What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

If the Western Force get cut

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Blind freddy knows there is too many nrl teams in sydney.

Blind Freddy is a moron though, like most of the people in this thread.

But even a moron could easily make a business case for 18 teams, one in Perth and the other in Brisbane or Wellington or Christchurch.
 

papabear

Juniors
Messages
973
People keep bringing up North Sydney.

North Sydney werent just relocated. North Sydney were merged -> relocated - > culled.

I am not suggesting a merge
I am not suggesting a cull
I am simply suggesting a relocation.

Honestly, easts are flogging their home games now. If they still got 6-7 games played at the SFS and were called the Perth Roosters would they lose that many? They are still the tri colours, they are still the same club, run by the same people, with the same players, they just run out of a different office.
 

papabear

Juniors
Messages
973
I'm not going into detail to respond to you on all your comments, because it's old ground what happened 70 plus years ago compared to today ,and thus banging my head against a brick wall.
You can live in a Canberra bubble ,and throw pins at maps.Anyone can do that.I can do likewise from Sydney.

The reality is,Sydney has already been screwed by rationalisation,and lost fan support as a result.To suggest otherwise exhibits ignorance.Wests,Tigers,Dragons and Illawarra.individually got more fans to their games than collectively as joint ventures.North Sydney fans are they all following other clubs.my experience suggests no.
The AFL do not want anymore relocations.

The Swans have benefitted ,that is not a guess and more so when Souths were flicked.The Tahs benefitted .
And I have no doubt should the Force be flicked the Pirates would benefit.
And NRL fans(not just Sydney) are fickle,check Raider's crowds when they were losing and when they are winning.

I watched St George many years ago prior to any thought of SL,and their crowds were far better at Jubilee than today.And the Steelers had decent crowds at times.

I do know this rl fans are divided into those who will watch the game and not tied to a club and rarely attend, those that are tied to a club and would still follow the game, and those tied to a club who would toss it in should they lose that club.The latter are not an inconsequential number.
If a club gets into deep financial problems I would accept relocation, but only on that basis.
I'm not going into detail to respond to you on all your comments, because it's old ground what happened 70 plus years ago compared to today ,and thus banging my head against a brick wall.
You can live in a Canberra bubble ,and throw pins at maps.Anyone can do that.I can do likewise from Sydney.

The reality is,Sydney has already been screwed by rationalisation,and lost fan support as a result.To suggest otherwise exhibits ignorance.Wests,Tigers,Dragons and Illawarra.individually got more fans to their games than collectively as joint ventures.North Sydney fans are they all following other clubs.my experience suggests no.
The AFL do not want anymore relocations.

The Swans have benefitted ,that is not a guess and more so when Souths were flicked.The Tahs benefitted .
And I have no doubt should the Force be flicked the Pirates would benefit.
And NRL fans(not just Sydney) are fickle,check Raider's crowds when they were losing and when they are winning.

I watched St George many years ago prior to any thought of SL,and their crowds were far better at Jubilee than today.And the Steelers had decent crowds at times.

I do know this rl fans are divided into those who will watch the game and not tied to a club and rarely attend, those that are tied to a club and would still follow the game, and those tied to a club who would toss it in should they lose that club.The latter are not an inconsequential number.
If a club gets into deep financial problems I would accept relocation, but only on that basis.
Pretty much every club is in deep financial problems except the broncos and maybe storm. They are either being bailed out by there leagues club or the NRL. Take away the additional "loan monies" from the NRL or additional leagues clubs grants and you have a buffet of choice.

As for mentioning Gold Coast, or Canberra, imo they represent a region that is worth persisting with.
 
Messages
21,867
Blind Freddy is a moron though, like most of the people in this thread.

But even a moron could easily make a business case for 18 teams, one in Perth and the other in Brisbane or Wellington or Christchurch.

I kinda feel like we need all 3 new teams.

But expansion will likely happen in even numbers, so I'm not totally against a Sydney club relocating if the right option can be found.
 
Messages
21,867
People keep bringing up North Sydney.

North Sydney werent just relocated. North Sydney were merged -> relocated - > culled.

