The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[The Great Dane]

Where do you get those numbers from? No team will get either, every team will get 10home games. Souths playing in Perth or roosters in Gosford isn’t a home game. The nrl having 32 games to strategically expose under exposed markets to more live nrl would be a massive step forward for the games growth. Not to mention more games in nz on a Friday night to deal with the shthouse 6pm time slot can only be a good thing.

Or we could just keep doing the same old same old and go nowhere fast, which we’ve been doing for at least the last 5 years.

Frankly this is just a poor solution to the problem...

For a start, even if every NRL team took all their games on the road to a different town each week you still wouldn't have enough games to go around to make any sort of significant long term impact in any of the places that the clubs visit let alone get a game to every place that needs/deserves one a year, so all you'd be doing is spreading the clubs super thinly and pissing all over there local fans to do it (which isn't a good idea).
Also the idea that the NRL should be able to control where clubs host their home games (or at least some of them) and who those particular home games are against is a really stupid idea as well, frankly they'd criminally miss manage it or failing that abuse that kind of power, and we don't want to be dealing with that clusterf**k of a situation on top of their already terrible scheduling.

There's also the point that there are some clubs who really aren't a position where they should be taking games on the road (namely the one town clubs, but probably some of the Sydney clubs as well), and mandating that they have to will have long standing effects on them.

Really to get any sustained long term results in the growth of the sport you need some sort of constant local presence, namely local clubs and/or development officers, anything else is just a short term band-aid and what you are suggesting is a poor one at that as it has consequences both in the market where the games are being taken and back in the clubs home town.

Don't get me wrong if a club wants to take some of their games on the road that is their business, but mandating that each club must take games on the road and then giving power to the NRL to organise those games is a bad idea.

 

[Perth Red]

DIsagree, I know we dont have much faith in the NRL's strategic and organisational ability but can it be any worse than the current ad hoc situation we have now for giving unexposed markets regular live opportunities? Maybe with only ten home games to sell the clubs will actually find ways to get people to games to maximise the revenue opportunities? Financially, if the NRL had been smart, they would have felt they were being compensated to the tune of $500k a game which is more than majority of them will make profit from a home game.

We dont need to try and do it everywhere, just the places that are strategically important to do it in. For me that would be:
Adelaide
Perth
Cairns
Darwin
Hobart
Gosford


Pick of:
Christchurch
Dunedin
Wellington
Hamilton

Pick of NSW regional large centres

With 32 games a year you could have 3-4 games in key expansion (or revenue value/heartland value) potential cities, and then 1-2 games in the others. That would mean you could cover around 15-20 cities a year that dont have consistent or guaranteed NRL live game exposure. Given the pace of NRL expansion this is a very positive step forward over the current situation.

Clubs are guaranteed revenue unlike current situation where those who take games on road are chasing 1-3 year deals and NRL get to actually plan something for a change.

 

[carcharias]

Who pays for all these teams to travel and be paid for their trouble?

Remembering the Western reds folded due to this exact problem.

 

[El Diablo]

Perth

lol

not until after you're cactus

 

[Perth Red]

Who pays for all these teams to travel and be paid for their trouble?

Remembering the Western reds folded due to this exact problem.

The NRL is giving clubs $13million grants this year. If they had given them $12million grants and said the other $1mill is to compensate for us controlling two home games most clubs would have been over the moon. As for paying for travel, venue hire etc, NRL would get revenue from ticket sales and Govt contracts for these games which would cover costs and then some.

 

[carcharias]

The NRL is giving clubs $13million grants this year. If they had given them $12million grants and said the other $1mill is to compensate for us controlling two home games most clubs would have been over the moon. As for paying for travel, venue hire etc, NRL would get revenue from ticket sales and Govt contracts for these games which would cover costs and then some.

You need to put that with your free rose and bubbly theory.

 

[Perth Red]

You need to put that with your free rose and bubbly theory.

moved on to soup, keep up. Roses and bubbly is a mothers day thing. nearly 14k at Force during a storm the other week, must have been the free hot soup! If only the Dragons had have known we might not have seen last nights debacle of a crowd.

 

[carcharias]

Free homeless style Soup
Free Roses during the most expensive time of the year
Free cheap cat piss bubbly
Take a mill of each club every year

You’re an ideas man.

 

[Suitman]

June 22nd.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

The NRL is giving clubs $13million grants this year. If they had given them $12million grants and said the other $1mill is to compensate for us controlling two home games most clubs would have been over the moon. As for paying for travel, venue hire etc, NRL would get revenue from ticket sales and Govt contracts for these games which would cover costs and then some.

Players would have got 8% less salary.

Rlpa vote down .. game over

 

[macavity]

Yeah despite what Macavity thinks the Knights catchment is, a hypothetical Roosters v Knights game in Gosford isn't really a Knights home game

Clubs already sell home games. They often sell them to locations partially advantageous to the away team to boost the crowd (eg. Cowboys in Darwin, NZ in Christchurch).
I don't necessarily agree with the details but all PR is calling for is a top-down coordinated approach. Claiming some teams will get 18 home games is a massive stretch

No, it would be a Roosters/Whoever home game.

