Will league supplant AFL at the top in 2020?

I agree with you. The NRL should not delay and should stake its claim on some obvious ares. The obvious ones for growth are Wellington, Central Coast, a team in Queensland, but not in Brisbane. Wil the Roosters relocate to the Central Coast? They have bought clubs and teams in the area so why not? If people believe Perth is viable then OK Perth too. But is there another Sydney team we could relocate? Wests Tigers? It is the West? Rugby in this country is dying. The private school elitism that shuts out everyday Australian families is well known.

I remember 1994 and 1995 as a great time for all 3 oval ball games in Australia (despite the talk of SL war and Rugby Union turning pro), good crowds and proper jerseys and the barassi line was still in place despite AFL having 2 teams in the ARL states. Yet now sport and its landscape has changed so much and it's not for the better.

Yes but it still could of worked at in 1870's but even 1919 and 1933 ( I think) there was talk of Rugby League and Aussie Rules to try and become a proper national code. Bloody shame.

In brisbsne you often get afl on abc radio over the nrl ... And not just lions or suns games

excellent reading I have always thought the same and Perth is ready for a team again bring it on

Reverse what . Soccer has always had huge huge participation numbers . Doesn't affect RL .

Sheek, I wrote the article predicting the demise of ru on Convict Creations. From memory I said any sport that is prepared to spend more on one player (Lote) than what is was prepared to spend on a whole competition (nrc) was heading in the wrong direction. I predicted union would be overtaken by soccer and that league and Aussie rules would increase their leads over the other sports and that league would close in on Aussie rules. That was in 2005. I read Patrick Smith in the Australian yesterday regarding the AFL and their fraudulent drug code. I wrote an email to him about 8 years ago arguing that exact point, but he wasn't listening at the time. I have made lots of predictions on various social issues 20 years before they became validated and haven't made a cent off any of it. Lol

You crack me up Andy

But seriously what does it matter. You say tomato I say tomato.

Consolidated revenue Afl 524 million NRL 344 million Club revenue Afl 800 million + Nrl 400 million + Crowds average Afl 32000 Nrl 15000 TV ratings Friday nights and fox running neck and neck but askewed as the Nrl play two games and most of the bigger Afl matches are simulcast Infrastructure Afl has the biggest and most modern stadiums at its disposal,taking ownership of a multi billion dollar asset in a decade.The Nrl is played in stadiums that pretty much all need refurbishment. Conclusion: Tell em they're dreaming but hey never let the facts get in the way of a good story

Surely fox will pay for at least some games. But how much, now they are the only potential buyer? They are being offered the leftovers!

Not 2020, lol - instead....2050. Things are more linked than people may dare to think. The crowds, over such a long time, have added a further % increase on top of AFL clubs. But look, crowds get shaven all the time - 4,000 across melbourne last year, its not the apples to apples, but I think it matters not these comparisons. Just think, well, I think of it like this --- that by 2050 RL will have swollen up and come over the top of other sports by a long margin. No one can feel or see it? Crosscoder mentions it nearly every day - plus dozens of others --- that the game is chomping at the bit to be bigger. Not on the map, bigger - but all over. There's a lot more growth from the sport to come. Thats why I said it will come right over the top of other sports by 2050. Of all the games here domestically, NRL has the largest potential. Its finely balanced, domestic, state and national. With nothing but rags the sport kept pace with AFL, even expanded into melbourne. I dont think people are making the comparisons properly, and of course the furby of "2020" is a bad one. Its more like 2050. I call it "The Rugby League Century". Get ready to stand in its shadow. Oh, that will rile some up. But pretty much the truth. Though of course, dont let this stand to mean that you can't enjoy your sports. I think the next century will also be a far more sporting-tolerant one.

"you pretend to know a hell of a lot about the NRL and expansion" ...and there lies your problem Crosscoder. I have never said I know a 'hell of a lot' about the NRL expansion. I don't need to and neither do you when it comes to this discussion. I even said this, remember? What I have clearly done though is proven you wrong with your own comments. If you want to have a discussion about the most cost affective way to do an expansion, whilst minimising risk, then I'm happy to have that discussion with you at a later stage. "Getting desperate comparing me to Fuss.When short on facts play the man Rick.Classy work." Truly frightening that Fuss uses that same line 'play the man' just like you have. The difference between Fuss, you and I is I don't get personal. I only ever use the information on this site when determining someones character. You have clearly decided to use the "Melbourne" media comment to stir up some kind of Sydney vs Melbourne debate. I'm not getting involved in this, and if you think it's just the 'Melbourne' media that spins thins, then I'd suggest you are pretty naive. I don't believe you are and I'm suggesting you are a pot stirrer who has a 'chip on their shoulder' as a result of that comment. You have lacked the ability here to make a coherent argument and have stayed away from the original topic. There is nothing left to gain from this.