I am not suggesting a merge
I am not suggesting a cull
I am simply suggesting a relocation.

Honestly, easts are flogging their home games now. If they still got 6-7 games played at the SFS and were called the Perth Roosters would they lose that many? They are still the tri colours, they are still the same club, run by the same people, with the same players, they just run out of a different office.

Are you suggesting a team would split home games between Perth & Sydney? You need to be totally committed to a new market, especially one that has been burnt by the loss of the reds & now likely the force.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,959
on the force, apparently rebels owner has offered to sell his license back to the ARU. ARU own the Force so would be easiest to cut, both Rebels and Force in serious financial distress.

Despite everything and great weather Force only attracted 8.5K fans to nib yesterday, seems even their own fans have given up.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,959
Funny prior to the Dragons becoming a joint venture club, they were sustainable as a single entry.they either played at Jubilee or the SCG had bigger crowds ,their League club was packed on game day, and they didn't have to borrow from the NRL to be wait for it:SUSTAINABLE.

The fact is on population growth basis ,your crowd example is full of holes.

Dragons would be in even more strife, why because they would have less paying customers than they have now. They are in strife as their league club funding has dried up and they haven't been able to replace it with anything else. Steelers were in serious strife on crowds of sub 10k. when they got merged.

At least on a crowd avg of 13-16k and with a much bigger membership potential across both regions the joint club may just survive where as unlikely either stand alone would have done.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,959
yep, if they didn't count as a legit source of income the likes of Raiders, Eels and Panthers would have been put into receivership a long time ago!

It only becomes a problem when the leagues club struggles like at Sharks and Dragons.(leaving aside the ethics of paying for a professional sport from the losses of poor gambling addicted saps)

yes it would be better if all Leagues clubs funding was going to jnrs and not to propping up the NRL club but that isn't the case yet and for some clubs with low fanbases etc then they are probably always going to be reliant on some element of Leagues clubs funding.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,273
Hey Red.. I know you are a big fan of the AFL...

Maybe the NRL should just copy them and hand out more money to struggling clubs....

Do you agree?

What benefit does the AFL get propping up dying clubs in Melbourne like St Kilda?

Looks like your revenue tax has been given the arse as well...

Also, even after these hand outs 11 of the 18 still lose money!!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/c450f059c9436a8343b81636d0273c52

GREATER Western Sydney received nearly $11 million more than the AFL’s financial heavyweights in distributions from the league last year.

The Giants were handed $21,548,374 by the league in 2016, more than double the $10,553,565 handed to Adelaide.

But while the expansion clubs last year were handed over $38 million in AFL distributions, St Kilda was allocated $18,566,589 in AFL cash.

The league handed over $255 million of revenue generated by the game to clubs, with the Western Bulldogs allocated the third-highest sum — $17,610,181

One million of that figure included the prizemoney the Dogs were awarded when they won their fairytale premiership last year.

Despite the massive sum of money allocated, 11 of the AFL’s 18 clubs recorded an operating loss last year.

The figure handed out by the AFL takes into account a club’s financial circumstances, stadium deals and historical costs.

Victorian power clubs Geelong ($10,787,483) and Collingwood ($11,304,689) received the lowest payments in this state.

They also had to pay out cash to the AFL as part of a revenue tax, which raised $3.6 million from 10 wealthy clubs, distributed to the poorer eight clubs.


While the GWS figure is significant, chief executive David Matthews last week told the Herald Sun 18 teams made financial sense.

“It’s on the record we might get $20 million but every club gets $10 million or $11 million,’’ he said.

“We might get more than Gold Coast and four or five million more than a couple of Melbourne clubs who have been around for 150 million years.

“But what we talk to the AFL Commission about is are we on track, are we growing our revenue streams?

“The simple headline on the investment is the AFL has already got the investment back by creating the ninth game.

“That extra game is worth $57 million. If you split it equally with us and the Gold Coast we are already washing our face.

“And we will continue to build but it’s a generational plan. We are spending $1.5 million under the soft (football department) cap.

“What we know from the AFL Commission is we had a meeting three weeks ago and they are satisfied with our trajectory.”

