Reg season attendances have not. They were up in 2014.

Whats more important, because there’s a wide variety of issues from weather to form, to number of teams, to scheduling, is that total attendance has only increased for all NRL football.

Factored into the article are the nuances of the whole issue. Things go up, they go down, people go, they come back, they sit on the fence, they get involved.

Is this an attraction issue then for yourself? Not as in attracted to a girl – i mean the game. In attraction to something when you are attracted to it, the little bug-bears and stuff are overlooked, its like a love-affair day dream. As we become the opposite, repulsed, we get more analytical and start to get picky. Maybe if for want of a better term, if you were closer to being in love with the sport again you would overlook such trivialities like jumper color.

Not to say that its not a concern. But its not really on my personal radar. In fact I see they do this from time to time to support the various causes they have in line – its usually only one game. The broncos have had black for years. I remember one unpopular jersey that was changed asap. The blackish one is kinda cool to me though.

__

Phil gould I totally agree. In the past he’s grated on so many nerves. You don’t have to take everything the commentators say to heart though. I do wish he would not commentate because he’s too close to the game.

__

Also back onto the popularity – rl had the top 3 shows last year. I did break down popularity and show my own story that popularity comes and goes – this holds true when its AGAINST the sport (as in people stopping watching) and when it is FOR the sport (like top 3 programs). It just doesn’t stay there static forever. I mention that its just an umbrella term for all the little things going on underneath. Its separate yet people lump it all together and wonder why they are more confused. Popularity is not exactly visible. It happens inside people too. There’s tipping points I guess, but its not doom and gloom stuff.

I think people have been getting caught up in points in time, when we need to look at the whole picture.

Trust me, the game has never been more popular, and just when it reaches that there are those out there looking to cut it down and nit pick.

You never used to get 30k+ to big sydney clashes. There’s a whole bunch of things why – and you are also probably seeing more concentrated crowds, plus less people willing to goto suburban grounds.

If I had to paint a picture, of course the game is more popular – but some diehards would have dropped off – but the reach of the game is far wider now across society, so these are the fans who are only begining to be tapped. So while you have a higher concentration of crowds in some places (even in sydney) those same people may not be going to the lesser matches/timeslots.

In this sense, the better atmospheric/attended games are few so are not seen as much as the lower attended less atmospheric games, and may create a perception that its less popular.

__

Need I say, look at the figures in the story. Go through the rounds from 2005 onward on wiki or some such site. The trend is up, gamewide and for the better matches. Look at the increase in test match attendance over the seasons. The game is going up.

Not down. Fact. Not preference!!! (if there is one issue though it may be gathering them in the one place at the one time). But the core of the game, has gone up. Hope that makes sense; that more people are attending the sport than ever)

Many people have done the crowds thing, turbo, you are partly wrong.

2012 3,486,494 total

2013 3,345,248 total

2014 3,376,409 total

If you take the difference and divide it into the larger number you get about 3%.

Too small to separate. All 3 years are effectively the same.

Across almost 200 matches, those figures could mean anything from rain affected, poorer form, outside events, ect….and thats before you come across such things as apathy,lack of caring, ect. I dont think those things exist in the intense levels some people would like to think they do.

___

In terms of fox, I doubt many people dont get fox because of some personal beef with murdoch and SL. Its too far removed to matter. If you’re going to let some issue like that stop you from getting paytv – you dont personally know Rupert, he’s never personally done anything to you (argue all you like he never shouted you down, insulted you specifically, ect) so I think its a blind/ignorant/convenient excuse in many ways.

Anything over 300K for foxtel, because of its 30% penetration, is roughly equal to 1M+ on FTA.

___
___

Let me give you the big crowd rakers for the sport past 3 or 4 years.

1 Really, in the main the crowds are flat because of sydney suburb grounds. For every bigger game at ANZ (where you can’t get 27k to a suburban ground) thats a loss. Now – before you jump down my throat – 1 face up to the fact, 2 understand that even if you get 1000 extra people at ANZ thats still 1000 more. If every game did that, for a round you could be up 4-5k, across a season it could lift the average to 17-18k across the game. But its not enough.

Newcastle crowds have been down for a while owing to their form, and if we note in years gone past they were getting good crowds.

