Partial relocation, the soft option?

[Perth Red]

Hawthorn, the current AFL premiers, began taking some games to Launceston in 2001. In 2006 they entered into a contract with the Tasmanian Government to play four home games a year in the city. As a result they added 9000 members.

A PricewaterhouseCooper's report into their contribution to the Tasmanian economy found that their presence during the 2014 season generated a total direct expenditure of $17.5 million for the state. This combined with a total of $12 million in brand exposure for Tasmania across all Hawthorn assets for 2014, brought the value of the partnership to almost $30 million.

By increasing supply in Tasmania, Hawthorn has received a lucrative sponsorship from the Tasmanian Government, 9000 memberships and healthy increase in brand value which in turn increases their corporate appeal.

The reduction in supply of their home games in Melbourne has resulted in nearly a 50% increase in home crowds. They are still a traditional Melbourne based club, yet they have expanded their business and are reaping the rewards.

The NRL can learn from this model. There have already been attempts to put teams in Adelaide, Perth and the Central Coast that have failed in the past. Maybe now though, these areas provide new lucrative markets for certain clubs to expand into. If there is too much supply in Sydney, move some games on a permanent basis to another market.

There are potential owners and regions that want to invest in the game – Central Queensland, Wellington, Perth, Brisbane etc. It might not be the right time to add more teams or relocate a club, but as a code we can still build our business and expand. By doing so ensuring the viability of some existing clubs.

The NRL has always had trouble with the Gold Coast. They don't have team in Central Queensland. The region is heartland Rugby League country. It is home to global mining companies, LNG plants and is one of Australia's richest agricultural regions.

They have an investor who wants to bring NRL to the community. Maybe 9000 extra members and exposure to some new sponsorship opportunities would help. The NRL could distribute some supply – let's say 3 or 4 games – which will increase demand on the coast.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...l-cant-afford-more-teams-20150512-gh01bc.html

 

[BuffaloRules]

The comparison to AFL in Tasmania is meaningless, as their will be no State Govt money available for the Titans to take games to Central Qld.

Its funny, some people proclaim that the Gold Coast is vitally important to the NRL to prop up the region against the AFL "threat" ( which I believe is overstated, given the amount of money the AFL is pumping into the Suns..)

If this is the case, shouldn't they be trying to play more games on the Gold Coast?

 

[Perth Red]

It could well be the Titans best, maybe only, chance to become financially sustainable long term. Playing three games on CQ and nine on Gold Coast wouldn't turn off the 15k fans they have got and would give them a secondary fanbase to market to. Murphy would need to offer a long term commitment financially but if no other investors come forward it might be the nrl's only option. For places very unlikely to get an nrl team in the next20 years it is worth exploring a twinning arrangement.
Roosters - Gosford
Titans- rocky
Parra- Darwin
Manly- Wellington
Storm-Hobart
Raiders-Adelaide
All worth exploring. Even if it was only one or two games guaranteed and supported by nrl a year.

 

[The Great Dane]

It could well be the Titans best, maybe only, chance to become financially sustainable long term. Playing three games on CQ and nine on Gold Coast wouldn't turn off the 15k fans they have got and would give them a secondary fanbase to market to. Murphy would need to offer a long term commitment financially but if no other investors come forward it might be the nrl's only option. For places very unlikely to get an nrl team in the next20 years it is worth exploring a twinning arrangement.

An individual alone won't be able to offer the Titans enough to make taking a handful of games away worth their while.
The government and local third party sponsors would have to be involved as well to help with rent, local marketing and other such things, otherwise the majority of the money that Murphy is offering to get the games off the ground up there would go strait back into growing community support and not into the Titans coffers.

Roosters - Gosford
Titans- rocky
Parra- Darwin
Manly- Wellington
Storm-Hobart
Raiders-Adelaide
All worth exploring. Even if it was only one or two games guaranteed and supported by nrl a year.

The bold are all bad ideas.

