North Brisbane Bears

[krudmonk]

You're have to start fresh. No Bears there.

 

[Raidersrawesome]

The Bears are a perfect fit for the Central Coast , no other team relocating there will work the locals would not support that , but they will take in the Bears.
This has to happpen , we cant let this region go without a team any longer, they are a stronghold for league , lets stop neglecting it.

Bears would of been there except for that failed 'takeover' from Manly, they are now in a position to re-enter the league. They would also have little trouble attracting players.

 

[Perth Red]

The Bears are a perfect fit for the Central Coast , no other team relocating there will work the locals would not support that , but they will take in the Bears.
This has to happpen , we cant let this region go without a team any longer, they are a stronghold for league , lets stop neglecting it.

Bears would of been there except for that failed 'takeover' from Manly, they are now in a position to re-enter the league. They would also have little trouble attracting players.

I see the Bears making lots of noise about relocating there but no noise from the people or businesses or even local Govt of Gosford screaming out for them to move?

 

[LeagueXIII]

Crowds in Sydney the highest in history? Did you see the near empty stadiums on TV? In Sydney that is.

I didn't say they were the highest in history, I said they were around the highest in the history of the game - this means in the top 10.

Go here and do some research:
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html


Greatest Sydney Average:

2005 - 15,983
2006 - 14,489
2004 - 14,185
2007 - 13,815
2008 - 13,740

Find another if you can? So Sydney had their 5th highest average of all-time and the game is supposedly dieing? The problem is we are playing more games in the Olympic Stadium which gives the perception crowds are poor because once when their was 18,000 in a local ground this was near a full house, at the OS it looks empty, giving off a poor image.

And did you see the near full stadiums at one team towns? Knights, Titans, Broncos, Cowboys

Yes I did.

Did you see the crowds in these towns which were lower than those in Sydney????

Canberra - 11,913
Gosford - 11,520
Auckland - 11,440
Melbourne - 12,474
Wollongong - 12,237

 

[sharko]

I see the Bears making lots of noise about relocating there but no noise from the people or businesses or even local Govt of Gosford screaming out for them to move?

The local business people were deafening in their silence when that abortion known as the Northern Eagles was up there, as soon as the Bears are given a green light the number of local sponsors will be staggering.

 

[Perth Red]

and you know this how?

 

[Loudstrat]

They averaged over 21K in their first season.

There are a dozen reasons why they died, lack of support in Brisbane for a second team is certainly not one of them.

100% true. The meain reason is they were seen as the ARL side during the SL war.

Crowds in Sydney the highest in history? Did you see the near empty stadiums on TV? In Sydney that is.

And did you see the near full stadiums at one team towns? Knights, Titans, Broncos, Cowboys.

And which one of those plays games in an 85 000 seater????

I see the Bears making lots of noise about relocating there but no noise from the people or businesses or even local Govt of Gosford screaming out for them to move?

Plenty of noise in the past. And Gosford Council doesn't need to scream about it - Norths already built the stadium, so council have already given support for the concept.

Trouble with you is that you demand your side - which is fair enough. Yet you bag other fans in a similar position to you from wanting one?

 

[KHunt]

Better to be sucessful than national.



Funny then that Brisbane can only support one team per 2 million people (including Sunshine Coast), which is a quarter of what Sydney can sustain. Where is the game struggling again?

Actually, I think a northern Brisbane side, if elevated, should be Redcliffe. Only problem would be refurbishing Dolphin Oval, or playing home games all the way over at Lang Park.

Redcliffe is a dingy "city" (pretty much a few suburbs north Brisbane) with a population of 50,000 - they would need 40% of their population to attend games at least.

If there was to be a second Brisbane team they have to play at Lang Park. Would be great seeing more and more rugby league games at Lang Park and games featuring teams other than the Broncos. We deserve it, its a fantastic rugby league team that needs to have more exposure.

To those people who say Brisbane cant support a 2nd Brisbane side clearly haven't been to Brisbane. Support up here is enormous. It's almost an insult that Brisbane has one team and Sydney has nine. We dont want Ipswich/Redcliffe sides - no one would support them and we want games played at Lang Park. Aren't fans in NSW SICK of seeing the Broncos do so well every year? With a second Brisbane team, that would make the Broncos WEAKER, than would drain some of their TALENT, that would minimise the amount of local youngster the Broncos get. If non-Bronco fans who for years have watched the Broncos become the strongest side in the NRL dont want to see that, then f**k, i dont know anything

 

[Loudstrat]

I though Manly was the strongest side in the NRL.

Besides, can't people travel to Redcliffe? What, 20 mins from Brisbane CBD?