“Our crowds are up, we have sold out all our sponsorships.”

The league has now scrapped its revenue tax after persistent complaints from clubs that it penalised initiative and success.

In its place is what AFL financial boss Ray Gunston calls a “more flexible and sophisticated analysis of relative structural inequalities in revenues and cost to determine club funding requirements.”

The league is adamant it will use its new TV rights riches to invest in the game for the next 20 years, rather than spend all that money over the next six seasons

2016 PAYMENTS TO CLUBS

1. GWS Giants $21,548,374

2. St Kilda $18,566,589

3. Western Bulldogs $17,610,181

4. Brisbane Lions $17,532,922

5. Gold Coast Suns $17,194,594

6. North Melbourne $15,022,303

7. Melbourne $14,799,452

8. Port Adelaide $13,206,665

9. Sydney Swans $12,488,957

10. Richmond $12,358,925

11. Essendon $11,914,715

12. West Coast Eagles $11,703,240

13. Hawthorn $11,614,683

14. Carlton $11,607,942

15. Collingwood $11,304,689

16. Geelong Cats $10,787,483

17. Fremantle Dockers $10,563,307


18. Adelaide Crows $10,553,565



*All clubs received an $8.188 million base payment and a $1.2 million bonus payment.



Extra payments included equal and disequal financial assistance, prize money, and distributions from Etihad Stadium signage rights.
 
Last edited:

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,273
I've had a gut full of the AFL cheerleaders....

They are more guilty than the NRL of propping up poor performing clubs....
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,959
Like thd
Hey Red.. I know you are a big fan of the AFL...

Maybe the NRL should just copy them and hand out more money to struggling clubs....

Do you agree?

What benefit does the AFL get propping up dying clubs in Melbourne like St Kilda?

Looks like your revenue tax has been given the arse as well...

Also, even after these hand outs 11 of the 18 still lose money!!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/c450f059c9436a8343b81636d0273c52

I do actually think that a variable grant is a better option than one size fits all, as long as its investing in long term strategically important clubs and positioning. Its not unique to the AFL, NRL has been giving more to the Storm for years, and quite rightly so.

No idea, clearly its unsustainable to have so many teams in Melbourne, eventually they will have to deal with it. having nine clubs in one city isn't working, if they cant make it work with their massive crowds, massive memberships, centralised stadiums and bigger TV deal then what hope NRL of seeing all Sydney clubs sustained?

They needed a ninth game a few years ago to maximise their TV deal, if they hadnt been in a rush theyd have been better letting some clubs fall and making them relocate if they felt GC and West Sydney was strategically long term important places for clubs.

of course they are losing money in a year that they are negotiating to get a bigger slice of the new tv deal. Hardly likely they were all going to show balance sheets flush with cash and give the AFL an excuse to not give them more. Its like News ltd saying 16 of 18 NRL clubs are losing money, its a furphy.

End of day the report says the ninth game is worth $57million which is a lot more than they are putting into the two expansion teams a year. they are basically expanding into NRL heartland again at no real cost to the AFL. Now that's smart business!
 
Last edited:

papabear

Juniors
Messages
973
I am sure VFL clubs have big monies dropped into them by licensed leagues clubs as well.

Eitherway, NRL clubs like melbourne AFL clubs (if thats the case) would struggle on football related revenue.

Having less clubs reliant on leagues clubs monies and thriving on football revenue can only be a good thing.
 

papabear

Juniors
Messages
973
Are you suggesting a team would split home games between Perth & Sydney? You need to be totally committed to a new market, especially one that has been burnt by the loss of the reds & now likely the force.
It is totally committed to the new market, the office / players or live and are based in perth. All home games in perth.

All I am suggesting is playing away sydney games at the old locations home ground to give people time to adjust, to travelling to other grounds to see their side play.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,273
I do actually think that a variable grant is a better option than one size fits all, as long as its investing in long term strategically important clubs and positioning. Its not unique to the AFL, NRL has been giving more to the Storm for years, and quite rightly so.

