Brisbane2 Bid News

[docbrown]

Like many, I'm a huge advocate for the relocation of the Sharks.

I think Southern Sharks, once Adelaide is ready would be the way to go. People in SA are more likely to identify with South than CQ or the Sunshine Coast with East. I think the same goes for Cronulla fans would would still turn up to see 2 games a year at Toyota Stadium

Oh by East I mean a merger between Cronulla & Eastern Suburbs.

It would finally give Easts a junior base, spread both clubs geographically across Sydney and keeps home matches in Sydney, keeps the Sharks strong mascot branding, returns to Easts historical name and give Cronulla a financial base. There is no rivalry between the teams. They're both coastal cultures and they have mutual traditional rivals like the Dragons that would only increase crowds for those matches.

I can see a club like that competing with the Dragons & Broncos in terms of national appeal rather than remaining runts of the litter.

TBF most names are shared with some other sporting team in the world, or is it just because it is AFL you don't like it?

In Australia though, unless the club is linking with a former history with an inbuilt audience recognition (like Reds in Perth, Bears in North Sydney/Gosford) I think it's best if the mascot is unique because of the competitive market.

That doesn't mean it has to something stupid like RENEGADES though...

 

[adamkungl]

Meh, been through this before. Roosters have nothing to gain by merging with anyone, let alone Cronulla.

Don't need or want their junior base.

 

[dangerousdave]

Easts have the money and the history. Cronulla have the Juniors and an additional population base.

It would be good as far as increasing average crowds too

 

[Miller was a legend]

No thanks. Anasta in a Sharks Jersey? FMD YUK

By the way Dangerousdave, I am a huge advocate for you to be relocated to a mental ward, don't mean it will happen though.

 

[sheepbender]

If Perth, Central Coast & South Queensland (just a generic term, I hope the financial & community elements are met) all meet the NRL's criteria - and I think they will - then I'd give them all entry - with the proviso though that the best 2 bids will get immediate call up and the 3rd best will wait for 2 years after that. At least that gives fans and the clubs a real timeline to work on.

By that time there should be a strategic plan in place regarding a 2nd NZ team which would round out the comp to 20.

Adelaide would obviously then have to be the next target with the Sunshine Coast - this may or may not involve a Sydney relocation or a Sydney merger (I still say Eastern-Sharks...) After that a 3rd New Zealand team, Central Queensland, a 2nd Melbourne team and potentially Port Moresby a long way down the track.

Whilst I agree Adelaide deserves a spot in the NRL, I dont believe it should be before PNG, and certainly not a 2nd Melbourne team (which will not happen in my life time, n I reckon Ive got a good 50 years left in me). If not Bears, then itll be Central QLD and NZ-2, followed by PNG, before the Sunshine Coasts (who are a Manly feeder) gets a look in..

Oh by East I mean a merger between Cronulla & Eastern Suburbs.

It would finally give Easts a junior base, spread both clubs geographically across Sydney and keeps home matches in Sydney, keeps the Sharks strong mascot branding, returns to Easts historical name and give Cronulla a financial base. There is no rivalry between the teams. They're both coastal cultures and they have mutual traditional rivals like the Dragons that would only increase crowds for those matches.

I can see a club like that competing with the Dragons & Broncos in terms of national appeal rather than remaining runts of the litter.



In Australia though, unless the club is linking with a former history with an inbuilt audience recognition (like Reds in Perth, Bears in North Sydney/Gosford) I think it's best if the mascot is unique because of the competitive market.

That doesn't mean it has to something stupid like RENEGADES though...

I think common sense should have prevailed which picking the Brisbane 2 name, firstly it wasnt even the most popular, and 2nd as you say (sorta), a team shouldnt pick a name that another team in the same country has, if your goin to be unoriginal, pick a foreign teams name..

 

[dangerousdave]

By the way Dangerousdave, I am a huge advocate for you to be relocated to a mental ward, don't mean it will happen though.

Fair enough ... but there are off topic parts of this forum.

 

[adamkungl]

Easts have the money

And that's where this discussion ends.

The only junior base we will ever be interested in acquiring is the one Souffs stole from us decades ago, and even that's a stretch. What's the point?

Crowds won't increase. More people will give it away than combine to support the Bondi-Cronulla Sharksters

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Brisbane Bombers insist departure of founding director Bill Rae won't harm NRL bid

THE Brisbane Bombers insist it is business as usual in their drive for inclusion in an expanded NRL, despite the resignation of founding bid team director Bill Rae this week.

With the new independent commission set to start operation this month, the Bombers say they have done all the groundwork and will be ready to go if they get the green light.

Rival bid teams from Ipswich and Central Queensland may see it as a weakening of the Bombers' resolve, given Rae is one of the consortium's "money men" and prime mover in efforts to secure some of the superstars of league and union.

But general manager of the Bombers Expansion Bid, Craig Davison, says such a suggestion could not be further from the truth.