STG – I have not seen a larger crowd for them in a while. Where they play is of great importance to crowds.
Wests – same as above, unless you count their ANZ matches – they never recovered from the benjii marshall days.

Broncos – they no longer share their largest crowds in the comp with 15 teams – its spread more thinly across 16. Of course this is only talking averages.

Overall to be 3% different from a heigh is insignificant.

But if you want to improve averages at games, then sydney is the key. Thats something that CAN be done. And yes, its down to worse facilities. Anyone who does not think that, is not thinking properly.

Popularity is liquid, not conrete. You don’t just turn off the sport or anything. Even when you do you can turn back on.

had me too for a time. I want tatoos gone.

I think you’re onto something.

Maybe 3 measures. Some of these may overlap yours

1 Reduce interchange,

2 concurrent video-replay’s in ref’s bunker to aid more instant decision (I detest waiting after a try is scored to celebrate; needs to be more like soccer/afl – instant),

3 Perhaps add 2-5 minutes injury time but don’t stop clock; while also reducing useless stoppages and penalties for time wasting; maybe scrap scrums altogether, i dont see why forwards can’t just stand on one side of the feild – its similar and will still promote passing as they move across to rejoin the defensive line.

__

I also think that it doesn’t require much tinkering, but I am near certain that the game-issues would be solved with such measures. They did a bit to improve ball in play time but seems the players/coaches are having a laugh. With injury time, much of the wasted time is just added back on at each half. So wasting it serves them no real purpose.

Ive tried to make my solutions as simple as possible.

Yay! Now commit to the west and get rid of the s. Won’t look back

Someone said that brookvale only hosts 12 games a year.

There’s actually a whole host of other games played there. The week prior saw 5 games played there, and the week of the sand pit saw a game the previous night.

I hope they get the new stadium they want. As one stated, the money spent on it can be recouped, its not a pipe dream as such. For manly in their position and location, it will be a good idea I think.

The govt 600m investment in stadia is not the only money going into these stadiums completely.

TLDL

Too long, didn’t learn [a thing].

Don’t worry its not one of my best. But you go on and tell us all your ideas.

Be that as it may, there’s not too much wrong with the refs. Its the most overblown issue in the sport. I think thats the main reason why I felt my post was not one of my best: trying to fix something that really doesn’t need fixing. It just needs better simultaneous assistance from a video bunker; and given attrition is coming back into the game, maybe it will be easier to manage.

I think it will reduce the wrestle and combined with the rules, eliminate it.

In regards to crowds I think the crowds are just in different places these days. The spread of crowds could well be different. If we wait until after a massive april, it will come back. Larger stadia, more events, people are changing to that rather than brave the suburban grounds and lesser matches.

I think this is a transitional period and people are getting worked up over nothing.

Will be the best thing for the game. Fears of no difference regarding size don’t worry. The energy to power all that muscle mass won’t exist. Smaller men and more variety, more game for your money. The game will go through true stages in a match as well. Great day

You are so right, and yet in the mire of debate, its confused again. Making it more complicated than it really needs to be is a bad thing. I mean – YOU are right, no doubt. Its just that consensus is so hard to reach. It really needs to be taken out of the publics hands…and allow me to explain. We need to get to the pipe before the water comes out the sprigot.

We’ll go covert here, but I will also be upfront and honest.

I just want to state emphatically off the bat that I think the ref needs to make a call straight up. The tendency to throw-off high-pressure situations to a third party is too much, so it must be a mandatory call. But we need to stop people there because more often than not the ref makes the right call here. When he can’t make a call for a legitimate reason (not because he doesn’t want to deal with the pressure) he goes to the vid ref. Without this important step, we’d always go to the video ref.

There needs to be some perception alignment, and less analysis. There needs to be a captains call, that fits into this.

Let me explain — we want to refs to be human, not robots (video) because we have an affinity to that human aspect. We should have them making calls on what THEY CAN see, not what actually, minutely, analytically happens on a video, which is not seen.

In future, in cases where they would go to the video and the ref made a call maybe they should never release that video. Or restrict it on the broadcast. Because it just invites trouble. Thats because there needs to be the ideal held that you only officiate on what you can see. BUT it can’t often be the case.