The Raiders and Storm are needed more in their respective areas, removing even one of the 12 games that each team plays in their cities/regions is removing the majority of the publicity for both the club themselves and the sport from that city/region for the time that they are away, when both clubs aren't in need of the money that they would stand to gain from moving their home games and are in hotly contested sports markets it just seems like an unnecessary risk.

To remove home games while one is severely out of favor with the locals and the other is the only representative of a minority sport in it's whole state, just seems monumentally stupid when we have another market with 9 clubs in it that wouldn't face the same problems if a few games were removed.

Just on the Raiders, we can't move home games anyway because our stadium, training facilities and government loan agreements all require us to play 12 home games a season in the ACT, and even if we could get out of playing 12 games in Canberra (which is incredibly unlikely) the attitude around the club would be to either take that game to China to help keep Huawei on board or if we couldn't do that then to take that game to one of the other country towns in our region. Taking games to other cities just isn't in the Raiders interests at the moment.

On Manly in Wellington, the only way that it would be worth while is if the game was against the Warriors, but that isn't one of the games that they are trying to move (they are trying to move their Raiders, Cowboys and Titans games BTW) so it'd be a wasted opportunity IMO. The NRL would be better off pushing them into the direction of Adelaide or Hobart where the games would do more good.

 

[Perth Red]

So when Raiders said they'd move a game to Perth if it was shown on fta they were fibbing?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...raiders-may-play-in-perth-20121031-28kpx.html

I think ten home games a year, well spread out in decent scheduling is enough to sell memberships and keep interest, there is a theory that less is more in sports entertainment and part of the current crap crowds for some games is fans pick and choose which games they will attend as there are more than enough in a season.

The fly in the ointment would be if the nrl reduce the season rounds as has been muted.

Who the teams would partner with would be up to them and where the best business opportunities lay.

NRL could help a lot with this and would certainly fast track the expansion of the nrl around this country and NZ. At the moment it will take fifty years at the current rate to see ft nrl clubs across the country and some cities it is unlikely they will ever have their own club. This would be the only solution for those places. I think Murphy is waking up to this fact.

 

[Warrior@Heart]

Bulldogs in Christchurch was always a place I thought could work as a secondary home. A region with the same name (Canterbury) and a great sporting culture. Would be an advantage also against teams from warmer climates (NQ & GC) plus their away games against Wests, Parra and Souths are usually at ANZ so moving 2-3 home games wouldn't actually decrease the amount of times they play at ANZ.

 

[reanimate]

The NRL needs to decide what the f**k they're doing with Sydney's North Sydney before ever considering a Manly/Wellington partial relocation. NZ needs its own standalone second NRL team, either a new entity or a full relocation.

 

[Diesel]

Sydney teams have that advantage where they can play 18-20 of their 24 games in Sydney/NSW.

 

[Perth Red]

I think the Sydney central stadium policy will play a big part in this. It will allow more memberships that include home and away games at same venue meaning you can move games out of Sydney for those clubs without the fans missing out seeing their team play X amount of games a year in Sydney. It would even work for a new Brisbane team if the Brothers get the gig and want to take two games to their regions they could include the Broncos game in membership and convince the Titans to play at Suncorp and include that one. Just needs some intelligent scheduling and investment by the NRL.

Let's say parra, Tigers and bulldogs all play out of a new western stadium, Bulldogs could play two in Canterbury, eels in Darwin and tigers in Perth (if no expansion) and home fans could still get a 12 game membership for their clubs games at nrl west stadium. It would also drive up crowds for those games with two sets of members getting admission for those games.

 

[The Great Dane]

So when Raiders said they'd move a game to Perth if it was shown on fta they were fibbing?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...raiders-may-play-in-perth-20121031-28kpx.html

No they weren't fibbing, it just didn't work out.

They were negotiating with the ACT government to try and get the go ahead to break there contract and the government was open to it, if the NRL would play a representative game of some sort in Canberra either in 2013 or 2014.

