not support anywhere near the number of teams the AFL and NRL can respectively. You like most just don't get it. Pretty much any team is successful when they are winning. I have no doubt the bunnies when they start losing are going to go the way of the Dodo in the coming years. Most likely decades from now but it will happen. They just don't have the supporter base to get them through the tough times just like many teams in the AFL don't either. Call it trolling if you like, I'm sure the mods would have shut it down instead of letting all my post go by. The reason they didn't is because it is a good read and you know it, you just don't like it. I'm giving an educated OPINION on what I think will happen and history and logic tells me all these teams can not last moving forward. I will ask you this though code, do you think all the Sydney teams will last for the next 50 years? If not then which teams do you believe will not be around. If you are trying to answer this then good, you are going through the same process I am doing. This post was originally about the Eels and what I have said is very relevant to them since I believe they can capture market share at the expense of other clubs and codes. This is war my friend, the market can only sustain a certain amount of professional teams and it is dog it dog out there. People like you get chewed up int he process with thinking like this. Your last point is kind of silly. Large corporations and good governments think 20 plus years into the future, it's called strategic planning. Do you really think the AFL hasn't done this with GWS? the big point I am trying to make is the NRL needs to start think long term and that needs to begin with the Sydney based clubs moving forward. I'm not saying to get rid of these clubs for the sake of it, but if they become a financial burden then I wouldn't be continually bailing them out.
clipper
Guest
doubledutch - great posts (I don't normally read the lengthier posts as they tend to just say the same thing in a long winded way, but yours stuck to the points). Unfortunately, they are very much based in reality and therefore won't get much traction with certain league supporters. Very good point on the NRL deal - something I've pointed out on numerous occasions. It was almost as if they were blinded by the AFL deal and did everything they could to try and match it, not realising that the best part of the AFL deal was that the fans got taken care of and has led to the situation that you see more live AFL in Sydney than live NRL.
doubledutch
Guest
I'm curious AR, why did you mention the so called BIG 4, if indeed it is the Hawks that are second in your opinion? I told you why I think the Hawks will potentially succumb, so I'm not entirely sure if it is whether you don't understand or don't agree? I suspect probably both, but my point being it would be interesting to see how the Hawks go when they have no success. Isn't it funny that after nearly 20 years of success of the highest order the Hawks found themselves in serious financial trouble with no major sponsor in the early 90's, not long after they won the premiership. You may find this an interesting read because history has a funny way of repeating itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Hawks Take a good look at all those names on that list AR, because I will make a standing bet with you also if you want that many of those teams on those merger lists will be gone in the coming years. Now don't get get me wrong, The Hawks are not at the top of my list, more in the middle somewhere and who knows, perhaps Melbourne will be able to sustain them. Oh, one other thing. You do know the AFL pays them a truck load of cash to play in Tasmania, or should I say the Tasmanian government. I think that might have a little bit to do with why they have not asked the AFL for any cash hand outs. I hope I have made myself pretty clear, especially with that link because if it came this close 20 years ago, what makes you think it wont rear it's ugly self again in the future. Don't be fooled either by the notion as Melbourne grows they will eventually accommodate all these teams, because it just doesn't work like this around the world and economics tells me otherwise. Of course this is just my opinion, but if you want to believe 9 Melbourne teams will still be with us in 20-30 years time then good on you for the positive attitude in Melbourne. My positive attitude is centred around growing the AFL and whilst I'm here give some ideas on how the NRL could follow suit. Once you get to 20 teams AR, there is no need to keep the dead wood. At the moment there is no real gain for the AFL to kill them off, after all you need other teams to play against. However, once Tasmania has grown slightly more and a third team potentially goes into WA, we will be at a point where it is time to remove some of the Melbourne based teams with no affect on the competition as a whole in order to expand into more markets. I do admire your passion, but I'm guessing you do not have the foresight if you do not at least understand what I am trying to say, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not.
Glenn Innis
Guest
Having read all the posts on this thread I think we need to forget about the NFL.What people do not realise is there is a massive cultural difference between Australia and North America when it comes to team sport. America doesn;t really have a club culture baseball is the sport that comes closest to it but there is nothing like say Sydney Leagues clubs with their juniors and financial support coming via the club.In small town America people follow the local High School team there are no senior clubs no equiviliant of the provincial Rugby league comps held throughout Qld and NSW.The whole NFL feeds off the state funded education system - kids star in the High School football team they get a sport scholarship to go to college - star in college football get drafted by an NFL team. NFL teams do not have juniors and with the exception of Green Bay they do not have members they are privately owned entertainment franchises there are about thirty of them in a nation of 300 million.The Broncos Melbourne and Auckland are the only NRL/AFL teams that fit this model but even these clubs don't have their talent scouting indirectly subsidised by the state.By the way these three clubs are all indirectly parasitical on the membership based junior club system the foundation stone on which Australian (but not American) sport is built on.