They really need (the NRL) to analyze what people are looking at when decisions are made, what the refs can actually see, and what the video uncovers, then reach a place where each has its part to play in a call. They need to make rules around that – not rules around what the video sees.

The experience should be tailored specifically to attending. Tv ratings happen anyway, but attendance is a privilage for the game. They dont have to show up. So the experience should be one for the fans at the game. The fans at the game don’t have video in their faces (yet), so I’d start with the above. If you are at home, then broadcasting the constant replays on tv is bad news.

I dont mind what the SL does, and that is have a ref explain the decision. I dont know why at the ground the ref can’t be miced up to the speaker and explain the decision. At home on TV, a ref should be in the studio and explain the decision. I guess a bunker could do that. It needs to be a short, authoritative and sharp explanation.

– To get rid of confusion you need to shine a light onto darkness
-to get consistency you need to narrow/focus the light and maintain equilibrium (and thats what I’m doing here with all this: “the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced, in a wide variety of contexts”

____

Liking your articles btw. People may see I often write some complex stuff – but have you noticed my explanations, though verbose at times, are really, really, simple ideas in practice.

I went back to the story linked in your article about greenberg tweeting it, and added an explanation for one of my my things. Thats just an example of complex on page simple in-world.

___

So to my mind a bunker could well be the great leveler. Its a solution to the modern aspects refereeing has grown into.

As to the age-old ones, the guys still have to make a call, even if they completely mess it up – because as you rightly say, thats the whole point of being a ref – to make the calls. Its just all so convoluted now.

I honestly think that reducing interchange will have a large impact on all aspect of the sport. Ive been a big proponent of it for a couple years now. Maybe it is too fast for too long, ect for these poor refs.

Ultimately, and I dont like giving american sports as examples, but been there done that: NFL used to have to touch the ball down over the try line like us. Now they just run over it since the former was too tricky to police. There’s no direct relationship except the principle behind it – keep it simple. Some rules need to be black and white. And I worry – this whole knock on thing, and in years gone by the forward pass scrutiny – its all suffering from the grey areas now, public expectations that somehow video is perfect, and the continual scrutiny.

1 for me, I’d get the commentators on side and the NRL has done well in gaging the post match presser. But commentators next. They need to stop encouraging examination – not so its hidden, but so people dont go OCD on it all. Thats, er, kind of evil. The commentators are more to blame than anyone. Its gone past the point of mere comment to harping on it and encouraging derision.

2 Be more clear cut. If something can’t be adequately ruled on because its a grey area – make it a black and white area where possible. Not suggesting american solutions though. If we look at years ago it was only ever knock ons and forward passes (and rarely for both) that were dodgy sometimes, plus the sheppard (once replay shined a light on it). Now its everything. A weird and interesting phenomena

3 Do the bunker. It seems way more flexible.

4 Build confidence in the refs and confidence in their perception over time.

5 Keep it simple.

6 Stop players from harrassing refs. I thought I once said to do that to someone, and it was done, now the players are creeping back.

6a Call time off to sort these players out. And penalise them.
6b Get a yellow-red card system, and a professional spirit sysem (for wrestling and ref-manipulation and grubby-play)….this is long over due – the refs need to be empowered.
6c Really people need to quake at the refs. Not like now, they goad them and laugh.

7 Give the NRL power to reaffirm decisions should they reach a public-tipping point. It should be ok to come out and re-frame public belief, even if its against what they think. “The decision on Saturday was a tough one to make, but ref made a tough call because of excuse 1, 2, 3. They may be vague excuses but lets be honest, it was a dirty period of the game and no side was without blame.” Im talking propaganda 101. And that seems to be happening.

These guys need the publics help and sentiment. All Im doing is de-stressing various areas I’ve deconstructed and found to be in need, and buffering others that will support the refs calls. It may be the bunker system answers all that. I dont myself know.

Basically come at it from all angles. Authority is not lightly given by people to institutions like the refs. There is a certain amount of propaganda, empowerment, and use of force. Eventually people will come to accept that its just the thing that you trust in the refs, but ultimately they will be more trustworthy. To the point we won’t need to talk about them, and they’ll love that.

