Talking Footy

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

3 if the NRLs games had crowds of above 20k. Souths vs manly got 20k in a sellout, broncos and eels got a dissapointing crowd of 24k, and knights vs storm got 27k

Phelpsy wrote:

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

One thing that even AF fans should admire about is that most if Sydney's RL games are played at surburban crowds and only 3 teams operate (Souths, bulldogs, roosters) within the 2 big stadiums instead in Melbourne with the AFL they have all their games at their 2 big stadiums and it doesn't matter at all where the team is based. So it's a bit hard to get 40k at a suburban ground but I see where you getting at with the teams with the big stadiums

Yep some miss the suburban grounds in AFL but its a professional sport. Seeing some of the grounds in the nrl reminds me of armature hour. If I wanted that I would have watched the Vfl on the abc ... Which was okay but armature hour also.

Storm crowd was pretty good though ... Is that their highest ? I fully support them giving away tickets by the way as they did earlier, as it gives a taste to those who wouldn't otherwise go... This may be why the bigger crowd this week

Jackyboy wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

One thing that even AF fans should admire about is that most if Sydney's RL games are played at surburban crowds and only 3 teams operate (Souths, bulldogs, roosters) within the 2 big stadiums instead in Melbourne with the AFL they have all their games at their 2 big stadiums and it doesn't matter at all where the team is based. So it's a bit hard to get 40k at a suburban ground but I see where you getting at with the teams with the big stadiums

Jack - the AFL went thru ground rationalisation over 10 years ago when they built Edihad stadium - in the long term it has proven to be the right choice - the AFL is now talking about a 3rd stadium (20-40k) so that there is more competition for clubs to reduce match day payments - what I don't understand is why the NRL persist in NOT embarking upon ground rationalisation? Since then memberships have grown enormously because a club no longer is tied to one suburb - in Syd it seems they can't break free of their suburb so they can't get a bigger national profile-your thoughts?

Phelpsy wrote:

Storm crowd was pretty good though ... Is that their highest ? I fully support them giving away tickets by the way as they did earlier, as it gives a taste to those who wouldn't otherwise go... This may be why the bigger crowd this week

If you're talking about the Souths v storm game in Melbourne, that attracted 22k. But it was still way off the storm vs warriors which had 26k

Swans4ever wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

One thing that even AF fans should admire about is that most if Sydney's RL games are played at surburban crowds and only 3 teams operate (Souths, bulldogs, roosters) within the 2 big stadiums instead in Melbourne with the AFL they have all their games at their 2 big stadiums and it doesn't matter at all where the team is based. So it's a bit hard to get 40k at a suburban ground but I see where you getting at with the teams with the big stadiums

Jack - the AFL went thru ground rationalisation over 10 years ago when they built Edihad stadium - in the long term it has proven to be the right choice - the AFL is now talking about a 3rd stadium (20-40k) so that there is more competition for clubs to reduce match day payments - what I don't understand is why the NRL persist in NOT embarking upon ground rationalisation? Since then memberships have grown enormously because a club no longer is tied to one suburb - in Syd it seems they can't break free of their suburb so they can't get a bigger national profile-your thoughts?

The NRL has a more local feel in my opinion. If I lived in Sydney and I lived in for example balmain, I'd support the tigers because it would be even more fun to see how your suburb goes in a international league.

I think that is what the nrl are struggling with ... Does it want to grow or be a suburban game? I think it obviously wants to grow and be as big as the AFL and have a national footprint however there is a pressure to keep everyone happy, particularly those who like the suburban armature feel. I don't think you can have both as is evident by the nrl's struggles at present. What the nrl does need is leadership to move it forward ... And forward is not playing in suburban grounds and people sitting on hills.

Jackyboy wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

One thing that even AF fans should admire about is that most if Sydney's RL games are played at surburban crowds and only 3 teams operate (Souths, bulldogs, roosters) within the 2 big stadiums instead in Melbourne with the AFL they have all their games at their 2 big stadiums and it doesn't matter at all where the team is based. So it's a bit hard to get 40k at a suburban ground but I see where you getting at with the teams with the big stadiums

Jack - the AFL went thru ground rationalisation over 10 years ago when they built Edihad stadium - in the long term it has proven to be the right choice - the AFL is now talking about a 3rd stadium (20-40k) so that there is more competition for clubs to reduce match day payments - what I don't understand is why the NRL persist in NOT embarking upon ground rationalisation? Since then memberships have grown enormously because a club no longer is tied to one suburb - in Syd it seems they can't break free of their suburb so they can't get a bigger national profile-your thoughts?

