Austadiums Forum

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 27bbx.html

darkness vs light.

Typical Hinds.

Victorian AFL fan in preferring AFL to NRL shocker

Hinds previously wrote positive article about NRL finals & negative one about AFL. Am sure he will be writing an article about the high A league attendances very soon. To be followed by less positive one when attendances average 12,000. Just my crystal ball saying

Vic state government is reviving Brumby govt's plans to make Junction Oval the headquarters for Vic cricket. This will allow MCG to be free in March & available to the AFL

Simmo79 wrote:Victorian AFL fan in preferring AFL to NRL shocker

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1xvbb.html

The article above as a real pearler from Hinds. He thought it so noteworthy that he caught a train in suburban Sydney to watch an NRL game that he devoted a column to it. Now, if this was for The Age, I'd understand - the whole Melbourne fish out of water interest in the story. But this full time Melbourne native and resident is billed as the SMH's "Chief Sports Columnist". It's surely not good business for a Sydney paper.

Can you imagine if Andrew Webster was Chief Sports Columnist for the Hun or The Age?

He lives in Melbourne. He's way older than his profile photo suggests. And that hat comes right off! He's a phoney!

"latte-sipping, basket-weaving types"
I didn't know the Greens followed NRL

Masters at it again.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... 283ge.html

A stark contrast to the soulless, post-apocalyptic concrete of ANZ Stadium.

this guy's apocalypse must be better than most of us expect.

gyfox wrote:Masters at it again.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... 283ge.html

He's not wrong but he does sound like a broken record. Is it because he's the bizarro-Hinds? He's a Sydneysider living in Melbourne so he probably hears the AFL leadership's message of "We're growing in Sydney, trust us" far more often than Sydney-based Sydney journalists and it's gotten on his tits.

Here's the report Masters has cited. It was commissioned by the AFL. I'll have a read of it over the course of the day to see if it's been quoted accurately.

http://www.sportingpulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=2148289

Actually it looks like Mr Masters may have buried the lede. The bigger story is that Aussie Rules penetration in Sydney is nowhere near as big as the AFL leadership likes to claim.

Page 6:

Introducing primary aged school children to sample Australian football in metropolitan Sydney via school, Auskick or promotional programs appears to be a strength.

Converting young Australian football “samplers‟ into regular club participants with the subsequent engagement of parents, friends and colleagues has not yet been as successful.

Retention and consolidation are the challenges.

What do they mean by kids “sampling” Aussie Rules? This:

Page 9:

In the chase for participant numbers in NSW and ACT, a shortened and often subsidised version of Auskick has been aggressively rolled out in primary schools (In-School Auskick) and after-school centres (Community Auskick). The In-School participants have rarely elected to join an Auskick program. Their school has chosen to include an Auskick program. (emphasis added)

In contrast, the number of kids actually voluntarily playing the sport remains low:

Page 10:

Within the NSW/ACT Auskick portfolio, Club Auskick (approx. 10,600 participants; 22% of total) is an elective version.

For senior clubs, the competitive environment remains as tough as it has always been:

Page 20:

Financial stability and sustainability was the hardest challenge listed by most Senior Club Presidents in their recent survey. Anecdotally, some were amazed at how their clubs survived from year to year.
In such a tight environment, it is rare for a club to commit time and resources to vital areas that can secure their future such as junior player development, sponsors, facilities and Municipal Council partnerships. Clubs do not appear to have time to plan their future.

So essentially, the Auskick numbers that have been trumpeted by AFL House as evidence for strong and persistent growth are in fact as misleading as Sydneysiders have retorted. The bulk of Aussie Rules “growth” is actually little more than a glorified marketing campaign.

Only 22% of Sydney’s “participants” have the same commitment as their Victorian counterparts. The other 78% are being made to engage in a shortened, dumbed-down version of Victorian Auskick. Importantly, this is not something that the “participants” themselves are volunteering for or are being pushed into by their parents. Surprisingly, this AFL report actually vindicates the conclusions that the trogs on LU have made in recent years.

Something else that is hinted at but not explored is the concept of capacity constraints. As the whole birchgrove oval “controversy” showed, the sports grounds in many areas of Sydney are almost full. There’s little room for growth for any code that doesn’t come at the expense of another sport. And when that’s the case, it’s the bigger, more influential sports that win out, not the minnows, no matter how ambitious they are.

I reckon Aussie Rules has almost reached its ceiling in Sydney. And it’s a pretty low ceiling at that.

Pfft, every code grossly inflates their participant numbers. Last I heard the FFA were claiming 1.7 million participants. There was an article on sports business insider a few months ago which completely debunked those particular numbers.

Why a Rugby League writer would bother writing an article on Australian football participation is what's got me baffled. Talk about constantly looking over your shoulder. Which given soccer utterly obliterates rugby league in it's own heartland in regard to participation, I reckon they're worried about the wrong competitor.

Masters just wants to make sure that AFL is always in the news in Sydney. He is really an AFL plant disguised as NRL