Hope you come back to this. I dont mind what you suggested at all, just that I think the complexity involved and the room for exploiting the system would be high. I go on to mention that centralization is not necessarily withholding/hoarding power/ideas. And that neutrality must be established and preserved; and in some instances extensions of that central power given to the clubs to act in agency (derived from central), in such things as Local player academies, regional player academies where clubs can go to have a limited input in such scenarios as you suggest; moreso to hone their own skills as developers, but mainly simply to develop junior talent for the sport, not specifically to recruit him to a club (and we must remember in a draft a player can put down his preference; so he may well have an affinity with some club, thats cool, but it can’t be manipulated/restraint of choice. It can’t go against the grain of large scale neutrality.

Be it soccer or Union, AFL even, the junior leagues take a back seat in most cases. I.E Brisbane roar don’t have a junior league all to their own they protect nastily from other clubs. Its just one big pool. In AFL the draft is the great leveler.

Anyway, its not all without merit. Im just banging thoughts out. Im not about taking away such things forever. My thought would be to take it away so it can one day be redistributed again in more correct quantities. But never again under the control of clubs.

For instance, there’s no reason why a club can’t have a player academy where it takes certain players from non-draft areas, or those who are not in the draft yet, or promising youngsters who are a part of the draft but would be developed by, say, Parramatta for a period of time. This is a way, one good tool, to forge those links.

Don’t get me wrong – having a meeting of different ideas and methods is a great way to drive innovation and keep things fresh. A centralised system need not however be a closed system.

_

What needs fixing in junior development is the fact that some clubs spend $1m a year or more only to have their players poached, while other clubs spend next to nothing.

But, so ok, a reasonable solution for this may be for the NRL to officially take over the running/governing of the junior system all at once or over time…..and have the clubs pay a set fee toward junior development. Maybe in this way the existing system can continue as is in practice but be funded differently; and from that funding input, travel in a direction that benefits the whole game rather than individual clubs.

In that system however where everyone pays a fee, you would have to create some distance between the clubs and the juniors. Even though a junior region is in penrith – it may still need some penrith NRL input from coaches/players, ect, but it would not be officially affiliated with the Penrith NRL club.

Over time, they would remove themselves further away, and instead of coming from the club, they would be of the club and have separate roles with the juniors.

This is just an example of what may be. Of course new laws/regulations would arise from around that in regards to professionalism, ect, and not abusing such access.

These are probably the new minimum standards, ect you refer to.

The irony is the clubs may never see the money – it would be factored into a grant increase. A draft would also need to be implemented in such a system to better distribute talent — but in terms of barriers to get that off the ground – if no club is directly developing talent like of old, then there is no reason to oppose a draft.

Before this gets too long, I’ll stop. I think we’ve made some headway of some of the things. Not sure I can adequately express it here….but its like having 10 fingers interlocked and you want to pull out several, some on the left hand some on the right. Tricky, but it can be done, I’d say.

There needs to be a willingness, but I see it like some clubs will be happy they get to keep junior support but pay less (the fee), and some clubs who don’t develop juniors will be happy because they get access to it now. So by and large, on a vote, it would pass. The minimum standards would help give assurances there.

Then tweak as it gets into practice and off the page over time. But the neutrality of it all must be established and preserved; can’t have the mish-mash that is now.

What the?

Why do you people always want to keep the hill?

Its LOL (not laughing at author but in general) Im glad you brought this up though, so know my LOL was very brief.

Did you by any chance see their design proposal? Looks pretty good. But no hill. Seems to be 25,000 large. Of interest, stadia like that, even though I tend to think Manly should be aiming for 30k eventually, are not too expensive to build as far as stadia go.

Technically they can

was over 900k im sure it was (after adjustment) who tuned in. sunday games up 10%. ch9 were popping corks.

curtis has the edge. about 30% better at picking the winners. Thats significant. Is it applicable for lotto too?

Does anyone get the jennifer lawrence ad underneath the article, that is so hot. Reminds me of that girl from the new wizard of oz movie, the good witch. Michelle williams – yeh give her long hair anyday.

….