The NRL has a more local feel in my opinion. If I lived in Sydney and I lived in for example balmain, I'd support the tigers because it would be even more fun to see how your suburb goes in a international league.

I can see what you mean - I get suburban feel when I go to Vermont senior games in the EFL, I don't feel the need to go every game and it is just when I feel like it - however the AFL has a more professional feel with good facilities and I go as often as I can because of the experience. NRL games don't have that same professional feel to it - but I guess Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I can see why people prefer the old suburban ground feel.

Jackboy wrote:

The NRL has a more local feel in my opinion. If I lived in Sydney and I lived in for example balmain, I'd support the tigers because it would be even more fun to see how your suburb goes in a international league.

International league? National league?
What you are saying is fine if you want basically a NSWRL. There's an attraction in the local tribal identities and quaint old grounds.
That goes against a truly national (or international) competition where you're trying to appeal to the biggest area possible.
AFL teams purposely try to do that - WCE not Perth, WB not Footscray, Swans not SM, Roos not NM etc.

Balmain is a very good example of being swallowed up by WT. WTF wasn't it "Western Tigers"?
Supporting Balmain in the NSWRL or NSWFL would be a very good option but you have to make a choice.
The choice is lots of small Sydney suburban teams or a few bigger teams playing out of bigger stadia.
I support an attend an AFL team but I do get much pleasure out of the WAFL or any local football.

cos789 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

The NRL has a more local feel in my opinion. If I lived in Sydney and I lived in for example balmain, I'd support the tigers because it would be even more fun to see how your suburb goes in a international league.

International league? National league?
What you are saying is fine if you want basically a NSWRL. There's an attraction in the local tribal identities and quaint old grounds.
That goes against a truly national (or international) competition where you're trying to appeal to the biggest area possible.
AFL teams purposely try to do that - WCE not Perth, WB not Footscray, Swans not SM, Roos not NM etc.

Balmain is a very good example of being swallowed up by WT. WTF wasn't it "Western Tigers"?
Supporting Balmain in the NSWRL or NSWFL would be a very good option but you have to make a choice.
The choice is lots of small Sydney suburban teams or a few bigger teams playing out of bigger stadia.
I support an attend an AFL team but I do get much pleasure out of the WAFL or any local football.

Hey Cos I didn't write that Jackyboy did

Swans4ever wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Jackboy wrote:

The NRL has a more local feel in my opinion. If I lived in Sydney and I lived in for example balmain, I'd support the tigers because it would be even more fun to see how your suburb goes in a international league.

International league? National league?
What you are saying is fine if you want basically a NSWRL. There's an attraction in the local tribal identities and quaint old grounds.
That goes against a truly national (or international) competition where you're trying to appeal to the biggest area possible.
AFL teams purposely try to do that - WCE not Perth, WB not Footscray, Swans not SM, Roos not NM etc.

Balmain is a very good example of being swallowed up by WT. WTF wasn't it "Western Tigers"?
Supporting Balmain in the NSWRL or NSWFL would be a very good option but you have to make a choice.
The choice is lots of small Sydney suburban teams or a few bigger teams playing out of bigger stadia.
I support an attend an AFL team but I do get much pleasure out of the WAFL or any local football.

Hey Cos I didn't write that Jackyboy did

Sorry

cos789 wrote:

Jackboy wrote:

The NRL has a more local feel in my opinion. If I lived in Sydney and I lived in for example balmain, I'd support the tigers because it would be even more fun to see how your suburb goes in a international league.

International league? National league?
What you are saying is fine if you want basically a NSWRL. There's an attraction in the local tribal identities and quaint old grounds.
That goes against a truly national (or international) competition where you're trying to appeal to the biggest area possible.
AFL teams purposely try to do that - WCE not Perth, WB not Footscray, Swans not SM, Roos not NM etc.

Balmain is a very good example of being swallowed up by WT. WTF wasn't it "Western Tigers"?
Supporting Balmain in the NSWRL or NSWFL would be a very good option but you have to make a choice.
The choice is lots of small Sydney suburban teams or a few bigger teams playing out of bigger stadia.
I support an attend an AFL team but I do get much pleasure out of the WAFL or any local football.

It's not called western tigers. It's called wests ( being wests magpies) tigers (being balmain tigers).

Jackyboy wrote:

It's not called western tigers.

FFS I said why isn't it called western tigers because WT s sounds like a chronic stutterer