The onus is not on me to read through all of the posts you’ve addressed to other people — it’s a long topic and I’m not going to read through it all — it’s on you to cite the source in the posts you’ve addressed to me. Whether you listed the source of the figures when you responded to some one else is irrelevant because I’m not obligated to read the discussions you’ve had with other rpeople

Your initial responses to me included a few figures for French and Irish clubs. You failed to cite the source for most of the figures you listed. Failing to cite your source(s) is sloppy and unprofessional.

Check out the Wikipedia page for the 2009 Currie Cup season. It cites the South African Rugby Union’s official match reports for the Currie Cup. The match reports from the SARU’s website include attendance records. There’s nothing on here to suggest that any of the clubs’ attendances are as strong as the Brisbane Broncos’. Nor does it appear as if the league’s average attendances are anywhere as strong as the NRL’s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Currie_Cup_Premier_Division

correlation implies causation*

“Putting up a site that is 6 years out of date isn’t a mistake realist, its just careless. Did you not even notice?”

The reason I cited that site is because it compares all football leagues. I don’t know of any other site that does anything of the sort.

“This totally undermines everything you say and devalues your opinions. Make a bigger effort in the future.”

If that’s the case then everyone on TheRoar.com.au better not trust anything that comes out of your mouth. Afterall, you gave out a heap of figures without citing your source and, went as far as to pass off your uncited figures as “facts”. Very sloppy and unprofessional.

“If people disagree with you, that doesn’t make them my co-conspirators. It just makes them rational.”

What makes you think they’re right and I’m wrong? They haven’t provided any evidence to validate their position. This is an example of your insular mind thinking that you and your opinions are “right”, and that anyone else is “wrong”. There’s nothing rational about assuming that a heap of equal-but-unsubstantiated opinions on a subject — which explains the union fans’ position on this debate — makes those people rational. Thinking that popular opinion equates to being rational is as silly as saying that correlation implies correlation.

Statistics for the Currie Cup are difficult to find. I’ve searched Google for statistics on the “Currie Cup”, yet all I’m able to find is information about Super Rugby figures. I went as far as to search the official site of a Currie Cup team, but found nothing more than an article about Super Rugby crowds.

The closest I’ve come to obtaining information about the Currie Cup’s attendance figures is by searching Google for the phrase “average attendance for the currie cup”. It brought me to the following link:

“I know its probably not the right thread, but could someone please tell me the average attendance for the Currie cup?

Its pretty hard to find accurate statistics.

Cheers.”

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?s=2714bb2bd28a8752510abd3c6e8705d2&p=35865256&postcount=947

A person from Durban responded to the aforementioned request:

“Currie cup is pretty poor in terms of attendances, I’d thumb suck an avg of 11 000 if we lucky

with Loftus, Newlands and Kings Park making that avg so high”

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?s=2714bb2bd28a8752510abd3c6e8705d2&p=35910004&postcount=955

Both posts were written in 2009. If the figure in the latter post is true, then the Currie Cup is well behind the NRL.

If the site I cited is wrong then so be it, but at least I cited the source of my information.

So tell me, when will you and your mates cite the source of your figures?

No one on here has provided any substantiated information about the crowd figures for the Currie Cup, Air New Zealand Cup, Guinness Premiership and Top 14. Until you do so it is fair for me to conclude that the figures you’re posting are speculative.

I’d like to thank SA for citing the crowd figures for Western Province. They prove that the Brisbane Broncos are larger than Western Province.

“ZZZZzzzzz
It means stade are in the ascensancy (getting bigger) whilst Bronco’s will lose further ground to the Titans and the Cowboys.”

No it doesn’t. There’s no guarantee that either statement will come to fruition. For all we know, this year could be an anomally for the Parisian club.

The Broncos have drawn an average crowd of 30,000+ over the last few years. The Parisian club has drawn an average crowd of this size just once in 15 years. Until the Parisian club draws an average of 30,000+ to its matches year-in-year-out, it is impossible to conclude that they’re capable of drawing an average crowd of this size. It is logical to conclude that the Broncos are capable of drawing an average crowd of 30,000+ to their matches because they’ve proven they can do so. No one can conclude that the Parsian club is capable of doing this year-in-year-out because there’s no evidence to support it.

Anyway, we now know why your arguments are so erroneous!

“Look, outside of Queensland, the Broncos aren’t a big deal, outside Australia, they are virtually unknown.

Are you still sticking to your guns re: The Global Brand claim? Manchester United, Dallas Cowboys, Real Madrid,New York Yankees, Brisbane Broncos………;)”

The Broncos may not be as well known as those other clubs, but they’re far larger and spoken about more often than any rugby union club.

“Why would you sell sevens as a stand-alone match? You’re not making any sense. The NRL isn’t sold as a stand-alone match. No sports league is.”

I never said the NRL is “sold as a stand-alone match”.

The point I was trying to get across to you is that the NRL’s matches are a marketable product for television because they have the ingredients that are needed to draw high television ratings. Rugby Sevens doesn’t.

