Yes, amazonfan, I do think there is a culture problem. And when I say demeaning, it seems to be demeaning to those outside of the culture of those young men playing football. Whether that involves acts against women, denigrating an area because it has people form a different ethnic background, whatever, it seems to be homogenous and exclusive. And this “closed society” leads to actions such as those you deplore.

I do think it is a broad problem. Just this year, at least 20 names have cropped in the media in relation to incidents.

[I am not going to paste a list in here, because I don’t want to make any defamatory imputations, even though I am only repeating what is in the public domain. Googling AFL player incident brings up a comprehensive list.]

How many more are there?

You make a good point when you say that many non-footballers also get into trouble. This is true, and they are roundly denigrated. Yet for some reason, if you denigrate an AFL identity, you are accused of hating the code, hating Australia because it is our indigenous code, or whatever.

Time to open up the closed shop.

Who’s bring other sports into it? I was only talking about the problems of AFL culture. Surely you aren’t going to start yet another, *yawn*, tiresome code war?

It may not be illegal for married men in their 40s to sleep with 16 year olds. It does reveal a very troubling culture in the AFL however. Is this a sport we really want our kids getting involved with if, not only their peers, but their managers, who might be expected to mentor impressionable young men, are carrying on like this.

The problems certainly seem to run deep.

What agenda’s that? I thought I made it apparent from above that “the sport (AFL) clearly has a culture problem”.

And it certainly does.

Still, I am glad that you and I are agreed that it needs to be cleaned up, even if we might differ on a few minor details.

Unless you think that my agenda is to support media diversity. Which, as should be evident from the above, it is!

In this specific incident, you are indeed correct. Very high profile coverage, and great to see AFL culture being outed.

More generally, however, were it not for independents (non-rights holders) like the ABC we would never have had the excellent coverage of AFL group sex culture on Four Corners.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1100551.htm

Independent media outlets, and sites like The Roar, thankfully mean that we can have a multiplicity of voices, no matter how concentrated the mainstream media is.

Absolutely. The conflicts of interest are simply way too enormous. This is where the AFL deal is treading on thin ice. The relationship between Foxtel (with an enormous investment in the AFL now) and News Limited (with something like 80% of the metropolitan dailies) means that the sort of fearless reporting that exposes the lowlives might not happen.

That said, I am confident that the AFL have clauses in their rights deal ensuring the editorial independence of the rights holders. Not doing so would only prolong the the AFL’s culture problem instead of trying to fix it.

Again, spot on there, Redb. High profile competitions like the AFL, NFL and EPL do attract the sort of person how has some of these problems, thus creating to the culture that we rightly want to see stamped out. Unfortunately, it is very hard do so without accurate reporting of the commonplace, unsavourary practices. Contra deals lead to a suppression of negative news. Like me, I am sure you don’t want to see corporate censorship of the deep problems within a sporting culture for mere PR purposes. These are people’s lives we are talking about here.

I couldn’t agree with you more, Redb. The AFL’s culture problem is sometimes replicated in other successful sports.It’s time that journalists stopped being cheerleaders and started to be journalists. With some accountability we might just be able to change this dirty, demeaning culture.

Sadly, “contra” deals perpetuate this cheerleading from the journalists.

I don’t know. This sport clearly has a culture problem, and might just think it is invincible with the new rivers of gold that are going to be flowing. I think it’s good that the media fully aerates this sport’s problems. Genuine openness and transparency is the only way to fix such insidious problems.

It’s a fantastic achievement. Never said it wasn’t.

Doesn’t change the fact that the article is an innumerate fantasy.

“Dividing $3 billion dollars by 14 gives us a deal of roughly $215 million per year for the equivalent population that Australia has.”

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Fanastic achievement, yes? Comparable to the EPL or NFL as the article claims? Not on your nelly.

It seems that pointing that out has turned me into an AFL hater.

So in your opinion: big four Euro soccer comps > AFL > NFL?

Interesting.

Who’s got hate? Simply put, the article is a fantasy.

Saying that this deal puts the AFL on the world stage is like saying that writing comments on The Roar has turned you into a Booker Prize winner. If you want to live in cloud cuckoo land, good for you.

Abyss refers to the deep ocean floor. Something bottomless. Not a harbour.

Maybe the bitter anti-anti-AFL crowd should dive into a dictionary.

🙂

Brisbane also had the Crushers during the Superleague war. And the Gold Cost had a team as well.

Spot on!

No change in the past fifty decades, huh?

500 years.

This statement is disingenuous. Both soccer and rugby league have been played for a long time. The A League is 5 years old, the NRL is 12 years old. Don’t confuse competitions with sports.

As for the Tweed Seagulls, they are still playing the Queensland Cup.

20 years ago Basketball was riding high, and the Bullets were selling out the entertainment centre at Boondall. Where are the Bullets now?

When extrapolating into the future, don’t just continue along the current trendlines. Things change, and even amongst today’s high fliers there is the occasional Icarus.

There is nowhere else of an appropriate standard on the Coast, however.

Why a mistake? And why do you call the Coast a graveyard? It isn’t the 1980s any more. Drive through Ormeau, Varsity Lakes, Coomera. There are a LOT of young families on the Coast. GCU could do well to start tapping into the potential fanbase instead of alienating it with bravado.

Want something positive? The Reds game was outstanding. The Lions-Chiefs game was an embarrassment.

Will that be 1.5 million inclusive of the games in New Zealand? Not that it makes much of a difference, but you were referring to football “in Oz”.

No thread for it yet, but just wanted to say “great night!” Go the Reds!