"We remain in the fight with Ipswich, and possibly another bid team that could come out of the woodwork, for the right to field a team in Brisbane," Davison said.

"Bill has so much on his plate with his business. It has gone from small to gigantic and he needs to give it his full attention. There is no hidden agenda or politics in his decision. We have private investors lined up ready to go if we are part of NRL expansion plans."

Rae's company, RCI Military Logistics, has been awarded a multimillion-dollar federal government tender to provide logistics support for navy ships and submarines in Australian and foreign ports until 2014.

Rae could not be contacted yesterday, but Davison, managing director of The Outdoor Furniture Specialists, said Rae's passion for, and belief in, a second National Rugby League team in Brisbane had not waned. He hoped to welcome Rae back as a director when business commitments allowed.

The other bid team director is Nicholas Livermore, who has been prominent in sports corporate hospitality and sponsorship for a decade.

Livermore is a son of former Queensland Rugby League managing director Ross Livermore, who has made no secret of his interest in becoming a board member at the new club.

Expansion is likely to hinge on the whim of the broadcasters when the independent commission strikes a new television deal.

A team in Perth appears a formality, and Davison is confident television executives would want another team in Brisbane given the success of the Broncos and high ratings for matches at Suncorp Stadium.

The Bombers have held extensive talks with Intrust Super Cup club Sunshine Coast Sea Eagles about an affiliation.

Sunshine Coast chief executive Justin Veivers said the club looked forward to having an involvement with the Bombers if they were accepted into the NRL.

"With a population of 300,000 from Caboolture to Gympie and more than 5000 juniors, we tick all the boxes for an affiliation," Veivers said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...brisbane-nrl-bid/story-e6frep5x-1226247816612

 

[Goddo]

Sounds like it is work related and has nothing to do with the bid.

Military logistics - nice work if you can get it. Some of the biggest (and most evil) companies in the world are mil logistics organisations -SERCO Sodexho is the first that comes to mind... absolute monster of a company that runs just about every service industry yet not many people are aware about.

 

[docbrown]

What are the Bombers club affiliations in Brisbane itself?

Sunshine Coast will one day deserve their own team so it's not a long term solution to have Brisbane Bombers represent that region. They'd better have some strong affiliations in Brisbane to rival the Broncos.

 

[rednblack]

You call it politics, but quite clearly the best business case for NRL expansion would be Perth and Brisbane.

Other factors muddy the water a bit, but you only have to look at expansion in the past to see where we are heading - growth and better market reach.

Cronulla (only because CRL blocked Wollongong)/Penrith
Canberra/Illawarra
Newtown culled, Wests moved
Brisbane/Gold Coast/Newcastle
North Queensland/South Queensland/Perth/Auckland
Norths eye off Central Coast
SL mess
Melbourne
Sydney mergers
South Sydney (only through courts)
Gold Coast

*Perth/South Queensland*

So we start with the Giants in '88 - introduced concurrently with Brisbane (who have proven to be a very successful club). However, you've forgotten to list their demise, as well as re-incarnations in the forms of the Seagulls, Crushers, and Chargers (and their respective downfalls).

I fail to see how this could be encouraging for any current SE Qld bid.

The SE Qld region has squandered FOUR teams in the past 23 years or so, and are now on to their FIFTH (I'll admit, the SL war had a part to play in this, but it was by no means the only reason they collapsed).

If a team falls over in the region on average every 5 years or so, why would we want to introduce yet ANOTHER team into SE Qld?

Seems fairly self evident that they would be extremely long odds to succeed in the long term, does it not?

In reference to looking "at expansion in the past to see where we are heading", your chronological list fails to indicate much of a pattern regarding expansion either IMO.
Since the last major expansion event on your timeline (NQ / SQ[defunct] / Perth[defunct] / Auckland), we've seen a team plonked in Melbourne, the re-admission of an old Sydney team, another looking towards regional relocation (although this was being considered long before the SL war), and the closure of several interstate (non-NSW) clubs, plus the fifth attempt at a Gold Coast/SEQ team (sixth, if you include the successful Broncos).

If you're trying to use this list as an indication of where we're headed next, it seems to be showing that we're reverting to a MORE Sydney-centric competition!

 

[RL The greatest game]

Bombers bid in jeopardy now?
Brisbane Bombers insist departure of founding director Bill Rae won't harm NRL bid | The Courier-Mail

 

[Goddo]

So we start with the Giants in '88 - introduced concurrently with Brisbane (who have proven to be a very successful club). However, you've forgotten to list their demise, as well as re-incarnations in the forms of the Seagulls, Crushers, and Chargers (and their respective downfalls).

I fail to see how this could be encouraging for any current SE Qld bid.

The SE Qld region has squandered FOUR teams in the past 23 years or so, and are now on to their FIFTH (I'll admit, the SL war had a part to play in this, but it was by no means the only reason they collapsed).

If a team falls over in the region on average every 5 years or so, why would we want to introduce yet ANOTHER team into SE Qld?

Seems fairly self evident that they would be extremely long odds to succeed in the long term, does it not?

