NRC Crowd Watch

[Omar Comin']

Larger geographically, but not really population wide. Particularly RUGBY population.

The first two years are going to be hard core supporters only. Maybe the first 4-5 unless something like e.g. Shute Shield gets shortened

The population of western Sydney is 2 million. The population of the inner west is 200,000. The difference probably isn't as big if you just consider hard core rugby people, but surely there's still more in the greater west.

I don't think the length of the season has too much to do with it. Just the positioning and marketing of the competition. Most people don't know about it and a lot of those that do would perceive it as just a 3rd tier player development competition, because that's the sort of terrible terminology rugby people use all the time to describe it.

I've said this before, here and in an article I wrote on the Roar, but one thing I think the ARU should do from next year is have both a Sydney and Brisbane double header at the SFS (featuring the 4 NSW teams) and Suncorp (the 2 QLD sides against 2 inter-state teams). Promote the hell out of them, have other things around it. Make it an event. Don't aim for big profits, just get as close to filling each stadium as possible without having to give away too many tickets (other than to kids). Given we all agree that the product is really good on the field, I think next season there should be a lot more focus on gaining greater visibility.

 

[Omar Comin']

To achieve that, we would have to maintain the existing crowds over a longer season and then get about 6k average for each of the 4 new teams, so it's not entirely unbelievable.

I just checked and those figures I posted before about the A League only include the 9 Australian teams.

If you assume the current 5 teams could maintain their average crowd over almost twice as many games then the 4 new teams would have to average about 7.5k to match the A League.

I doubt both of these things. But whether or not it could happen, the fact is it isn't. The A League's total numbers blow Australian super rugby out of the park.

 

[Pfitzy]

but surely there's still more in the greater west.

You're forgetting that huge parts of that 2.5 million people are mindlessly loigue. Write off any part south of the M4 except the cadre of freedom fighters clustered around Campbelltown and Oatley.

North of the M4, the Hills district and parts of Blacktown are also sprinkled with rugby resistance fighters.

Even then, nearly every one of these people who play and support rugby and grew up in Sydney will have their preferred Loigue team as well they will support nearly as rabidly as rugby in general. Typically more so.

Most of the people who support both will NOT go to Tahs games because the travel is too much. And it's a damn sight further to go Campbelltown to Moore Park than it is to go Camperdown to Homebush.

If you want a good night out cheering at the footy, historically the Tahs games have been shit, because "good rugby people" are boring arseholes by and large. Sure the bogan factor is higher at NRL games, and you'd never take your wife and kids, but at least they're passionate.

I'm really hoping this changes next year after we won the fucking thing. People need to understand its a sporting event, not a networking opportunity. Do that shit in the bar afterwards

 

[Train Without a Station]

I just checked and those figures I posted before about the A League only include the 9 Australian teams.

If you assume the current 5 teams could maintain their average crowd over almost twice as many games then the 4 new teams would have to average about 7.5k to match the A League.

I doubt both of these things. But whether or not it could happen, the fact is it isn't. The A League's total numbers blow Australian super rugby out of the park.

No they do not. The total numbers of ALL games blow Super Rugby's out over ALL games.

When you consider on a per round basis, where the A League has 5 games and Super Rugby has 2.5 in Australia it's about 60,000 (actually removing Wellington that's 52,500 over 4.5 games per round) to about 42,500 thousand. Not exactly blowing out of the water when you consider there are 3 whole additional regions (Adelaide, Newcastle and CC).

And as noted, A League is able to draw stronger away support due to the closer regions. Sydney derbies would increase by approximately 50% per game due to this. This isn't extra supporters. This is opportunities to get more attendances out of the same supporters. The additional rounds is that again.

So yes, when you count the same fans more times, the A League blows super rugby out of the water.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Winning the west has got to be part of longer term game plan....agree won't win west overnight as league central...but AFL and Wanderers (A-league) been successful in making inroads....

Longer term game plan has got to be to grow game in West.

Pity Russell Crowe and Kerry Packer are not avid Union Fans as we could do with that sort of cash injection and profiles in union..

Problem is Rugby coffers more cash strapped than ever and but also at pinnacle time in the game that they either grow and protect or becoming an increasing dwindling minor sport played in this country as very competitive landscape for sporting fans / viewers then every before...