It would just be guaranteed to get a decent crowd, and give CC people more chances to see a team that actually looks after their area. The CC is caught between not being quite big enough to support its own team yet being big enough to justify regular NRL games. The Knights are the closest thing to a CC team, and have looked after the area (clinics, junior trials, etc) since '88.

 

[El Diablo]

Players would have got 8% less salary.

club grants don't have anything to do with the salary cap

mong

 

[Diesel]

This game at AO tonight is what it’s going to be like for GF’s and SoO’s during the Stadium rebuilds. NRL dropped the ball, the GF’s and NSW SoO should’ve been shared with rectangle stadiums like Brisbane, Newcastle & Western Sydney Stadium

 

[Raiderdave]

This game at AO tonight is what it’s going to be like for GF’s and SoO’s during the Stadium rebuilds. NRL dropped the ball, the GF’s and NSW SoO should’ve been shared with rectangle stadiums like Brisbane, Newcastle & Western Sydney Stadium

you can't hold a GF or SOO in a 30K seat stadium

 

[The Great Dane]

DIsagree, I know we dont have much faith in the NRL's strategic and organisational ability but can it be any worse than the current ad hoc situation we have now for giving unexposed markets regular live opportunities? Maybe with only ten home games to sell the clubs will actually find ways to get people to games to maximise the revenue opportunities? Financially, if the NRL had been smart, they would have felt they were being compensated to the tune of $500k a game which is more than majority of them will make profit from a home game.

We dont need to try and do it everywhere, just the places that are strategically important to do it in. For me that would be:
Adelaide
Perth
Cairns
Darwin
Hobart
Gosford


Pick of:
Christchurch
Dunedin
Wellington
Hamilton

Pick of NSW regional large centres

With 32 games a year you could have 3-4 games in key expansion (or revenue value/heartland value) potential cities, and then 1-2 games in the others. That would mean you could cover around 15-20 cities a year that dont have consistent or guaranteed NRL live game exposure. Given the pace of NRL expansion this is a very positive step forward over the current situation.

Clubs are guaranteed revenue unlike current situation where those who take games on road are chasing 1-3 year deals and NRL get to actually plan something for a change.

Lets say that I accept all of this and put it to the side for the moment (for the record I don't, even if all the games were split only between the above places as you suggest there'd still be next to no market penetration and it'd still be a short term ban-aid instead of a long term solution that comes with a lot of negative consequences, but as I said put that aside for the miniute), what about the other concerns I put forward?

What about the NRL potentially abusing their power of organising these games or even worse using it as a punitive measure to keep the clubs that aren't pulling the party line in check?

What about the clubs that aren't really in a position where they should be taking games on the road for whatever reasons?
As an aside to this point and speaking frankly, if I was the NRL there are clubs I'd be banning from taking games on the road cause it's not in their or the NRLs' long term interest, such as Melbourne, Newcastle, Canberra, NQ (outside of NQ that is), etc, not forcing or encouraging them to take games on the road.

What about it being treated as a solution to the problem and then turning into a roadblock in the way of real progress on a local level?

What about the NRL clubs being spread to thin and the consequences in their home towns of having games taken away?

What about the optics of it? Looks pretty desperate to me having teams playing all over the place, looks like they are failing businesses at home and need the payday to keep the doors open...

Your post hasn't really responded to a lot of the more serious concerns and criticisms.

 

[Timbo]

you can't hold a GF or SOO in a 30K seat stadium

I dunno - as a one off, maybe? It’s be a pretty intense atmosphere. Most of the fans are watching on TV anyway.

The capacity of the SFS for the first five or so GF’s there was capped at 40k so it wouldn’t be far off at the new Parra at 30k.

I’m still a fan of the idea of taking it on the road for a few years during construction though. Brisbane, Melbourne and Auckland to host.

 

[taipan]

Who pays for all these teams to travel and be paid for their trouble?

Remembering the Western reds folded due to this exact problem.

He's using the Perth Red's old accounting formula.Called hang the expense.Clive Palmer says hi!

 

[Raiderdave]

I dunno - as a one off, maybe? It’s be a pretty intense atmosphere. Most of the fans are watching on TV anyway.

The capacity of the SFS for the first five or so GF’s there was capped at 40k so it wouldn’t be far off at the new Parra at 30k.

I’m still a fan of the idea of taking it on the road for a few years during construction though. Brisbane, Melbourne and Auckland to host.

I think Sydney gets them all regardless , so it'll be the SCG
its just how many are held there , 1 or 2 til the new Allianz is completed , it will get 1 , then its back to a redone homebush the year after

 

[Timbo]

Who pays for all these teams to travel and be paid for their trouble?

Remembering the Western reds folded due to this exact problem.

Don’t you know? The teams giving up their home games get to pay!

‘Good of the game’. FMD.

 

[siv]

18 teams - 25 rounds

Gives everyone 12 home games and one regional venue game