They have hardly had crowds to dent anything.

Hello .Fpr someone who admits they have rarely come into an NRL thread,you pretend to know a hell of a lot about the NRL and expansion. Time you did a little research about the subject matter.You know SFA about the Perth expansion bid judging by your comments. Chip on my shoulder LOL.I don't venture into other codes' threads as I know little about the subject matter.Perhaps you could take that on board. Getting desperate comparing me to Fuss.When short on facts play the man Rick.Classy work.

You have excluded the notion of expansion into Perth and Brisbane in making your assessment. Let me just point out a few things that happened since the 90s/SL war.Not excuses just facts that had some bearing f where the code was/is. Clubs axed not relocated: North Sydney:Fans moved away from the game.Ditto Crushers a 2nd Brisbane side.Perth Reds who had to pay for accommodation and travel for visiting teams. Clubs merged:Tigers/Wests. Some fans left for good to other codes ditto St George/Illawarra. The ARL and close on $30m in the kitty prior to SL>that all went down the gurgle in trying to retain players. In effect until the 2012 $1bn Tv deal (which BTW GOGWS you stated the code would be lucky to get $800m),rugby league had little money to promote,to expand,to fund grassroots.I would be very careful about using the word trumpeting figures,the media and many in teh AFL got it wrong on the last NRL deal,and slithered away when it came out. Monday night football on a regular basis was introduced in the early 2000s,that has had a continuing detrimental affect on crowds.that will be abolished on the new deal 2018/22.In addition an extra weekend game will be provided.That will assist crowds,as will scheduling firmly under the NRL's control. I have stated all along <I cannot see the NRL matching the AFL in crowds,simply one is more for being there the other is built for the box so to speak. Where i believe the code can match ,is on TV ratings especially if a Perth and Brisbane 2 side is included.And of course the International front,where the NRL is giving it a high priority,and bear in mind a RLWC in 2017 ,more nations are now involved getting to that stage. Revenue wise is a difficult one,TV deals may well be close,merchandise rugby league usually beats the AFL,membership the AFL will continue to beat the NRLNRL revenue jumped dramatically in 2014,and I expect it will have continued this year. I do believe the NRL will have much improved infrastructure,that will assist crowds. The New Ltd papers unsurprisingly also tried to play down what the NRL would achieve on Tv deals in 2012.Conflict much LOL. The article in the Australian(News Ltd) by Stuart Honeysett citing Colin Smith re the potential negative impact,then indirectly acknowledged "The NRL believes they Fox Sports will have little choice not to ,as rugby league is crucial to their subscription numbers." Then Colin Smith stated" They have to have rugby league because Sydney is the BIGGEST pay-TV market in Australia by a long way." They hypothetically lose the NRL ,their profits via advertising income and subscriptions would drop to horrendous levels. The NRL worst case scenario has $925m locked away,Fox Sports has a fridge with drink but no food.

"The difference Rick which you fail to comprehend is 5x $20m =$100m x 2 over 5 years $200m outlaid by one code in addition to club grants. The NRL bid teams will not be getting $20m pa as a bonus pa,they may well be lucky to get $1-2m." There is a guy called Fuss who you remind me of on the football forum. He enjoys getting into an argument me with for some reason, only to then change the argument midstream when he knows he can't win the argument. I never started this argument, you did by jumping in and educating me on 'ínvestment' and how this isn't what the NRL will be doing with any future expansions. This isn't a debate about whether the NRL will be spending 'as' much, or 'how' they will be doing it. It's a simple discussion about the NRL investing in their future by spending funds on any future expansion clubs. "The NRL bid teams will not be getting $20m pa as a bonus pa,they may well be lucky to get $1-2m." Two things there: 1. You use the word lucky, so I find it amusing when you accuse me below of not knowing the process, yet have no idea yourself. 2. You admit the NRL will in some capacity be issuing grants to any new clubs. "They(the NRL) are not taking the capitalistic risk" You have just admitted they will be investing money into any new venture, and as such, a capitalistic risk associated with it (perhaps look the term up). You can continue spinning this argument as to how minimal that risk is, but for you to say there is 'no' risk is just 100 percent wrong and you know it. "That is not spinning ,spinning is what the Melbourne media are experts at." I can tell you have a chip on your shoulder. Keep irrelevant stuff out of an argument. End of discussion champ!

That's a great debate ,simple answer no.No facts,no assumptions.Put a lot of work into that Inbrief.

Where Inbrief?

Don't laugh MF I do fair swag of bushwalking and dodging lantana,red belied black snakes and clambering up rocky tracks ,ain't no laughing matter. Put me down as an extreme sportsman.