Where to for Super Rugby?

[Inside Shoulder]

I wonder if that crowd was a protest vote?

500 protestors or 30,000 who refused to attend?

 

[Slim 293]

18k in Perth in 2013, 14k at Gold Coast in 2014, 16k in Perth in 2016 and 14k in Canberra this year.

Isn't the story that Argentina games can't draw a crowd?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

I think the problem is the Wallabies can't draw a crowd....../

13K in Melbourne.........

17k in Perth.........

14K in Canberra........

 

[Slim 293]

Gold Coast was last city to host Argentina to an equally small crowd, and they haven't had a test match scheduled since.. that's the reality of it slim.. until Canberra get its new stadium and improved corporate facilities to justify hosting a larger team, it may get the occasional lower tier test match, but if fans don't come out and watch then it makes it hard to justify bringing another test match back anytime soon.

Melbourne and Perth have the facilities to host higher caliber teams and draw the larger crowds, hence they will continue to host test matches.

And back in 2014 the Wallabies were getting larger crowds than they are now..........

I imagine if last nights test was held at the Gold Coast we would've seen a few thousand less.

 

[TOCC]

And back in 2014 the Wallabies were getting larger crowds than they are now....

I imagine if last nights test was held at the Gold Coast we would've seen a few thousand less.

Sure, but it doesn't change the facts.
Canberra needs its new stadium, an indoor one Forsyth Barr ideally, until then it will be increasingly difficult for Canberra to justify test matches when the crowds isn't cracking 15,000.

In coming years I expect Townsville and Parramatta to to challenge to host lesser caliber test matches like the Argies and Fiji.

AAMI/Etihad, Allianz/ANZ, Perth Stadium and Suncorp Stadium will remain the primary hosts of the bigger test matches against Tier 1 Nations, firstly due to their crowd capacity, but secondly due to the corporate support of not only the local sponsors but state government tourism bodies.

 

[Quick Hands]

18k in Perth in 2013, 14k at Gold Coast in 2014, 16k in Perth in 2016 and 14k in Canberra this year.

Isn't the story that Argentina games can't draw a crowd?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

BUt aren't we consistently told that Canberra is a "rugby heartland"? Surely they could fill a small stadium like that, even against Argentina - a game that we were reasonably likely to win.

 

[barbarian]

BUt aren't we consistently told that Canberra is a "rugby heartland"? Surely they could fill a small stadium like that, even against Argentina - a game that we were reasonably likely to win.

Agree totally. It's a bad stadium, sure. And it's cold. But for a city that's always crying out for more Wallabies fixtures, to see so many empty seats was really disappointing.
.

 

[KOB1987]

BUt aren't we consistently told that Canberra is a "rugby heartland"? Surely they could fill a small stadium like that, even against Argentina - a game that we were reasonably likely to win.

There are only about 350K people there though. The game was played in Canberra because they knew they'd get a reasonable per capita roll up, there probably wouldn't have been many more if was played in Sydney. It's a strong rugby region, it can only be a 'heartland' insofar as the population allows it to be.

 

[Slim 293]

It's disappointing, but it also reflects the poor state of Australian rugby...........

The Wallabies stopped being a major draw card some time ago.

$100+ to drive out to a cold stadium anywhere to watch them play?

I'd rather the pub........... or a live AFL match to be honest.

 

[Quick Hands]

There are only about 350K people there though. The game was played in Canberra because they knew they'd get a reasonable per capita roll up, there probably wouldn't have been many more if was played in Sydney. It's a strong rugby region, it can only be a 'heartland' insofar as the population allows it to be.

True, and these factors should have been among the criteria objectively applied to decide which team to cut. (not that I think there should have been anyone cut.

There's a reason why the AFL put 2 teams in Sydney, a team in Brisbane and a team on the Gold Coast, but no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Cricket Australia don't even have a BBL team based in Canberra.