But hey! I think it will be even better. We can’t have a streamlined competition with throw backs every 10 meters down the road. Our attachments with the non-continuing entities as they existed in the 80s are being severed (not that I had any to begin with much, apart from seeing a game or two on tv as a very young child).

So its only ever a good thing, and Pattrick speaks true I think.

You can still go watch them. Dont let it stop you. It’ll just be even more well run and better fit in to the whole national comp. Its all re-fitting to my mind.

dont let these things stop you from enjoying the sport if your expectations are never met.

Not that maybe someone of them should not be handled, or are. Just sayin

and also Riley should jump over the anz stadium article and comments section if he’s big on stadia. The states got some goodies coming your way seems

um, doctor dave, the sport has never been more popular. Its hardly leaking fans, but what it may be doing – though its less than it has been previously, except for the continual endurance modifier of it all which is negative nontheless – it may be instead having commited fans who are more thin in their resolve. However, what you said is not correct anyway.

The sport has its gravity returned and its drawing people in. But what we dont want for the sport is when they get here, they feel unwelcomed or turned off. Thats not cool. Thats the only thing that needs changing, the sport itself is solid.

Like many people you just want to sit down and enjoy the game but after years of the way the reporting often is, its taking a toll on your enjoyment. I compensate with my thinking to keep it clear to the tune of about 40% when I read articles. Not this one. But in general about rugby league.

The ARLC has been a refreshing change and ive noticed a turning of the tide in the past couple of years.

What you say about the refs is very indicative. The biggest con the media is trying to do right now is tell us the coaches not being able to criticize match officials at post match press conferences is against free speech. It makes me laugh that the media can’t see how pathetic some of these coaches are being. And how non balanced the media are when it comes to something threatening (they perceive) their jobs.

The media doesn’t stand up for free speech, and freedom from free speech – – they abuse it.

Its like the ARLC is trying to drag the game into modern times and yet we have a segment totally resistant to change.

It’ll probably take 5 more years to completely turn around the sport.

But one thing ive known for some time now. You can change up the reality and some will kick and scream and deny. They need to go through a phase where they choose to either deny and stay the same, they’ll reassess, and then they may choose to accept. Only then can they move onwards.

Acceptance is a hard thing for some people in rugby league. One paper I try not to read Daily, is big on that, trying to limit peoples acceptance and kick them in their sensibilities. It wants them like rats in a cage seemingly. The comments suggest on their site though that they’ve lost the battle. They will continue to grow in irrelevance until they change, and they have begun the process of changing.

The thing is – they’ve seen the writting on the wall – that you won’t be able to prevent the reality any longer. Two recent examples of incidents that would have sent them into a tizzy years ago but couldn’t possibly do so now are the cocaine scandal and the titans takeover. Handled well by the NRL.

____

I guess since you are in media you probably take a big interest in it. I take a casual interest in it, and sites like these serve mainly as information drivers. So you tend to find people on here who are very analytical – they are the info-desiring types, the tinkerers and the problem solvers.

But it may surprise you, and it used to myself on one level, that many people don’t care for a constant stream of news. They may only dip their toes into the rugby league news, be it on the news; or they may get no news at all.

A recent example is my friend who had no idea about the 700M investment in stadia. To me, this had been a cornerstone of the past 2 years of reading about rugby league, for what it represents.

So many people who make up the 4M+ people who watch origin, they dont involve themselves with the news. I’d say while they are less informed, they are probably more happy.

There’s only one news site I read with any mind as to being told whats needed to be told, and its read of a Morning, and if it doesn’t happen on there then it doesn’t really happen. The articles/issues come at a moderate pace – and its not quite so full-on sensory overload like other sections.

___

The game can be enjoyed adequately without knowing anything about whats going on in it.

___

The only final hurdle, and they will lag until they disappear, are all the negative nellies out there who feel the place to complain is on the coverage, ect. I dont count your article in that – yours is a legitimate concern. But when I watch the sport I don’t want it polluted by the negative nellies — and to be sure its gotten a whole lot better.

______

I think it comes down to that dynamic I mentioned earlier. There is often a delay while things sink in for our minds — so some guys in the media are literally living in the year 2007 in regards to league (I kid you not) though they do not know it. Its just that their brain can’t absorb things and move on; and they mind looks for things that back up the reality. So they will overblow things, or twist situations in their minds.

This is a real and present phenomenon – its kind of like a brain freeze — its actually quite helpful, because it allows us to get a snap shot of a situation for reference and make it easier to deal with rather than having to minutely assess it each time. The trouble is when emotions are soldered onto such neuron aspects.

So many people in the sport need to forgive, accept, move forward, smile more. An example: A 19, 20 year old kid is going to get up to some trouble. We need to transcend the bitter angry parent who is outraged model.

To some extent people are being unfair on rugby league. But it will change. The sport can be enjoyed, and is being enjoyed by the masses. The hard core support is being battered but even that is in the process of changing.

__

The best thing the ARLC has done overall is bring about stability. And in another 5 years all these issues will be less intense further.

The game can be enjoyed. In life I am one chill guy and nothing phases me, I certainly know how to enjoy the game. I do make a stand on rugby league because I hate disinformation.

I think the media department will be a very important tool for the ARLC in years to come. You can’t trust certain members of the media.

The sport is best served when information regarding it is not mixed in with opinion. And often, and there are many people around who do this: the sport is probably best enjoyed when you don’t listen to the media. In this aspect, Rabs and Gus can be very good for commentary, and also very bad when they become negative nellies.

___

So I reckon you do that. Media blackout yourself and see how you go! It’ll be one step beyond what I do right now (and probably my next step); as I mentioned right now (in a nutshell) I pass everything the media gives me through my “von neumann” filter.

I value my independent thinking, you would probably agree with that for yourself, and I like to be a free thinker – and dont like negative people controlling my rugby league intake. Its a game, isn’t it after all, Debbie!

Good stuff. Breeze that would be my pick. Given they can just wack down a flat pack with 30k seats for about 160m be interesting what they do with parra. Maybe a new mega stand and matching roof line instead. They could then kit out the facilities elsewhere in the stadium. To meet investor fan and sport needs all at once.

I’d like to find out the dimensions of anz. One would think that for viewing distance you shouldn’t be more than 80 to 90 meters max away from halfway. So given the rake is not ideal at anz, nor the end stands height, makes me wonder just how far it is away.

I guess viewing lines from multiple points need to be considered, nothing worse than having to look over someone’s head.

I think the sfs could be incredible. But maybe just build it anew. Imagine a large rectangular encircling stand on the second tier and a smaller one round the bottom, steep rake like the MCG. Once a rail goes to the stadium should make things a lot better.

I don’t think the pitch would suffer if you kept it open like that. A big gaping rectangle hole and air circulation would help with sun and wind.

I think teams moving into enemy territory is only a good thing to keep them strong and diversify the fan base. Id say parra has the most to gain from a new stadium/upgrade for business ect.

That’s cool don’t worry about it.

Yeh in Brisbane now but made a point of going to stadia when ive been to Sydney and Melbourne.

I really think if the sfs and anz were not there you’d do 3 stadia like mid tier English premier league ones. Eg white Hart Lane, Chelsea’s, or king power. Something like 3 robina’s. Then you have 3 x 30k+ venues, one of them 40+. The 600m would go a long way to getting that.

But since the sfs could use some transport and a refurb we might as well make the sfs a class above. And leave and as it is if they must or have spare money make permanent rectangle. Though I suppose they’d fund that themselves or a chip in.

My concern is what you’ve been on about. For example when sfs was built it was designed to fit the shape and look of the scg. I think we need to give rectangles their own place and presence, make a statement, in this current situation.

I’m pretty sure the state can achieve all this though it may not be the best outcome if it had of been from the ground up.

So to me the sfs is the best chance at renewal. I hope it gets rebuilt actually.

We almost need something that’s 4 separate stands and you can add new ones over time.

Such is why parra could do something like that. And I think Newcastle took the same approach.

I also think without knowing the coatings exactly that a good result will become of it, but I don’t want a meddling fight between anz and sfs.

Sfs side is my pick

Hm in my vision for the game I had already allowed for this eventuality.

Well written article! Myself, Ive been wanting a tally-system of infringements for some time now. It would go a long way to getting rid of the elements you brought up in your article.