The other point I was making about Rugby Sevens is its marketability is limited to its matches behing played back-to-back over a one or two day period. Few people would pay to see a stand-alone Sevens match because it only lasts 15 minutes, but they will pay to see a series of matches that are played over the span of a day or two. Rugby Sevens’ reliance on bundling its matches together for a 2-day tournament that is held at the one venue limits the amount of revenue it can collect: all monies collected from ticket sales have to be divided between the various teams that participate in the tournament. An NRL team does not need to share its revenue from the ticket sales of its home matches with the other 15 NRL clubs, thus meaning they profit nicely from each match that they hold at home. It’s why the NRL clubs want the season to be as long as possible.

Can you now see why Rugby Sevens will not be the saviour that the sport needs to stay competitive in Australia and, will never displace the NRL and ESL?

No it doesn’t. His comment, which is quoted below, confirms everything I said:

“the Parisian club will finish the season with an average gate of more than 30,000 per game over the season, for the first time in the history of professional rugby.”

The Broncos routinely average 30,000 per game. This is the first time that the aforementioned Parisian club has averaged 30,000 to its matches since 1995. This proves the club’s pull isn’t as strong as the Broncos’.

“You then provide some half baked website that has not been updated in 6 years as ‘proof’. I had a good little chuckle trawling through this ramshackle site. Nice. Who checks your homework?”

At least I provided my source, which is somethng that you and most of your union mates have failed to do!

All I ever hear from you guys is how South Africa and France draw huge crowds to their school matches and club matches, yet I never see any evidence to back it up. You failed to cite the source of your statistics.

I support the Cowboys too.

“Rod, their home stadium has a capacity of 12k. Hence the figures”

Then how come the bulk of those games weren’t sold out?

The stadium can hold 12,000 people, yet it was only able to sell two-thirds of the tickets. Sounds like the team isn’t very popular at all. Hardly in the same league as the Brisbane Broncos and North Queensland Cowboys, is it?

I’ll repeat, Why would this be the case if the team is as popular as you’re saying?

Could it be that the team isn’t as popular as you’re trying to delude us into thinking?

“no im not a muppet, i just understand reasonable opinion”

No you don’t. If you did then your comments about the next NRL TV deal wouldn’t oppose David Leckie’s stance on the issue. He said that the deal will be worth around $1 billion dollars and, that the money spent on the AFL and NRL will leave the networks with next to nothing to spend on rugby union.

“Why would you sell sevens as a stand-alone match? You’re not making any sense. The NRL isn’t sold as a stand-alone match. No sports league is.”

Are you intentionally misreading everything I say? If so then I suggest you stop doing it — people might mistake you for an idiot.

I never said the NRL is “sold as a stand-alone match”. The point I was trying to get across to you is that the NRL’s matches are a marketable product for television because they have the ingredients that are needed to draw high television ratings. Rugby Sevens doesn’t.

The other point I was making about Rugby Sevens is its marketability is limited to its matches behind played back-to-back over a one or two day period. Few people would pay to see a stand-alone Sevens match because it only lasts 15 minutes, but they will pay to see a series of matches that are played over the span of a day or two. Rugby Sevens’ reliance on bundling its matches together for a 2-day tournament limits the amount of revenue it can collect : all monies collected from ticket sales have to be divided between the various teams that participate in the tournament. An NRL team does not need to share its revenue from the ticket sales of its home matches with the other 15 NRL clubs, thus meaning they profit nicely from each match that they hold at home. It’s why the NRL clubs want the season to be as long as possible.

Can you now see why Rugby Sevens will not be the saviour that the sport needs to stay competitive in Australia and, will never displace the NRL and ESL?

The delusional rugby union fans who are hoping for Rugby Sevens to kill off the NRL and ESL will never see their bizarre dream come to fruition.

King of the Gorganites,

Take your pills!

Crap! An article from the BBC said 26,000 tickets were sold for it and, that 40,000 were expected.

“A crowd of 16,000 watched the local team play a British students side last year.

Russia are keen to take on the world’s best

And on Friday the US will play a full Russian team in Moscow with a crowd of 40,000 expected – 26,000 tickets have already been sold.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/2252450.stm

Big Al,

Are you saying that the Papua New Guineans don’t play rugby league?

Neither is denial.

“The bulk of the Australian public finds rugby union and league boring.”

Rubbish! Rugby league routinely draws high television ratings for Channel Nine and Fox Sports. The same cannot be said about your sport.

“If a merge is to occur it won’t just happen in Australia but all over the world so they would have to play rugby union rules as more people on this planet finds rugby union more exciting than league.”

More crap. The NRL would not be affected by a merger between the RLIF and IRB. The NRL is separate to the RLIF and, would never align itself with an organisation that forces it to become a rugby union competition. The NRL’s marketability and viability as a business model is dependent upon the fact it is a rugby league competition that appeals to rugby league supporters. If it were to play under rugby union rules then the vast majority of its loyal supporters would turn their backs on it. There are more rugby league supporters in Australia.

What makes you think a merger between the RLIF and IRB would lead to the aligning with the newly formed organisation?