In reference to looking "at expansion in the past to see where we are heading", your chronological list fails to indicate much of a pattern regarding expansion either IMO.
Since the last major expansion event on your timeline (NQ / SQ[defunct] / Perth[defunct] / Auckland), we've seen a team plonked in Melbourne, the re-admission of an old Sydney team, another looking towards regional relocation (although this was being considered long before the SL war), and the closure of several interstate (non-NSW) clubs, plus the fifth attempt at a Gold Coast/SEQ team (sixth, if you include the successful Broncos).

If you're trying to use this list as an indication of where we're headed next, it seems to be showing that we're reverting to a MORE Sydney-centric competition!

The original Gold Coast was not set up properly to start with which is why they had so many problems.

They were playing out of a field in Tweed Heads because they weren't allowed to set up on the Gold Coast. Financially this hurt them, but also in those days the due dillegance from the NSWRL in ensuring the viability of clubs was weak.

That club then lurched along and finally started to look profitable and stable in 1997-98 only to be cut due to Super League.

The current Gold Coast has had problems but entirely of their own making, spending a rediculous sum on their "Centre of Excellence". But at least they own a licenced venue actually on the Gold Coast, and their Stadium is actually on the Gold Coast, and the players live and train on the Gold Coast.

You're assessment of the Gold Coast is wrong. You say "squandered" where the problems have not been generated because its unviable for clubs in SE Qld, but rather they haven't been set up well in the past.

The same problems have occured elsewhere - the Cowboys and Warriors were very lucky to survive Super League.

Then to call the Crushers a failure is just showing your "anti-Queensland because they are a threat to the Bears" hand. They were founded during the super league war, and the Broncos/Super League tried and succeeded in destroying them.

That Brisbane can and should have a second team has never really been questioned. Several Bears fans have advocated expanding there but "not yet, its our turn". The timing and form of that team is what has been debated.

I'd contend that the viability of a second Brisbane team has never truely been tested. The point I had made in that post is that every expansion since 1967 has been outside Sydney into large population centres further and further afield. No coincidence that this has happened with the development of airline networks since the 70s.

Even post war expansion within NSW has been to more remote areas of Sydney at the time - Manly (remote beach area, strong Union club), Penrith, Cronulla. Parramatta is sort of a revived Cumberland so I wouldn't count them. Still very much the fringe in 1947 though.

The Storm have been a success and the Rabbitohs only got back in because of a long winded court case. You point out clubs being shut down interstate, but at the same time financially bread basket clubs in Sydney like the Tigers, Dragons (financially sound to meet criteria but would struggle in the reduced comp), Sharks (probably first gone if criteria used in 1995, SL cash saved them as a single entity but still aproached Steelers for merger), Bears, Steelers, Magpies, Rabbitohs were forced to consider either merge or fold.

This happened because of the huge financial stress in the game post Super League and occured uniformly across the competition. The difference was young interstate teams were easier to knock on the head than the old Sydney clubs.

 

[bobmar28]

And that's where this discussion ends.

The only junior base we will ever be interested in acquiring is the one Souffs stole from us decades ago, and even that's a stretch. What's the point?

Crowds won't increase. More people will give it away than combine to support the Bondi-Cronulla Sharksters

The Roosters are based in a tiny geographical area and have a very small fan base, something needs to be done.

 

[RL The greatest game]

The Roosters are based in a tiny geographical area and have a very small fan base, something needs to be done.

Yes, move them to Adelaide or somewhere in Queensland.

 

[rednblack]

young interstate teams were easier to knock on the head than the old Sydney clubs.

Two foundation Sydney clubs where "knocked on the head", and another merged.
Can't have been THAT hard!

 

[sheepbender]

Yes, move them to Adelaide or somewhere in Queensland.

What self respecting Queenslander would support a team with a connection to the Roosters?? I would say only Manly would be a success if they were to move too the Sunshine Coast, no other Sydney team would be accepted..

 

[Goddo]

Two foundation Sydney clubs where "knocked on the head", and another merged.
Can't have been THAT hard!

Hey, the Sydney teams were given 2 years to merge or die. The non Sydney clubs were not so fortunate. They were simply removed.

Rationalising the game post SL had to happen - there was no money left to sustain the poorer clubs.

Right and wrong doesn't so much come into it. I remember feeling really uneasy about St George merging, but accepted it as the right thing to do and in hindsight was a brilliant move to secure the club for the next 100 years.

 

[adamkungl]

The Roosters are based in a tiny geographical area and have a very small fan base, something needs to be done.

You don't know what the word 'need' means, obviously.

Translation: 'I'm a Sydney hater and want some dots on a map to match the Victorians'

 

[Haffa]

The Roosters are based in a tiny geographical area and have a very small fan base, something needs to be done.

The roosters still do a good job making coin and sustaining their own existence. Kinda kills your reason for them to move. South Sydney are based in a tiny geographical area and have a small fan base within their 'Home' region. Let's move them. :roll: