The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:25 pm
So which code do you think has done better in crossing the "Barassi Line"?
Page 1 of 3
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:28 pm
Without doubt AFL, bold initiatives with a vision firmly in the future, 4 teams in non traditional states - NRL still talking about expanding in traditional areas, backward thinking and keeps dreaming of the past when they were the big player in Sydney. After 100 yrs only 1 team in a non traditional state! Very poor!
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:37 pm
Wow putting 4 AFL teams across a line with 3 that are totally reliant on AFL funding for survival.
Yet still no AFL teams in France, New Zealand or the United Kingdom.
Still no AFL test teams either while Rugby League has Fiji, Samoa, PNG all with rising National sides.
.
Yet still no AFL teams in France, New Zealand or the United Kingdom.
Still no AFL test teams either while Rugby League has Fiji, Samoa, PNG all with rising National sides.
.Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:45 pm
RL originated in one of the worlds most influential emprires. Of course its played in many countries. Australia has little international influence hence AFL hasnt expanded internationallyNRL&NFLweLaughATafl wrote:Wow putting 4 AFL teams across a line with 3 that are totally reliant on AFL funding for survival.
Yet still no AFL teams in France, New Zealand or the United Kingdom.
Still no AFL test teams either while Rugby League has Fiji, Samoa, PNG all with rising National sides.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:00 am
Do you actually understand what the thread is about??????NRL&NFLweLaughATafl wrote:Wow putting 4 AFL teams across a line with 3 that are totally reliant on AFL funding for survival.
Yet still no AFL teams in France, New Zealand or the United Kingdom.
Still no AFL test teams either while Rugby League has Fiji, Samoa, PNG all with rising National sides.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:02 am
True - I don't think it will be anything other than a niche sport in other countries - but in Aust with participation rates rising in NSW and QLD it should remain the no.1 code for the foreseeable future.Xman wrote:RL originated in one of the worlds most influential emprires. Of course its played in many countries. Australia has little international influence hence AFL hasnt expanded internationallyNRL&NFLweLaughATafl wrote:Wow putting 4 AFL teams across a line with 3 that are totally reliant on AFL funding for survival.
Yet still no AFL teams in France, New Zealand or the United Kingdom.
Still no AFL test teams either while Rugby League has Fiji, Samoa, PNG all with rising National sides.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:28 am
Lol the bargarsi line .
Seeing as we've overtaken AFL in participation numbers I think the line is an irrelevant piece of crap .
Seeing as we've overtaken AFL in participation numbers I think the line is an irrelevant piece of crap .
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:55 pm
RL presence in non traditional states is really laughable - only 3371 registered players in Vic including juniors and seniors. Considering that the population of Victoria is 5866000 it's laughable after 100 yrs in Australia. Yet they keep going with the same line that RL is number 1 in Australia.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:05 pm
So for years AFL house pumped up their figures by including every kid who had tried Auskick .The_Wookie wrote:But you havent really taken over the particpation numbers have you. The entire increase is due to the Touch affiliation. Not due to Rugby league - the ARLC doesnt count Touch football Australia **** its subsidaries by the way, so claiming its participants as their own is a little laughable.AFLcrap1 wrote:Lol the bargarsi line .
Seeing as we've overtaken AFL in participation numbers I think the line is an irrelevant piece of crap .
Also lol @ Rugby league talking about experiences again.
Total club players for the NRL - 179,506 (and not even 10.5k outside NSW/QLD)
Total club players for the AFL - 336,108
Total clubs for the NRl - 1,077 in NSW, QLD, no specified number for the rest. Perhaps league should be concerned that they lost 50 clubs in 2015 in Qld alone, and another 40 odd in country NSW.
Total clubs for the AFL - 2,763
Yet when RL start using the same dodgy numbers .....RL experience ...it's wrong .
Lol
& touch is our non contact form of RL .
Plenty play it .
But because it increases our numbers we get the .
But but but but but but .
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:11 pm
Auskick is played by kids under 12. Touch is any age is it not?AFLcrap1 wrote:So for years AFL house pumped up their figures by including every kid who had tried Auskick .The_Wookie wrote:But you havent really taken over the particpation numbers have you. The entire increase is due to the Touch affiliation. Not due to Rugby league - the ARLC doesnt count Touch football Australia **** its subsidaries by the way, so claiming its participants as their own is a little laughable.AFLcrap1 wrote:Lol the bargarsi line .