Ive wanted that and the extension of that – you go off until the other team has scored. It needs to be a three pronged attack – you miss out on game time, your team needs to do extra work, and there needs to be points scored against you for your lack of fair play – not just 5 minutes in the bin. A player would stay off until 4 points have been accumulated against his team.

Coaches would coach what youre talking about out of players very quickly. Ive never been big on dirty tactics to begin with.

Such a system would function a little bit like the yellow/red card in soccer and english SL, just an enhanced version. I think that the prevalence of this kind of thing is buffered against not being disadvantaged on the day – and the whole fact that the judiciary system is being ripped off by players when (rightly though, its only fair) they get dispensations and you may not get suspended on the first visit.

So in effect the players are doing things on game day that they dont have to pay the price for until much later — but the thing is we can’t give back to the two points in case a team does win on the back of some of these dodgy moves.

So its almost a half way thing – and yes send offs would still exist. But I think the enhanced sin-bin i’ve outlined is useful, and I think ice hockey does something similar. Im not sure how effective it will be, but its can only help deter this kind of behavior that tries to cheat the rules. There is almost no consequence for bad play, but the rewards can be great. Thats got to change.

__

The alternative is the sin bin being used for once – but given how vast the circumstances of it happening it doesn’t seem to be getting used; meaning there is no immediacy to the punishment, which is just allowing thugs to prosper. If a player is taken out of play ive always thought the one responsible should have to sit off himself with no replacement.

We can’t build a proper game around the whole notion of “well lots of money is riding on this, we dont want to send people off, or sit them out”….

have some sanctity for the sport and its true spirit – we need to start doing this. And let the money go do what it wants around that instead. The game should be holy in other words.

Cheers Birdy. You dont need anger management im sure. Just trying to convey a message on here.

hey, well the games at anz this year have averaged some 29,000. The other venues in the city have averaged closer to 10.

Mate, I am all for an ‘even more’ suitable venue than ANZ, and in some respects I have even adjusted my views taking into account others, but its clear to me that the clubs and fans at ANZ would be more happy than not.

Just supposing the money were available for the past 10 years – it would have been ineffectively wasted on a multitude of suburban grounds.

In some ways abstaining from upgrading the many RL stadia apart from a fresh coat of paint here and there has been a good thing in many ways. But also a bad thing since its done nothing to increase crowd attendance and attendance culture – which at least ANZ does, and ANZ is pretty comfortable. By world standards, such a cavern is not so bad. Its just not ideal.

Would I still knock it down?? – yeah…….. i would in a different master plan……. but as it stands its doing a fine job of bringing more people to the footy.

We just have to hope that ANZ does not receive the 200M + its wanting. I think thats a media beat up – how can a privately owned venue get such govt assistance – the SCG Trust however has been around for a loooong time.

So if ANZ is already getting double the crowds, it can only get better surely. And more money will be available to other venues. I dont think a roof is going to do much for ANZ, and while the rectangular ends will be great they dont need to move, and maybe they are not needed at all.

So more money for other venues! (namely parramatta/sfs)

Dont you think they’ve already seen those stadia? They are not being cheated, its just how the cookie crumbles. The govt has taken notice though of this lacking infrastructure, probably as a whole part of the multi billion dollar effort to help out sydneys infrastructure in general over the next decade.

Stadia are expensive, and often break clubs in world football who build them. Probably 40% or so of soccer clubs in europe are in debt up to their eyeballs. Stadia being one reason and player-payment caps being relaxed back in the 70s.

In this sense, trust me, sydney taking its time on major stadia is a good thing. Yes, sure, the AFL got a free kick nation wide with stadia including in sydney but thats a separate question of balance.

Im not confusing the two. Its a shame they dont really use one facility in blacktown, left ANZ completely, and had a botique stadium built when they probably could have used the show grounds or something.

But hey….

Lets not confuse things. Im not upset sydney got left behind – the game still happens – rather, Im glad its getting some attention thrown its way in this area.

But being cheated, and demanding, they are too extreme words to use.

I do agree with the sentiment somewhat, but for years (and this is no blame, just the way they were swimming together) clubs were prepared to have their half-baked cakes – and then they tried to eat them too.

