Yep aree completely, didn't mean otherwise, but you kind of get what I mean, for you need to be able to see near the top of the sporting codes to be successful on tv and crowds etc. I just mentioned it because some were talking about Hockey and basketball player numbers, and I don't see it as really having much to do with sports following? I would guess Basketball Aus etc would get of merchandise rights etc of Aus basketball etc, but wouldn't be much would it?Surely there is a higher propensity to support a sport you have previously played?
The difference with basketball there is an extremely clear competitive class difference between NBL and NBA (as with the A League against just about every other soccer league) which as rugby fans we don't see in our competitions (Super and TRC). For most fans or casual viewers there isn't an alternative product (there certainly isn't in NRL and AFL for that matter).
Imagine how much money how much money Basketball Australia or FFA would rake in if they were getting a cut of all the merchandise or TV rights (or things like game pass) for related things in Australia compared to if RA did? It would be extremely disproportionate.
What I was trying to inject was some reflection on these statements that Rugby Union should be looking at the examples set by other sports is rather silly. Rugby Union has its own unique dynamics that are so different from these other sports.Hockey is seriously underfunded. Hockey participation numbers though is huge. Melbourne would have at least 20 clubs with more the 10 teams at each. Altona is a small top league club, has 5 mens, 4 women's, and probably about 12 junior teams.
Majority of the Aussie men's team are based in Perth most of the year, they normally go to play in the IPL to make some money.
Agree. Lots of council courts, hoops on houses plus increasing indoor facilities for all season/weather play. Small team sizes and number of players required for a game compared to a lot of other team sports. Little equipment required. Little contact concerns like contact sports. Good uptake in schools who increasingly have courts. Couple that with the NBA and it's not a hard product to market and the market growth is understandable. It also doesn't compete directly with many other sports except maybe Netball somewhat.Whose participation claims aren’t. My local club claims 5,700 players across junior and senior leagues. I also cant think of many people I know who don’t play, used to play, or have a kid playing. There are such low barriers to entry.
Maybe not directly, but ask any lock what sport most people assume they play, and rugby isn't their first guess.....It also doesn't compete directly with many other sports except maybe Netball somewhat.
Could have done it two seasons ago if he kicked straightWell done to Carter Gordon, who passed Tom English to move into 10th on the Rebels all time points scorers list.
He had To'omua and Hodge kicking for us up until this year.Could have done it two seasons ago if he kicked straight
Surely Gordon should have got bonus points for the conversion he kicked under the cross bar.Could have done it two seasons ago if he kicked straight
Lighten up it was a jokeHe had To'omua and Hodge kicking for us up until this year.
The Melbourne way of doing things.Surely Gordon should have got bonus points for the conversion he kicked under the cross bar.
Yeah I mentioned this earlier in the thread, however the issue with this is it’s not a sustainable business model longer term, land owned by them is finite and developers aren’t known for giving a shit about their developments past settlement date.Interesting point of view I've pinched from the Roar about the Rebs (thanks Piccolino whoever you are) - "I think the point is by partering with the consortium, Rebels don’t have to make a profit. Instead, having a local A league and Super Rugby team drives up the value of the land they bought cheap in Western Melbourne. So long as the team losses are less than the value uplift from their commercial land, the Rebels are a good investment and their losses are worth funding. If it justifies a metro line being funded it will be a particularly good investment for the consortium'
Makes sense for the consortium, but they will fund the "loss making" Rebels through debt, any profits being taken by the company, and if/when they want to exit (say the gov doesn't build the train line) or the consortium goes bust, then any new owners, including VRU or RA, would have to pay off the debt first.Interesting point of view I've pinched from the Roar about the Rebs (thanks Piccolino whoever you are) - "I think the point is by partering with the consortium, Rebels don’t have to make a profit. Instead, having a local A league and Super Rugby team drives up the value of the land they bought cheap in Western Melbourne. So long as the team losses are less than the value uplift from their commercial land, the Rebels are a good investment and their losses are worth funding. If it justifies a metro line being funded it will be a particularly good investment for the consortium'
What's the points differential for when Tupou is on and off the field?Rebels are really 2nd half heros. We've lost 5/7 first halves so far. Our 1st half points differential is -71 and our 2nd half points differential is +38.
In other terms, we've scored 73 points and let in 144 in the first half. In the 2nd half we scored 129 and let in 91.
Guess this points to our relatively weak starting XV but strong bench. Our Kevin's halftime pump ups.
Despite him playing more games off the bench, there's not much of a correlation. He started the games against the Force & Reds, where we got handily smacked in the first half then piled on the points in the 2nd when he was off the field.What's the points differential for when Tupou is on and off the field?