 

[Redsfan]

What, 20 mins from Brisbane CBD?

When did you last visit here? 1970?


Edit: Nobody will travel to Redcliffe. It's too hard to get to, and takes way too long. Maybe you'd get people from the far northern suburbs, Pine Rivers and Caboolture, but again, the transport links really aren't existant.

 

[T to the T]

I think in the next 10 years there should be at least one more side in Brisbane, possibly even 2 by 2022. Brissy is definately big enough and I'm sure there are as many anti-Broncos as there are pro-Broncos fans in the city. Also it would hurt the AFL up there with a Brisbane team home every weekend. The question is where should these future Brisbane sides be placed. Looking at demographics and gauging fan opinion I take it that the Broncos pretty much represent the north and centre (unless someone more informed can point me in the right direction) so would say the next place to base a Brisbane side is in the South/West.

However would a South Western side covering Ipswich and Logan be feasible or would there be conflict between Ipswich and Logan themselves as they feel they are big enough to hold a side themselves?

The only other option I guess is a Redcliffe/Sunshine Coast side, don't think Redcliffe is big enough alone, unless East Brisbane would feel associated with such a bid?

There is definately room though for another side, the SEQ Crushers showed that over a decade ago and the population has grown since then!

 

[East Coast Tiger]

As I've said I don't believe another Brisbane club is necessary. But if it was to happen the best idea would be to have a northside team and a southside team. This is what really should have happened all along. The problem is how do you create this now? The Broncos are based north of the river but played so many years at ANZ that they were virtually a southern team for a long time. The Crushers were also based north of the river but they were also neither here nor there. I think if it were possible the best thing would be the Broncos based at Red Hill and linked to Redcliffe, Norths and Wests (and maybe Ipswich although they are in the Southern Division which makes them Titans territory in theory) with the Crushers based on the southside and linked with Easts, Wynnum and Souths-Logan. That way they'd develop a true geographical identity within the city. That's the way it should have happened in a perfect world (one without Super League ruining everything) back in '95.

 

[KHunt]

As I've said I don't believe another Brisbane club is necessary. But if it was to happen the best idea would be to have a northside team and a southside team. This is what really should have happened all along. The problem is how do you create this now? The Broncos are based north of the river but played so many years at ANZ that they were virtually a southern team for a long time. The Crushers were also based north of the river but they were also neither here nor there. I think if it were possible the best thing would be the Broncos based at Red Hill and linked to Redcliffe, Norths and Wests (and maybe Ipswich although they are in the Southern Division which makes them Titans territory in theory) with the Crushers based on the southside and linked with Easts, Wynnum and Souths-Logan. That way they'd develop a true geographical identity within the city. That's the way it should have happened in a perfect world (one without Super League ruining everything) back in '95.

Some good ideas. I always have a feeling Broncos were west towards Ipswich and South to Sunnybank and Logan, buts its Brisbanes team not just one area of Brisbane.

I dont think it matters where its based anyway (just as long as they play at Lang Park) because when a kid grows up, eg Brisbane, he wouldnt know or care what part of Brisbane hes growing up and he might support the other team based in the other area (eg in your case, grows up in North Brisbane but support the Crushers for whatever reason) or even support the cowboys/titans because he loves a player from that team..

it gets a wee bit dull seeing the Broncos only team every week. Its hard to get a GC/Broncos rivalry yet because we are cities 1 hour away from each other. There are plenty of Bronco haters in Brisbane too, so which local team would they support if they dont like the Broncos?

Two Brisbane teams would be great, i cant wait for the day that happens.

North Brisbane is slowly becoming an AFL popular area and a NRL team there covering Sunshine Coast, Redcliffe and North Brisbane just seems to me the right idea. If the CC Bears dont get a franchise i dont see why North Brisbane Bears would be a bad idea, because for former Bears fans, its better than having no team at all.

 

[Talanexor]

Seriously, how dumb is this idea?

First figure out what growth IS. Rugby league can only grow if it attracts more fans - which means either going to areas without an existing NRL team or poaching fans from Soccer/Union/AFL (or other winter sports)

A second team isn't going to do either of these. At best, the local derby might sell a few more seats - at worst it will dilute the fan base and harm BOTH Brisbane teams.

Rugby league needs to do 2 things to grow:

1 - Expand into areas with large populations but where rugby league is not entrenched

2 - Make the game far more interesting and engaging than Soccer/Union/AFL

The first is the easier of the two. Central Coast, Perth, Adelaide. Then you look overseas to PNG, NZ, Pacific Islands.