No idea, clearly its unsustainable to have so many teams in Melbourne, eventually they will have to deal with it. having nine clubs in one city isn't working, if they cant make it work with their massive crowds, massive memberships, centralised stadiums and bigger TV deal then what hope NRL of seeing all Sydney clubs sustained?

of course they are losing money in a year that they are negotiating to get a bigger slice of the new tv deal. Hardly likely they were all going to show balance sheets flush with cash and give the AFL an excuse to not give them more. Its like News ltd saying 16 of 18 NRL clubs are losing money, its a furphy.

I just think its interesting that you point to the AFL as something that the NRL should aspire to become because they get big crowds, have expanded everywhere throughout Australia and have a bigger TV deal...

Even with these benefits, they are spending a lot more money keeping their poorer performing clubs afloat...

I suspect this might be a bit of a revelation to you....
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,959
not at all, they have basket cases, as does every code. Other codes like soccer and union cut clubs that cant pay their way, AFL are similar to where the NRL is currently at, trying desperately to find ways to prop up unsustainable clubs in an over crowded market. They have tried to get clubs to move to no avail so for now are seeing if they can invest enough in them to help them stand on their own two feet. Same as NRL.

My belief is it is destined to fail, I guess for them at least they can do it as they have everything else in place. They have expanded to where they want clubs, they have a variable grant system, they tax the rich to pay for the poor and they have a media deal of a lot more money due to the ninth game

NRL has none of these things in place so the result is no expansion and having to take over ownership of clubs rather than a system that supports them.

id rather see a club like the Knights get more money than a club like the Broncos so they are sustainable rather than the disaster after disaster they have been for the last few years.
 

Billythekid

First Grade
Messages
6,570
The NRL is not going to remove or relocate a Sydney team and they shouldn't either. It's a waste of time even considering it because the NRL and the clubs themselves won't so it's a waste of time.

Sydneys population is going to rise dramatically in the coming years so IMO it would be foolish to be removing teams now.

The AFL can support 18 teams despite each team requiring more players and drawing players from a much smaller base than the NRL (we can get talent from NZ, PNG, pacific islands, UK etc). There is no reason the NRL can't support 18 teams and IMO 20-22 teams is realistic as well.

Let's focus on expanding the comp instead of going backwards by removing or relocating teams.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,273
not at all, they have basket cases, as does every code. Other codes like soccer and union cut clubs that cant pay their way, AFL are similar to where the NRL is currently at, trying desperately to find ways to prop up unsustainable clubs in an over crowded market. They have tried to get clubs to move to no avail so for now are seeing if they can invest enough in them to help them stand on their own two feet. Same as NRL.

My belief is it is destined to fail, I guess for them at least they can do it as they have everything else in place. They have expanded to where they want clubs, they have a variable grant system, they tax the rich to pay for the poor and they have a media deal of a lot more money due to the ninth game

NRL has none of these things in place so the result is no expansion and having to take over ownership of clubs rather than a system that supports them.

id rather see a club like the Knights get more money than a club like the Broncos so they are sustainable rather than the disaster after disaster they have been for the last few years.

The majority of their clubs are basket cases if 11 of the 18 are still losing money after these handouts from head office....

Unless they can keep doubling their revenue every TV deal, the AFL probably are destined to fail, particularly with the amount of money they are putting into the Gold Coast and GWS with minimal results to date....

Their clubs get every supposed leg up going around with crowds, sponsorships, favourable conta media comment but they still cant turn a dollar?
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,273
The NRL is not going to remove or relocate a Sydney team and they shouldn't either. It's a waste of time even considering it because the NRL and the clubs themselves won't so it's a waste of time.

Sydneys population is going to rise dramatically in the coming years so IMO it would be foolish to be removing teams now.

The AFL can support 18 teams despite each team requiring more players and drawing players from a much smaller base than the NRL (we can get talent from NZ, PNG, pacific islands, UK etc). There is no reason the NRL can't support 18 teams and IMO 20-22 teams is realistic as well.

Let's focus on expanding the comp instead of going backwards by removing or relocating teams.

I find it interesting that the AFL have no competition from other sports eg French Rugby etc for their players...

Why do they need to pay them so much money?
 
Top