Expansion will pay for itself

[Perth Red]

Reading the news that the introduction of the Suns and Giants netted the AFL an extra $30mill a year for 5 years, and that it is rumoured that TV execs value a 2nd Brisbane team at $100mill before we even consider the value of an extra game a round then the question that has to be asked is why on earth they have waited to decide on expansion this long? It is clear that expansion will more than pay for itself so why are we going to lose 2 years of extra income, if they had got their act together in 2011 then we should be looking at the two new teams entering next season and us being able to reap the income benefits of that for the full 5 years of the TV deal. As it is the game is set to miss out on $60mill+
Only in RL.....

 

[BuffaloRules]

As you know, the other clubs are also to blame...

They dont see the extra money bought into the game as a result of expansion - only the fact that the "pie" is being divided by 18 instead of 16....

Also the fact that new teams further inflate player salaries....

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I don't know about inflating salaries. Yes it's more competition for players but it also increases the number of players. It would only push the price of the most sought after players a little higher overall.

But to answer the original question, I don't know. But I suspect it's mostly down to D. Gallop and his inactive style of non-leadership, partly down to uncertainty about the IC and partly down to clubs lobbying against it.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Expanding to Brisbane will net us $100M sure.

But what if the NRL announced expansion back in 2008 or so and choose two teams, neither of which were Brisbane 2? We wouldn't have that kind of money offered to us and we'd be the ones arguing for more money from the networks, instead of them offering us millions to simply add a team.


I would love to see the Reds and another team joining the comp next year but it looks like postponing it was the smart choice.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If we'd expanded in 2008 or even if it was locked in for next year we'd go into the TV negotiations with nine games to sell for a start. And to suggest we shouldn't have expanded previously in case one of the teams wasn't a second Brisbane one makes no sense. Does that mean that if there are no plausible Brisbane bids this time we should postpone expansion again? Any new team will add value to the competition, in many ways, not just the potential increase in TV revenue. There should be two new teams locked in for next year, but at this rate 2015 is the earliest it can happen. What a waste of time and another missed opportunity this whole thing has been.

 

[Frances the Mute]

Expansion will pay for itself?

Tell that to the Storm and Titans......

2016-2017 at the earliest before more teams, and the aim in that time should be having all clubs running a 100% without lose and hopefully an even comp.

Also have to wonder where the extra 50 players are going to come from as is?

The gap between Storm/Bronco's/Manly(they'll come good) and the rest is already too much as is without weaking the pool further.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It'd be better if you weren't mute but couldn't type instead.

 

[clarency]

I'm just gunu keep saying this as many times as opportunity allows, in hopes that people will eventually catch on.

Around 95% of professional sporting teams in this country run at a loss.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Completely irrelevant.

 

[gyallop]

Frances......talent isnt the problem , funding the development of that talent has always been the problem. This is a Sydney argument against expansion because they do such a shit job of true development and cant work out why Qld who does a good job wipes the origin dance floor with them and opens up the whole debate of how the 9 Sydney clubs think Qld should only have 3 clubs so they can keep stealing Qld players to prop them up!

 

[Bluebags1908]

Frances......talent isnt the problem , funding the development of that talent has always been the problem. This is a Sydney argument against expansion because they do such a shit job of true development and cant work out why Qld who does a good job wipes the origin dance floor with them and opens up the whole debate of how the 9 Sydney clubs think Qld should only have 3 clubs so they can keep stealing Qld players to prop them up!

Wrong. NSW/Sydney more than produce their own share of players. Going off the NRL season guide which profiles the top 25 of each club, there were 209 NSW-born players at an average of 20.9 per NSW club (this excludes Canberra which is ACT). There are 82 Queensland-born players at an average of 27.3 per Queensland-based club. With only 3 clubs, Queensland's player/club ratio is better but that would be expected because the more clubs you have the harder it is to maintain the ratio, so the statistics showing that NSW produce almost 21 players out of each top 25 squad across 10 NSW-based clubs is quite strong and very impressive. New Zealand -amazingly - almost have as much players born in the NRL as Queensland does, an incredible 73 NZ-born players despite having just one club. Overall, NSW, Queensland,and New Zealand's player/per clubs ratio are all quite impressive.

I know these figures are not an exact science because clubs invariably end up using 30+ players NRL per year, and some players born in NSW are playing for Queensland and then there are NZ-born players playing SOO for NSW and Queensland plus players like Petero and Uate playing SOO born overseas, and also many NZ-born players were products of the development systems run by Australian NRL clubs, but it gives you some sort of rough guide.

As for Queensland being dominant in SOO, I think it is just a strong era for Queensland at present with a very strong core group of players. The wheel will turn as the game evolves and goes through phases where various teams / states dominate.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Meh. Take out the CRL players and Sydney's figures don't look too crash hot.

 

[age.s]

Meh. Take out the CRL players and Sydney's figures don't look too crash hot.

What a ridiculous argument. Why would you take out CRL numbers from a NSW statistic?

 

[Perth Red]

People seem to forget the games income is about to go up by around $150 million+ $'s a year. Jnr development, poaching of players from union/SL, retention of experienced players who previously went to SL, significant development of new areas etc will all happen from next year.

 

[Dogs Of War]

You wouldn't do expansion if it wasn't going to pay for itself. I don't think that will be a problem. Hopefully in the next few months everything becomes a lot clearer, and we start getting an idea of what clubs would be introduced in 2015.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What a ridiculous argument. Why would you take out CRL numbers from a NSW statistic?

Because if Sydney clubs try to argue they produce their fair share they can't claim CRL players as theirs.

 

[Kirky]

Also, it seems that the likely expansion clubs will be privateley owned, and while you'd expect the NRL to chip in for marketing/establishment costs, the majority of the running costs for these clubs will be paid by the new owners.

 

[gyallop]

I oont think so Kirky it seems only the Bombers who are unlikely to get a look in and the 2nd Perth bid are the only privately owned

 

[Bluebags1908]

Meh. Take out the CRL players and Sydney's figures don't look too crash hot.

Not all Queenslanders playing for the Broncos are originally from Brisbane. Not all New Zealanders playing for the Warriors are from Auckland. Not all Queenslanders playing for the Cowboys are from up north. Same goes for Sydney teams recruiting from locations in NSW outside their own areas.

The CRL produced players outside of Newcastle & Wollongong will never have their own NRL team, so they will need to be recruited by and play for someone elsewhere.

My post was only meant as a relative guide to how many players from states/location actually play for a club from the same state/location.

 

[Perth Red]

Also, it seems that the likely expansion clubs will be privateley owned, and while you'd expect the NRL to chip in for marketing/establishment costs, the majority of the running costs for these clubs will be paid by the new owners.

I'd suggest the two weakest bids out of the options at the moment are the two privately owned models where there is no community engagement or link.

Brisbane Bombers is behind WC imo and Tony Sage is miles behind the WA Reds bid.

In typical RL fashion we are looking for quick fixes in terms of financial sustainability and rather than looking to maximise sustainable income we want to shift our reliance on pokies to a reliance on rich men with a whim to own a sports club.