Need some more rich benefactors to buy out super rugby and NRC franchises and channel their spare millions into these franchises....

 

[Pfitzy]

Won't win the west, ever. But a portion of the public who support league must at least be captured, if not completely immersed.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Win the west is wrong choice of words but big market to capture decent share...

NRC good vehicle to market with rising cost of taking families to league and AFL games....NRC nice low cost choice for families.....

But also make a start and then target schools etc longer term.....to try and grow market in west..

Other codes of done it - AFL as popular in Sydney as is now - if you have said that 25 years ago people would have laughed at you as AFL had no following....

Ambition needs to start some where...

 

[Pfitzy]

Yeah interesting where that is going to head now they've been told to can the Cost Of Living Allowance. Dick move by the AFL.

Anyway, rugby.

If the Rams are to capture the imagination of the west, the first thing that would have helped is a finals appearance, televised, on a weekend night. That horse has bolted for 2014, but hopefully next year!

The next thing that needs to happen is a shakeup of rugby in NSW from Premier level down. Subbies is having all sorts of arse-hattery going on with clubs leaving the top division, leaving the comp altogether, and questions over whether their "amateur" status is in any way NOT a joke.

The other thing is, NSWRU do NOT want to lose having Penrith in the top competition, no matter how badly pumped they get every week across every grade. Sure, they've got no actual way of HELPING them, but never let logic fuck up a good mission statement.

I think Australian Rugby as a whole would benefit from a shakeup in NSW Rugby, with the aim of redistributing the talent and making more areas contribute to the competitiveness.

We've seen where signing schoolboy starts gets us. Some get high profile too fast and start thinking they're all that e.g. Quade, JOC (James O'Connor), Beale. Some sort it out and some don't.

So my proposal - in its first Draft - is for Shute Shield and all Subbies Divisions are made into 10-club competitions with promotion and relegation down to Third Division, and a REQUIRED team count as follows:

Premier Division - 4 Grades + 2 development grades: U23 and U20.
First Division - 4 Grades + 2 development grades: U23 and U20.
Second Division - 3 Grades + U20.
Third Division - 3 Grades
Fourth Division - 3 Grades
Fifth Division - 2 Grades
Sixth Division - 1 Grade + zones

Any of these sides that have excessive numbers should remedy it in one of two ways: Masters for 35+ rugby players who want to stay playing in a strictly social setting, and further U20 development sides so that their juniors have a pathway.

Note I say "development" and NOT Colts. Some of these guys are going to be Australian schoolboys playing for top clubs. Some are going to be guys who missed the Schoolboy and U20 national sides, and can go into U23 to see how they perform against their peers, with the option of moving to senior Grade as well.

The main aim is to keep players at a level of rugby appropriate to them, with physical development maximised, before shipping them off to get bashed by grown men with years of experience. It will be a good learning experience, and remove the issue of players who have a bit of growing to do leaving the game and not coming back - or even worse, heading overseas or to boganball!

With 10 clubs per division at most, it means an 18-week home and away season for every club, plus three weeks of finals (top 4 contest finals).

This will start in mid/late March (depending on Easter), alongside Super Rugby, and play through until mid August with 2 wet weather/public holiday weekends thrown in for the amateurs.

NRC starts with a flourish after a weekend off to let all players recover, running from the last weekend in August through to early November.

Eventually, a move will have to be made to put NRC at the top of the tree full-time, but I think we need to bed this in for about 5 years before taking that step.

It would help if the BalmUni Stars weren't a hapless batch of knobs of course, because they're just going to block everything.

EDIT: actually will be interesting to see where the Stars go next year, given that having the richest Premier and Subbies club in their JV hasn't quite worked out like they thought.

 

[Omar Comin']

No they do not. The total numbers of ALL games blow Super Rugby's out over ALL games.

When you consider on a per round basis, where the A League has 5 games and Super Rugby has 2.5 in Australia it's about 60,000 (actually removing Wellington that's 52,500 over 4.5 games per round) to about 42,500 thousand. Not exactly blowing out of the water when you consider there are 3 whole additional regions (Adelaide, Newcastle and CC).