There's a reason why FFA have A league teams in Central Coast, Newcastle, Gold Coast and no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Netball Australia don't have a team located in Canberra.

Perth has a population of around 2 million and Canberra 350,000.

 

[Quick Hands]

Sure, but it doesn't change the facts.
Canberra needs its new stadium, an indoor one Forsyth Barr ideally, until then it will be increasingly difficult for Canberra to justify test matches when the crowds isn't cracking 15,000.

In coming years I expect Townsville and Parramatta to to challenge to host lesser caliber test matches like the Argies and Fiji.

AAMI/Etihad, Allianz/ANZ, Perth Stadium and Suncorp Stadium will remain the primary hosts of the bigger test matches against Tier 1 Nations, firstly due to their crowd capacity, but secondly due to the corporate support of not only the local sponsors but state government tourism bodies.

And I think that we can be safely sure that the attraction of major sporting events isn't high on the priority list of the ACT Government.

 

[half]

In the future crowds and ratings like this could have a dramatic effect on our revenue.


JON was a forerunner in getting governments and cities to pay for major sporting events so no longer did you have to oily hire the stadium you got the stadium for free and cities would bid for the mattress FFA do this very well now and the structure they use is like JON setup for them.

Our brand damage due to this ongoing Saga over who to cut and then the court cases re the force is hurting an awful lot

 

[KOB1987]

True, and these factors should have been among the criteria objectively applied to decide which team to cut. (not that I think there should have been anyone cut.

There's a reason why the AFL put 2 teams in Sydney, a team in Brisbane and a team on the Gold Coast, but no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Cricket Australia don't even have a BBL team based in Canberra.

There's a reason why FFA have A league teams in Central Coast, Newcastle, Gold Coast and no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Netball Australia don't have a team located in Canberra.

Perth has a population of around 2 million and Canberra 350,000.

All that is true but you need to go back to the origins of Super Rugby, we needed a 3rd team and the ACT was the only province that would not be embarrassed by NSW and Qld. Times have changed of course and I think that if we were to rewrite history Perth probably should have been the 3rd team and a merged ACT/Vic the 4th team. That's not to advocate a merged entity now, but if it had started out that way it probably could have been quite successful

 

[half]

Imagine if someone said this two or three years ago, the forum would have suggested they be sent to the loonie bin.

Lets ignore the NRL & AFL.

If someone had said the following statement, who would have not suggested the loonie bin.

The girls soccer team will play a friendly on the same day as the Wallabies play a test match.

The girls soccer team will get a bigger crowd and rate better on TV.

Now I wait for those providing logical reasons about the time and who was being played. All I can say is that is looking to justify incompetence.
As an aside did anyone else notice the A-League ads during the 10 broadcast. At least not many people saw the A-League ads.

 

[Slim 293]

True, and these factors should have been among the criteria objectively applied to decide which team to cut. (not that I think there should have been anyone cut.

There's a reason why the AFL put 2 teams in Sydney, a team in Brisbane and a team on the Gold Coast, but no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Cricket Australia don't even have a BBL team based in Canberra.

There's a reason why FFA have A league teams in Central Coast, Newcastle, Gold Coast and no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Netball Australia don't have a team located in Canberra.

Perth has a population of around 2 million and Canberra 350,000.

There is a reason.........

Is it because none of those other sports are as popular in Canberra, and don't produce the playing numbers that rugby does?

It's probably for the same reason that the NRL had a team in Canberra before expanding elsewhere.

[/captain fucking obvious]

 

[Slim 293]

All that is true but you need to go back to the origins of Super Rugby, we needed a 3rd team and the ACT was the only province that would not be embarrassed by NSW and Qld. Times have changed of course and I think that if we were to rewrite history Perth probably should have been the 3rd team and a merged ACT/Vic the 4th team. That's not to advocate a merged entity now, but if it had started out that way it probably could have been quite successful

It wouldn't have been successful because WA and Victoria were miles behind the ACT and the other states.........

