If you ask most people what their definition of a spectator is it would be somebody who attends a game somebody who watches on TV is a viewer - to suggest otherwise is simply an admission of how far you have been backed into a corner.

As a Leeds Rhinos season ticket holder since the inception of SL and Leeds RL season ticket holder since I was ten I would consider myself a RL fan. Its a pity some of you don't actually attend a few games then the gap between attendances of the two sports might not be quite so embarrassing.

Here are some facts;

Over 3.5m more spectators actually took the trouble to get off their backside and attend an AFL game than did an NRL game.

More people watch the NRL on TV yet the AFL has a TV deal significantly more valuable TV deal - I find that very odd.

In the RL heartland of NSW the sporting club with the highest average attendances is a AFL team

In the heartland of the AFL the RL team which has been the most successful in the modern era has attendances that are truely an embarrasment to the sport.

Given the demographics of Australia it is no surprise that RL is the most watched sport on TV - the question is this - is that an indication of its national popularity of a quirk of the country's population spread.

The NRL has the most highly skilled athletes of any sport anywhere in the world yet the teams get crowds that some third division soccer sides get in the UK - and I don't include Leeds Utd. If I were a player I would be wondering what more can I do to attract a crowd - it is no wonder players defect to other codes where they will get to play in front of big crowds on a more regular basis.

Finally if Rules is simply no challenge to RL I cannot understand why you are getting so touchy.

Yeah, no.

A spectator is someone who watches, that doesn't necessarily mean attend.

That you have to invent your own meaning of the word just confirms that you're full of the stuff Mr. Hanky is made of.

No surprise there.



Pissant.

I'll guarantee you that I've been to more Rugby League games than you.
And you are [inot [/ia Rugby League fan. No one who denigrates the game, anywhere, like you do would be considered a fan by anyone. If you actually buy season tickets to a team that plays in a competiton in a sport that you obviously have massive disdain for, then you're an idiot as well as a ant.

Do you honestly think, given what you've said in here that any sane person would believe you to be a Rugby League fan?



As against the[i facts [/iin Roy's article that you just simply ignore?



Who's arguing that?

Is there something wrong with you?

Rhetorical question.



It's because, and I'll be as polite as possible here, you're an idiot.

Kerry Packer alone is the reason AFL have a bigger deal. There, I said, it. The cat's out of the bag... FFS...

The simple fact that more people watch Rugby League in Australia than AFL should cure the gap somewhat.



So?

They average 15k per week. Well behind Rugby League's average in Sydney and the NRL's.

And they are lucky to get 70k on TV in Sydney.

That's about 20% of a regular FNF NRL game.

You might be impressed by it but not many others are.



Why?

The NRL attendances are on the way up?

Why in God's name are you suggesting anyone should be embarrassed at that?

And why don't you simply understand that Super League is the reason AFL have the crowd average they have in Sydney?

And why did you ignore the fact that the Swans crowds are heading south. The fact is that the further away we get from the Super League years, the further down AFL goes in Sydney.

It's not rocket science.

The new team is going to be great for Rugby League. AFL haven't worked out that saturation is killing them in Sydney. Their answer to the alarming drop-off in Sydney is to add another team?

Out of interest. Why is it that when someone who is aware of certain failings and misgivings in our game mentions them on here, they are branded as "NOT Rugby League fans".

It's very American isn't it. You're either with us or against us.

AFL trolls are so funny

I'm pleased that the NRL has such good tv ratings, but why don't more fans attend games?

AFL games in Melbourne seem to draw average crowds of over 30000, so why can't the NRL do the same in Sydney?

RL fans watch games more on TV than AFL fans do.

why dont you ask AFL fans why they dont watch more games on TV?

(a) Because I believe that nothing beats attending a live sporting event, it's just not the same on tv, you miss all the atmosphere, and only get to see what the tv producer wants you to see.

(b) Maybe it's different in Australia, but over here in England, you're only considered a true fan if you go to the games, otherwise you're considered a part-timer / a bandwagon jumper / a gloryhunter etc. Here it's a badge of honour to be able to say you go every game, home and away.

Your answer would seem to indicate that AFL fans should defend the fact they don't watch on tv, which would suggest a very different view on watching sports between the 2 countries.

who cares what you believe?

if you dont look at TV viewers as a measure of a sports popularity and only look at crowds, you are an idiot.

Except that true fans go and support their team in the flesh.

lol out loud for a "fan" who dumped his team to jump on the bandwagon of a more succesful one!

so using your logic, RU in australia has more true fans than RL too?


see why i think you are an idiot?