And as noted, A League is able to draw stronger away support due to the closer regions. Sydney derbies would increase by approximately 50% per game due to this. This isn't extra supporters. This is opportunities to get more attendances out of the same supporters. The additional rounds is that again.

So yes, when you count the same fans more times, the A League blows super rugby out of the water.

You are basically saying that if rugby had more professional teams, local rivalries and a longer season then it MIGHT be more popular than the A-League. Well it doesn't, and it's clearly not.

Having more teams in more markets (or sometimes in the same markets) is another sign of popularity. Where would 4 extra super rugby teams that could average say 10-15k without significantly eating into the support of the existing teams come from?

 

[Train Without a Station]

No. I'm saying it likely would get similar attendances. If they plonked in a Western Sydney team and a CC/Newcastle Team, if they managed about 5,000 per game, well below all other teams they would have a greater per round attendance than the A League.

75% of the A League's additional aggregate to Super Rugby is due to more rounds.

If the ARU decided they wanted to run Super rugby all year round and and due to this got an aggregate of 2,100,000 for the season, would that mean it was more popular? No.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The A League plays 10 or 11 more rounds it needs to be considered

 

[Omar Comin']

No. I'm saying it likely would get similar attendances. If they plonked in a Western Sydney team and a CC/Newcastle Team, if they managed about 5,000 per game, well below all other teams they would have a greater per round attendance than the A League.

75% of the A League's additional aggregate to Super Rugby is due to more rounds.

If the ARU decided they wanted to run Super rugby all year round and and due to this got an aggregate of 2,100,000 for the season, would that mean it was more popular? No.

Teams averaging 5,000 per game in Super Rugby wouldn't survive. The A League has 9 teams in Australia that are all surviving. Rugby couldn't.

You are making these ridiculous assumptions that if Super Rugby was almost twice as long that the average attendance wouldn't change. And that if more teams were added the average attendance of existing teams wouldn't change.


And yes, if super rugby had an aggregate of 2,100,000 it would certainly indicate greater popularity. It wouldn't happen though because rugby isn't that popular.

But look we're going in circles. If you want to think the average attendance is the most important thing for determining a sports popularity then that's up to you. Happy days cause that makes rugby the 2nd most popular football code in Australia! Yay. I (and the broadcasters who value the competitions) can just agree to disagree.

 

[Pfitzy]

Teams averaging 5,000 per game in Super Rugby wouldn't survive. The A League has 9 teams in Australia that are all surviving.

After a couple of them disappeared, let's not forget.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No that wouldn't indicate a greater popularity. It would indicate a longer season.

I'm am deadset fucking certain that if the ARU plonked 2 new teams in new regions, they could get a total of 10,000 more attendees per round.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Whether they could survive on crowds of 5000 is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact it's probably a reason why they aren't there to achieve this.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Anyway your whole argument rests on "the A League gets the same people through the gates 11 more times a year so it's infinitely more popular". It's really not worth discussing with you any further.

 

[Omar Comin']

Whether they could survive on crowds of 5000 is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact it's probably a reason why they aren't there to achieve this.

It's entirely relevant! How can you possibly think it isn't? You're saying that in a hypothetical situation Rugby could equal or surpass the A League - but your hypothetical situation isn't possible because a 5000 average isn't enough to survive! Plus you're only saying the ARU would need 2 new teams. They would need 4! You said it yourself - it's the reason they aren't there. If rugby was popular enough to have 9 super rugby teams in Australia it probably would!

I also can't believe you don't think repetition should count. As if getting the same fans to go to something 14 times isn't more impressive than getting them to go 8 times. You can't expect the average to remain the same over a much longer season.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The discussion is whether they could get the fans, not whether that's enough to sustain new teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

If the team can't exist then it's irrelevant. The A League could have multiple theoretical new teams that would probably average around 5,000. Teams getting around that have failed in the A League in the past.

Do you honestly believe there are more rugby fans in Australia than soccer fans?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Really? In what major regions? GC? Nope they got less? Maybe try Geelong?

They've spread to all the major regions. There are no large pockets of fans not catered for.

As we have said to you a million times before, you can't say A League represents all of soccer. Yes there are more soccer fans than rugby fans. I'd wager there are more Super Rugby and Wallabies fans than there are A-LEAGUE fans though.