The ACT were the obvious logical choice at the time because they were competitive with Qld and NSW (who they'd beaten a year before Super rugby) and they had locally produced Wallabies at the time.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

True, and these factors should have been among the criteria objectively applied to decide which team to cut. (not that I think there should have been anyone cut.

There's a reason why the AFL put 2 teams in Sydney, a team in Brisbane and a team on the Gold Coast, but no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Cricket Australia don't even have a BBL team based in Canberra.

There's a reason why FFA have A league teams in Central Coast, Newcastle, Gold Coast and no team in Canberra.

There's a reason why Netball Australia don't have a team located in Canberra.

Perth has a population of around 2 million and Canberra 350,000.

I wouldn't be too inspired by any crowds. The world is changing/has changed: you can sit at home flicking between the ABs putting 50 on the Bokke, Vettel going wild in Singapore, the cowboys proving they can play without JT, another false dawn in Aussie rugby, Aviva premiership, chicks soccer + going over the the 0.05 limit.
The Giants crowd for a potential season ending game was the lowest attendance at an Aussie rules final since 1916 - when the public had a few other issues to contend with.

 

[Quick Hands]

There is a reason...

Is it because none of those other sports are as popular in Canberra, and don't produce the playing numbers that rugby does?

It's probably for the same reason that the NRL had a team in Canberra before expanding elsewhere.

[/captain fucking obvious]

Actually, the NRL didn't expand into Canberra. The Canberra Raiders are essentially an accident of history. At the time, rugby league was state based and no one had any inclination to form a national competition. The NSWRL controlled the game in NSW and it selected Newcastle, Canberra and Illawarra as it's expansion teams. In that context, Canberra was a logical choice.

Likewise, rugby's expansion into Canberra with the Brumbies was logical at the time.

Doesn't mean in either case that either would carry the same logical status today.

Good to see that you still find it impossible to engage in any form of civilised conversation but feel the need to resort to abuse and/or absecenities. Some things never change.

 

[Slim 293]

Likewise, rugby's expansion into Canberra with the Brumbies was logical at the time.

Doesn't mean in either case that either would carry the same logical status today.

It's hard to say, WA and Victoria might still be rugby backwaters without a Super Rugby team.....:..

 

[MarkJ]

And I think that we can be safely sure that the attraction of major sporting events isn't high on the priority list of the ACT Government.

Probably wouldn't call them major sporting events but they're throwing millions at GWS Giants to play a handful of games in Canberra

 

[Quick Hands]

All that is true but you need to go back to the origins of Super Rugby, we needed a 3rd team and the ACT was the only province that would not be embarrassed by NSW and Qld. Times have changed of course and I think that if we were to rewrite history Perth probably should have been the 3rd team and a merged ACT/Vic the 4th team. That's not to advocate a merged entity now, but if it had started out that way it probably could have been quite successful

Absolutely, the Brumbies were the 100% correct pick for rugby to expand when super rugby began. I'd still have the Brumbies in in 2018 and beyond because I'd still have 5 teams.

The point I was making was that assuming that a team had to be cut, then there needed to be a set of objective criteria in place and that all 5 teams needed to be judged by that criteria. I've been consistent in this position since the announcement of the proposed reduction to 4 teams many weeks ago.

The Brumbies have many things going for them but not so good in other areas.

I've been to what was then called Bruce Stadium to watch rugby. It's the worst elite level ground that I've ever watched either rugby code at. Your view is even worse that ANZ - some feat considering it's about a quarter of the size. A city with two professional sporting teams which both use rectangular fields deserve a lot better. I've been to plenty of junior sports carnivals in Canberra with the kids and the sports facilities in the city are way above what's generally available in Sydney. The hockey facility at Lyneham is excellent and world class.

Bruce/Canberra Stadium is essentially an athletics facility - difficult to believe that it's still the main rugby/rugby league facility in the city.