The second is more difficult but also more important. It starts at the grass roots. Getting people interested in playing/watching league means getting kids to play not just league, but also touch and oztag.

It also means tweaking the rules to reward fast, open rugby league with plenty of ball movement. Watch the 2005 Tigers-Cowboys Grand Final. That is what rugby league should look like, and what makes it more interesting to watch than Soccer, Union or AFL.

Sydney should not be a one-team town - it's too big geographically and in terms of population - but moving to 3 or 4 teams would do wonders. It would mean more money, which means being able to attract AND RETAIN talent.

Anyone who thinks a second team in Bris is a good idea is an idiot. Anyone who's interested in rugby league in Brisbane already follows the Broncos (or another QLD team - I'm a Cowboys fan personally.) It won't attract any new fans, therefore, it's a dumb idea.

 

[Perth Red]

When they introduced a second AFL team to Perth they very carefully choose an area to represent that feels it has a distinct different identity to "Perth" and set it up in opposition of what the existing team stood for/reputation of. The Eagles were always seen as the rich club with lots of money and backers. They cleverley set up Fremantle to represent A) people south of the river B) gave it a "working class" tag to attract a certain demographic and C) the underdogs and poor cousin to the Eagles there by attracting fans that like to support the underdog. Where they play is irrelevant and both teams succesfully play out of the same stadium. if Brisbane is to get a 2nd team they need to do something similiar.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

When they introduced a second AFL team to Perth they very carefully choose an area to represent that feels it has a distinct different identity to "Perth" and set it up in opposition of what the existing team stood for/reputation of. The Eagles were always seen as the rich club with lots of money and backers. They cleverley set up Fremantle to represent A) people south of the river B) gave it a "working class" tag to attract a certain demographic and C) the underdogs and poor cousin to the Eagles there by attracting fans that like to support the underdog. Where they play is irrelevant and both teams succesfully play out of the same stadium. if Brisbane is to get a 2nd team they need to do something similiar.

The Freemantle Dockers (what a sh*t name) was simply the AFL's rushed reaction to the introduction of the Perth Reds. Freemantle got the franchise because there was no-one else in WA to give it to. Ditto the Port Adelaide Power (jesus christ what is it with the AFl and sh*t names) in SA.

 

[Loudstrat]

Seriously, how dumb is this idea?

First figure out what growth IS. Rugby league can only grow if it attracts more fans - which means either going to areas without an existing NRL team or poaching fans from Soccer/Union/AFL (or other winter sports)

A second team isn't going to do either of these. At best, the local derby might sell a few more seats - at worst it will dilute the fan base and harm BOTH Brisbane teams.

Rugby league needs to do 2 things to grow:

1 - Expand into areas with large populations but where rugby league is not entrenched

2 - Make the game far more interesting and engaging than Soccer/Union/AFL

The first is the easier of the two. Central Coast, Perth, Adelaide. Then you look overseas to PNG, NZ, Pacific Islands.

The second is more difficult but also more important. It starts at the grass roots. Getting people interested in playing/watching league means getting kids to play not just league, but also touch and oztag.

It also means tweaking the rules to reward fast, open rugby league with plenty of ball movement. Watch the 2005 Tigers-Cowboys Grand Final. That is what rugby league should look like, and what makes it more interesting to watch than Soccer, Union or AFL.

Sydney should not be a one-team town - it's too big geographically and in terms of population - but moving to 3 or 4 teams would do wonders. It would mean more money, which means being able to attract AND RETAIN talent.

Anyone who thinks a second team in Bris is a good idea is an idiot. Anyone who's interested in rugby league in Brisbane already follows the Broncos (or another QLD team - I'm a Cowboys fan personally.) It won't attract any new fans, therefore, it's a dumb idea.

So what happens when the Broncos play an away game? Surely having a home side play at Lang Park EVERY week will draw the crowds?

Or is League as much of an event in QLD as the Swans are in Sydney? Maybe Queenslanders can't keep up appearances and attend matches every week.

 

[mightybears]

A Bears fan and a Queensland resident but no. The next Brisbane team will be a Redcliffe/Northern Brisbane/Sunny Coast team or a South West Brisbane to Ipswich team and it will have a new and/or Qld id.

 

[adamkungl]

These threads are getting soooo repetitive....why can't the NRL dangle us some scrap of hope so we have something new to argue about lol.

But whatever. 20 team comp should be the eventual aim. CC and Perth in 2011 or so. Brisbane 2 the next TV deal. Adelaide and Wellington to sh*tfight for the next spot when the next TV deal comes after that, unless something changes that would make PNG or Fiji a better idea.