Apologies for not replying to this. I missed it. Will quickly jump in now. Preumably this is your list of errors.

*** [It seems to have had the capacity in any case, whether rigged up with temp stands or not, it still has an able capacity to hold as much.]

Stockland Park is not a stadium at all at the moment. Come up to Queensland and have a look if you want. Its capacity is 3,000. Temporary stands are just that: temporary. If a team was located there expecting to hold that many people the stands would not be suitable. It is capable of being expanded to hold more, and indeed if the development ever goes ahead will, but as it stands, it simply doesn’t. Go to the ground if you want, and it isn’t much more than a park, and see for yourself.

*** [Notice, you state it was the RFL as it is today]

Almost a fair point, but since I was noting that the term “rugby football” was in the name you will not there is no error at all. It was. You on the other hand erred when you claimed it wasn’t.

****—“rugby football” as a true meaning is regarded as rugby union, in relation to the old rugbean society….
….“As a true meaning”? You have just defined the term rugby football to suit yourself.”—

**** [Just used the Old Rugbean Society definition (you know the origins of the name]

Yes, but you didn’t claim that it was an organisation’s definition, you claimed that it was the “true meaning” that no one else could deviate from.

*** —You incorrectly claimed that there was no “direct linage”—
*** [Meaning it is not a direct lineal connection, as in the game played and this is linked to the admin]

Again, a definition to suit yourself. Note that Hull FC and other such clubs from the 1860s played the same sport in 1895 that they played in

*** [You claim that rugby football was a general word for both but now is only Rugby?]

No I didn’t.

*** [Direct lineage, and this would mean Rugby football IS what you call Rugby union]

Again, you are repeating your own definition, not actually dealing with the facts. Quite self-serving.

**** You’re skewing this as much as anyone. Rugby football is what you call Rugby union, you just (finally admitted that)

No I didn’t.

**** [you didn’t claim they both are rugby football, look at the comment before, and the one before that, never said that leagueys in the UK wouldn’t call it rugby. (what you would call a straw man)]

I said that the term rugby football is used to describe both. That was my point. It stands and it is right. I am glad that you agree.

[Never claimed the fact nor inferred it was a new sport.]

Never claimed that where you agreed with me you were wrong.

**** “you seem to only correct the errors made by Ruggers, I haven’t seen you respond to a leaguer who was wrong once.

What’s all this divisive rugger and leaguey talk? And if you can’t cope with being corrected, don’t err.

[didn’t answer the accusation, and didn’t get Stockland park capacity wrong, no didn’t make a mistake, you changed it into that, you said that it was the RFL from the start. I also stated why this makes you completely bias]

Biased because I correct you? For the record, I have been to one football game so far this year: Reds v Tahs. Does that make me biased?

[You are defending league, stop acting dumb and admit it at the least, as demonstrated above you have never addressed the fact that you only ever seem to try and pick on Ruggers.]

Quote once where I am defending league. Just once.

**** [Trying to personally attack me because I’m a teenager is idiotic, This is saying that people who are younger are less knowledgeable or mature than all those older than them. This is a stereotype which I do not appreciate or fit into whatsoever.

It isn’t an attack, it is pointing out the obvious. Why should people on the other side of the globe change the language that they have used for over a century merely because it doesn’t fit in with the world view of a teenager? It is an absurd proposition and one that is worth drawing attention to. I don’t say that you are stupid, or whatever you may have drawn from it, but I do note perhaps that your place in the world is not so significant that you might dictate what words people use or, for another example, critique somebody who has written multiple acclaimed books and expect to be taken seriously.

*** I could equally discredit you for being older.

You are welcome to do so. Indeed, you are more than welcome to criticise those who have been around longer and seen and experienced more. You might even, in your criticism, explain why less life experience makes you more qualified to answer.

*** I am open about my age and my background here, where is you are not,

That’s right, and I will continue to protect my privacy and anonymity online. It is prudent to do so.

*** I contribute to this community (more than just backlashes against people in the comments section) and I would regard my stature on this forum as greater than yours.

I haven’t started a backlash at any time. I have, however, corrected errors from yourself and others. The fact that these are taken personally and as an example of bias reflects on the perpetrator of the errors, not myself. As for your “my stature is bigger than your stature”, size comparisons are perhaps common in youth. Why live up to the stereotype?

*** 133 comments you’ve made. 7 have been defending rugby to leaguers, 65 have been arguing with Ruggers, although there were constructive comments there, which validates you, and you are a reds season member, you still tend to be swung towards the league side because that’s 49% talking against ruggers, certainly there aren’t that many wrong Ruggers without that number of wrong leagueys.

Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. It would’ve bored the pants of me to do so, so I will give you credit there. 🙂 I am not trying to be prolific here. I generally just comment when I see something wrong, because it irritates me. I know about about rugby (yes, I am talking about union here) in Queensland, and will comment when I see something wrong.

The trick is not to take it personally. I don’t really have any animosity towards yourself, so take the debate in the right spirit.

I don’t think we are going to get anywhere further going over this thread. How about calling it quits and re-starting on a fresh page with no grudge?

*** Two sources from Sean Fagan, with primary’s referring to Rugby league early on as northern union football in common language, im sure there are probably more

I didn’t claim otherwise. It was, notwithstanding this, still called the Northern Rugby Football Union, as I correctly stated. Furthermore, the term “rugby” remains in common language to this day to describe league, as demonstrated on the links that I gave to you. No errors from sep, mistakes aplenty and straw men from rugby future. Business as usual.

It is gratifying to note that Sean Fagan, who’s tireless work you have criticised here, is now someone you rely on.