Seeing as we've overtaken AFL in participation numbers I think the line is an irrelevant piece of crap .
Also lol @ Rugby league talking about experiences again.
Total club players for the NRL - 179,506 (and not even 10.5k outside NSW/QLD)
Total club players for the AFL - 336,108
Total clubs for the NRl - 1,077 in NSW, QLD, no specified number for the rest. Perhaps league should be concerned that they lost 50 clubs in 2015 in Qld alone, and another 40 odd in country NSW.
Total clubs for the AFL - 2,763
Yet when RL start using the same dodgy numbers .....RL experience ...it's wrong .
Lol
& touch is our non contact form of RL .
Plenty play it .
But because it increases our numbers we get the .
But but but but but but .
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:57 pm
Considering Touch participation is a lot of double counting it's anything but reality, they count e-mails, phone numbers, registered players for local leagues, sporting carnivals, officials (regardless if they are already playing) school comps (again regardless if already playing etc etc. it is very much over inflated numbers but considering the past over inflating of crowd numbers to NRL games, no wonder they wanted it included in their participation rates. HahahaXman wrote:Auskick is played by kids under 12. Touch is any age is it not?AFLcrap1 wrote:So for years AFL house pumped up their figures by including every kid who had tried Auskick .The_Wookie wrote:But you havent really taken over the particpation numbers have you. The entire increase is due to the Touch affiliation. Not due to Rugby league - the ARLC doesnt count Touch football Australia **** its subsidaries by the way, so claiming its participants as their own is a little laughable.AFLcrap1 wrote:Lol the bargarsi line .
Seeing as we've overtaken AFL in participation numbers I think the line is an irrelevant piece of crap .
Also lol @ Rugby league talking about experiences again.
Total club players for the NRL - 179,506 (and not even 10.5k outside NSW/QLD)
Total club players for the AFL - 336,108
Total clubs for the NRl - 1,077 in NSW, QLD, no specified number for the rest. Perhaps league should be concerned that they lost 50 clubs in 2015 in Qld alone, and another 40 odd in country NSW.
Total clubs for the AFL - 2,763
Yet when RL start using the same dodgy numbers .....RL experience ...it's wrong .
Lol
& touch is our non contact form of RL .
Plenty play it .
But because it increases our numbers we get the .
But but but but but but .
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:41 pm
Oh my another retaaaarded rant .
Any proof of counting ph numbers or emails.
I'll wait .
But I'm probably wasting my time .
You & the truth are planets apart .
Now for double counting
So do you think there's no double counting in AFL .
No Auskick kid who has to play at school .
Or kid who does want to play .
Then plays for his school .
Then probably plays on a weekend .
Lol
Any proof of counting ph numbers or emails.
I'll wait .
But I'm probably wasting my time .
You & the truth are planets apart .
Now for double counting
So do you think there's no double counting in AFL .
No Auskick kid who has to play at school .
Or kid who does want to play .
Then plays for his school .
Then probably plays on a weekend .
Lol
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:42 pm
Intentcity wrote:We only double count Tasmanians.AFLcrap1 wrote:Oh my another retaaaarded rant .
Any proof of counting ph numbers or emails.
I'll wait .
But I'm probably wasting my time .
You & the truth are planets apart .
Now for double counting
So do you think there's no double counting in AFL .
No Auskick kid who has to play at school .
Or kid who does want to play .
Then plays for his school .
Then probably plays on a weekend .
Lol
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:00 pm
The_Wookie wrote:Participation numbers are bullshit regardless of which sport it is. But league is the only one counting the particpants of entire other organisation to boost its numbers.AFLcrap1 wrote:Oh my another retaaaarded rant .
Any proof of counting ph numbers or emails.
I'll wait .
But I'm probably wasting my time .
You & the truth are planets apart .
Now for double counting
So do you think there's no double counting in AFL .
No Auskick kid who has to play at school .
Or kid who does want to play .
Then plays for his school .
Then probably plays on a weekend .
Lol
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:25 am
1.4 million plus.Swans4ever wrote:RL presence in non traditional states is really laughable - only 3371 registered players in Vic including juniors and seniors. Considering that the population of Victoria is 5866000 it's laughable after 100 yrs in Australia. Yet they keep going with the same line that RL is number 1 in Australia.