“SANZAR and NRL changed their rules all the time Realists and rugby union in Australia is alive and well which is more you can say about rugby league in New Zealand. ”

You don’t get it, do you? The point I was making is that rugby union is doing the one thing it stubbornly avoided for over a century. Rugby union has tried to remain the same old sport that it was during the early 20th century because it viewed change as an admittance that rugby union is an inferior product. The only reason rugby union bit the bullet and introduced the ELVs is because its ability to survive in the professional era is dependent upon its ability to appeal the masses. It could get away with being a boring, skill-less sport during amateurism because it only needed a small amount of reserves to fund its clubs and competition. That is no longer the case because it has to find extra revenue to pay its players, coaching staff, medical staff, etc.

Bringing up the NRL’s tendency to amend its on-field rules and off-field policies is futile because rugby league has never been opposed to change and transition. Rugby league has always been progressive because it’s never been anything but a professional sport. Professional sports and professional sporting leagues need to be progressive and open to change because their existence is dependent upon revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, and; revenue from advertising and broadcast rights. Rugby union has struggled in Australia since it went professional because its doesn’t have a viable domestic competition to use as a revenue generator and, is not an attractive investment option for companies because it doesn’t rate very well on TV and isn’t televised enough.

Rugby league in New Zealand is struggling at the grass roots level, though it is starting to improve. The NZRL recorded a profit in 2009 and, new competitions are being set up across New Zealand. The ARL LOST money in 2009.

“Rugby has its problems but if you ask any rugby union fan back in 1990 that there will be five fully professional teams base in Australia in the future shown on pay TV in you would be laughed at .”

You do realise that rugby union didn’t become professional until the mid-1990’s, right? Pay TV wasn’t introduced to Australians until the mid-1990’s.

“Goodluck to your dreams Realists because rugby union is now played in more rugby league schools than league in private schools.”

Rugby league is still played in more schools across Queensland and NSW and, doesn’t rely upon its inter-school competitions for survival!

“thats like me stating that the roosters, penrith, wests and the warriors should be kicked out of the NRL because obviously they cant be heartlands with teams not getting in the top eight in the last 5-6 seasons”

What you said is completely irrelevant. It’s stupid, too.

I reckon the Manly Sea Eagles ought to relocate to Sunshine Coast. The soon-to-be developed multi-purpose ground at Kawana Waters will probably end up being better than Brookvale Oval.

“Ohhhh and austrlaia and New Zealand were knocked out by england and France respectivley”

The British commentator who called the quarter-final between Australia and England referred to England’s victory as the greatest upset in the history of the tournament. England lost 36-0 to South Africa during the pool stage of the tournament. Face facts buddy, the northern hemisphere teams are unreliable. They can grind out a victory over the southern hemisphere teams every now and then, but they lose to them — sometimes by a fair few — more often than not.

New Zealand choked. Again!

“Realist you not very relistic are you.
unknown in South America, played in Argentina, Brazil, Paragauy been to rugby world cup, Chile, Uraguay
Asia, Japan, South Korea, Kazakstan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Asian 5 nations
in fact if you watch the 7’s circuit there are many more teams so your statement is slightly inaccurate” — J

I never said rugby union wasn’t known in South America and Asia! What I said is it’s relatively unknown in most areas of South America and Asia. The fact you could only list a few countries from both continents — most of which don’t take the game very seriously — proves my point!

The sport is relatively unknown throughout most regions of China. There are only 4,200 players and just 10 clubs in China. There are over a 1.2 billion people living in China. Do the maths.

You cited Uruguay, yet you failed to mention that it has less than 6,000 players. I know it’s a small nation, but it would have more players than that if it was taken seriously by most Uruguayans.

I’ve seen Chilean rugby union on Joost. I only saw about a dozen or so spectators at the games, though the coverage of the game was fairly good. The game’s participation rate in Chile appears to be strong enough to suggest it has a future.

Don’t even mention rugby union in Brazil. The sport has been there since the 19th century, yet it only has 3,500 players and 10 clubs. When you consider that Brazil has a huge population, it is evident that the nation doesn’t rate rugby union at all.

Why am I citing these figures? To show you that rugby union isn’t the global giant that its fans make it out to be. It does have a base to work with in many regions of the world, but it is still relatively unknown in most of them.

“i think its a bad thing because they have basically adbandoned RL in the south of wales, which is bigger economically, and population wise.” Gorganites

South Wales Scorpions.

“thats a very narrow view. what about the 2007 semi finalist Argentina? Or 2009 Six nations champs Ireland (who drew with Australia and beat the Saffas last year). Or the 2008 six nations champs Wales?” — Gorganites

Wales and Ireland have never come close to winning the World Cup. In fact, I don’t think either nation has made it past the quarter-finals.

Argentina were thrashed by South Africa in the semi-final and, didn’t didn’t play New Zealand or Australia during the early stages? The only teams they played were the unreliable, beatable teams from the northern hemisphere.

“Dont forget rugby is played around the world. RL is not.” Gorganites

Rugby union is relatively unknown in most regions of Asia and South America. Very few European nations rate it as one of their most popular sports. It isn’t very popular in North America.

For the record, almsot half as many countries play rugby league.

Nope.