___

So I bet the govt is giving a lot of thought as to which is the best way to do it. The money only goes so far, and as has been said: stadia need updating every decade or two. Build one and its a continual cost. Maybe stadia will be like computers have become – the need to update them often has dwindled – but we don’t know that.

I would not be jealous. Or enter such feelings pertaining to that, anger, ect. It will probably only serve not as motivation to things you cannot change anyway, but to drain your energy instead.

Enjoy the sport. As I said in another thread — the game will (and needs to) get to the stage where the facilities, yes, they do not turn you off, sure, but also when you goto them you dont necessarily require the best seat [though all seats will be good], and if your supporting area is in the lesser seats, you won’t mind – because the focus is on supporting the team.

___

Thats what I said elsewhere – and the defining thing about that, and this article, which I am glad was written, is that ANZ, to some, maybe to many (I think so) is a limiting factor as to that.

Do you think the people who go to Signal Iduna Park and sit in the yellow wall care about streamers blocking their view, ect, all that much? No. So if ANZ is being a negative influence on such things, then we have to wonder and work out if we can live with the impact….or if its too much.

I think we can live with the impact, but its such a toss-up and subjective thing, that maybe not much of the govt money should be directed that way (acording to news paper reports, maybe the govt is not directing ANY money to them)….so it needs to be considered. And as to the story, in time I do want less games at ANZ if possible.

Its just not black and white. Life’s not like that. Especially at the Govt level.

The only thing I will add to all this, is stadia design such as oval, sloping look or any design, you have to hold up massive weight, such is why the arch is such a prominent feature of many stadia, or the triangle beams such as at Suncorp. If the sport can help it, it should stick with/change to the rectangular design. If you look at larger stadia like emimrates in the uk they all incorporate somewhat of a slope. Cost/weight and engeneering must be a major factor in design. There is an efficient way and an inefficient way to build stadia.

I think the next level down in stadia is what sydney will be shooting for, designs like white hart lane, stamford bridge, king power stadium. Rectangular. These tried and tested designs.

People need to look at web links like> Fast Forward to 2017: The 20 biggest stadiums in the Barclays Premier League

If you think you need ANZ upgraded and most people don’t think that if an alternative is found – well you just dont.

If you’re wondering why I am going big on design while people are still stuck on ‘dont do anz’, well, you need a final vision of what you want.

Pending the feasibility study on the SFS, you could find it a part of a network of 3 or 4 stadia across the city.

So in relation to the article – if ANZ seems like it should be used less and less over time as more suitable venues become available, then we can see the sense in that surely.

People don’t know what is possible. And I am going to explain why the NRL have chipped in and done a feasibility study on the SFS

Well I’ve spoken at length about ANZ and SFS and Parramatta. ANZ to be dodged unless they make it a true rectangle (because people would use it anyway for big games – its really not that bad as is), so more money could go to the other 2 – and maybe forgo the roof plans.

Ive said you could take robina on the gold coast and drop it into parramatta. Thats for $150M approx

Ive said you could gut the SFS and re-do it with steep rectangular stands or just rebuild it. maybe $250M

You could get stadia like King Power Stadium in the english Premier League. Leister City play there. Its new and it holds 32,000. Cost $71M – though I suspect to build it in australia, you can wack on a 20% premium.

If you build stadia that are one tier high, you can make them 32k, and keep the cost down. SFS as a double tier/refurb would be double the price. These stadia dont need all the bells and whistles and fancy architecture. You kind of get what you pay for, but does a RL stadium out at Parra need huge non-stadia facilities if you’ve only paid around or under 150M for it. You’ll be filling it nearly each week.

__

The point being: There’s nothing wrong with just giving the SFS (mainly, forget ANZ for the moment) a major spruce up so it looked totally different (new/refurbished) and had light rail – and building parramatta new and 1 more ground new.

Then you have 4 stadia.

I personally think ANZ won’t get too much money – I think ANZ just needs to forget their grand plans and build the ends I outlined further above. They have got to be kidding – forget the roof, forget the complex moving thing – make it a rectangle.

Sydney could effectively have a couple of stadiums like Leister City or even Robina – maybe something slightly bigger, though 32k is enough; and they would have the SFS and ANZ.

what more could you people want?