The NRL said no so the government said no, but it's all moot anyway because the only way we were going to move a game was if Nine broadcast it and they said that they wouldn't broadcast it anyway and that desperation for exposure was the only reason that we were going to move the game anyway, so even if the NRL had met the ACT governments demands it still wouldn't have happened.

Since the NRL were the ones begging the Raiders to take a game to Perth so that they could keep their promise to Perth of having X amount of games in Perth in 2013 maybe you should be whinging at them for promising something that they weren't in any position to promise instead of whinging about the Raiders no taking a game to Perth when it was the NRL and Nine that couldn't make it worth our trouble.

 

[Perth Red]

Not whinging about anything, you said Raiders wouldn't take A home game on the road, they very nearly did and if ch9 had said yes they would have done.

 

[The Great Dane]

Not whinging about anything, you said Raiders wouldn't take A home game on the road, they very nearly did and if ch9 had said yes they would have done.

I never said that.

 

[bobmar28]

The comparison to AFL in Tasmania is meaningless, as their will be no State Govt money available for the Titans to take games to Central Qld.

Its funny, some people proclaim that the Gold Coast is vitally important to the NRL to prop up the region against the AFL "threat" ( which I believe is overstated, given the amount of money the AFL is pumping into the Suns..)

If this is the case, shouldn't they be trying to play more games on the Gold Coast?

Yes they should. And if the Titans fold the AFL will claim victory.

 

[paulmac]

If the NRL don't expand and I was Manlys CEO I would be looking to play 3 games at Suncorp against out of Sydney teams.ie Warriors Titans Cowboys.Do a deal with Wynnum Manly and offer a "Manly Maroon Membership".get Fatty to promote it and over time I reckon could get as many Brisbane members as Sydney ones.

 

[Perth Red]

Well 8000 turned up on Monday night so they don't have a lot to lose. I wonder how much money they lost on Monday?

 

[undertaker]

If the NRL don't expand and I was Manlys CEO I would be looking to play 3 games at Suncorp against out of Sydney teams.ie Warriors Titans Cowboys.Do a deal with Wynnum Manly and offer a "Manly Maroon Membership".get Fatty to promote it and over time I reckon could get as many Brisbane members as Sydney ones.

Good idea you suggested.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Well 8000 turned up on Monday night so they don't have a lot to lose. I wonder how much money they lost on Monday?

They got 10,000 there on a sunny Sunday Afternoon the previous week.

Probably with the $50K or whatever it is that the NRL pays all clubs to host a Monday game they finished in front...

 

[joshreading]

'Dual City teams' is the way forward. Not only for some of the Sydney teams but to some degree most teams. The reality is a number of teams have population, fan base, membership and corporate support issues.

Clearly this includes teams such as Manly, Sharks, Raiders. I follow the Storm passionately and also think we need to consider moving a game to either Geelong or Hobart (my preference). The idea that the Raiders could not move a game (or more) away from Canberra as it would some how be really negative is a joke. I also live here in Canberra and some games are nearly a waste here. Moving games such as Penrith/Cowboys would be best elsewhere (especially somewhere like Cairns for the Cowboys game). People here don't follow the Raiders or the Brumbies because they play a certain amount of games, they follow them because they like the sport and/or they are successful. The Raiders are in a long term agreement with the ACT Gov but anything can change if it is worthwhile to both parties.

I totally agree that most teams should have a permanent/long term agreement with secondary cities

 

[Canard]

If the NRL don't expand and I was Manlys CEO I would be looking to play 3 games at Suncorp against out of Sydney teams.ie Warriors Titans Cowboys.Do a deal with Wynnum Manly and offer a "Manly Maroon Membership".get Fatty to promote it and over time I reckon could get as many Brisbane members as Sydney ones.

Manly are hated in QLD

 

[paulmac]

Manly are hated in QLD

No they're not.i live on the GC and I reckon behind Souths & Saints they are the most supported Sydney team up here.