Sydney Sharks

[tri_colours]

They don’t have SOO, test matches and international tv revenue. What they do have is an extra game a week and a stronger capital city footprint. The revenue gap isn’t closing it’s getting wider at a media revenue and overall revenue. Time for some growth and revolution if we don’t want to be forever the second rate footy code,

They have about 10 000 extra hours at club level.

Origin may bring plenty of benefits but it a trade off. 1/3 of our club season is affected by being without our best players , or having to back up after just a few days.

Since our commission came in we have seen an annual increase in our revenue of near 400%. Has AFL done that?

 

[T-Boon]

well it's one of the most geniused ideas put forward... why the hell would people in the eastern suburbs follow the sharks? why replace a successful club like the roosters with a black sheep like the sharks?
why leave a league mad region like sutherland/cronulla for an area that doesn't even care about sport let alone league? I mean the roosters are the only league club anyone in east sydney are going to feign support for.

Haha. Thanks.
Its a great idea though.
Cronulla can keep their link to the Cronulla region by playing there 3 times a year, plus play out of the best stadium in Sydney the rest of the time rather than sharks park which is the pits of hell. But to do that they might as well try to sneak in on the city by calling themselves Sydney.
I feel like with Rugby dying, the Roosters not really making the city their own then it is either hand the city to the Swans or someone else should step up and give it a go.
It makes even more sense since the Rabbitohs have abandoned their post and are like the Balmain team now or whatever the hell they are.

 

[Diesel]

The way things are going in Canberra with the new stadium it's starting to look like it may be possible that the Raiders (and Brumbies) might be left with nowhere suitable to play, and may be left with no choice but to relocate (or slowly die) soon enough.

It's definitely still an outside chance, but if you are lucky (and I'm very unlucky) maybe, just maybe the Raiders will be looking for a new home soon enough. There's a certain symmetry in relocating from one capital city to another that I like as well.

Is this partly because of the pro-AFL government in the ACT not getting fully behind a rectangular field but is happy to upgrade the cricket ground for 3 AFL games for a Sydney team each season?

 

[Perth Red]

They have about 10 000 extra hours at club level.

Origin may bring plenty of benefits but it a trade off. 1/3 of our club season is affected by being without our best players , or having to back up after just a few days.

Since our commission came in we have seen an annual increase in our revenue of near 400%. Has AFL done that?

you know as well as I do that increase has largely been catch up due to the sht deals we got 1997-2012 due to terrible and conflicted ownership of the game and finally getting independent in 2013 and getting our media revenue up to its actual value. The stark reality is despite that major increase we still sit well behind our main competitor.

Those hours and extra advertising space are only relevant to fta, Fox we dominate subscriptions in so should be getting significantly more than afl. We are saddled with our image as a two state game with a couple of bolt ons, until we shift that we will continue to lag behind.

 

[The Great Dane]

Is this partly because of the pro-AFL government in the ACT not getting fully behind a rectangular field but is happy to upgrade the cricket ground for 3 AFL games for a Sydney team each season?

Yeah pretty much.

Currently the plan is to buy Bruce stadium from the AIS, knock it down and sell the land to developers for them to build housing on it, then build a new stadium in Civic (even though there's literally no space for a stadium in Civic anymore unless they realign a major road and/or knock down a handful of buildings, realistically none of which is going to happen, but this is an aside).

In theory at least the current plan is for that new stadium in Civic (or wherever it'll actually be built) to be rectangular, here's the problem though, everybody can see that if Andrew Barr could get away with it he'd build a multipurpose stadium (and he's said that is his preferred option before), so if Barr can get his way the new stadium will be an oval and Bruce stadium will have been knocked down to help fund it, which will leave the rectangular sports with no rectangular stadium to play in.

That will leave the Raiders and Brumbies with the conundrum of having to choose whether they play out of an oval stadium that'll severely hurt their crowds and their businesses, try to stay in Canberra/Queanbyan by moving to the next best rectangular fields in either Seiffert or Viking Park, both of which only have about 1k seats and moving to them will severely hurt their crowds and their businesses, but at least they aren't supporting the people that f**ked them by playing out of the new stadium, or do they do what is best for their clubs and relocate to a market where there's an appropriate stadium to play out of and the local government is supportive.

If I was left to make that decision then Canberra wouldn't have any professional rugby teams anymore!

I want to make it clear it's not certain that things will go down that way, it's not even the most likely outcome, but it's a definite possibility, and that fact alone is concerning.

 

[tri_colours]

you know as well as I do that increase has largely been catch up due to the sht deals we got 1997-2012 due to terrible and conflicted ownership of the game and finally getting independent in 2013 and getting our media revenue up to its actual value. The stark reality is despite that major increase we still sit well behind our main competitor.

Those hours and extra advertising space are only relevant to fta, Fox we dominate subscriptions in so should be getting significantly more than afl. We are saddled with our image as a two state game with a couple of bolt ons, until we shift that we will continue to lag behind.

You can fantasies , you can make up all the reasons you like. They get more money because they offer the networks thousands of more advertising minutes, as well as offering a lot more programming, as well
Fox spends plenty of time advertising.

If it was all about having more dots on the map , as you elude to, then why don't they just put a dot in Tasmania ? Rather than poor millions down that black hole in Qld? Some dots are obviously worth a lot more than others!

 

[The Great Dane]

You can fantasies , you can make up all the reasons you like. They get more money because they offer the networks thousands of more advertising minutes, as well as offering a lot more programming, as well
Fox spends plenty of time advertising.

If the broadcasters just wanted as many ads as possible then they'd just run old sitcoms on the cheap with 15 minutes of ads an episode 24/7, they don't do that because quality is important as well, and most old sitcoms aren't breaking ratings records.

Advertising space for a 5 minute show that has a billion viewers would be significantly more valuable then space on an hour show with 500k viewers.

If it was all about having more dots on the map , as you elude to, then why don't they just put a dot in Tasmania ? Rather than poor millions down that black hole in Qld? Some dots are obviously worth a lot more than others!

Because Tasmania isn't a particularly valuable market... No offence to Tasmania (Canberra isn't exactly a jewel in the crown either), but not all markets are equal. It's not just about having dots on a map, but also where those dots are on the map, and before you say it, yes you can have to many dots on the one spot.

National coverage, or at least coverage that hits the key markets, is more valuable then regional coverage because it give advertisers exposure to more varied markets.

Some times there are advertisers that want targeted regional advertising, but more often than not the real money is in advertising that 5% of every major market sees, and not advertising that 25% of a single market sees.

Also a few of those "dots on the map" in the NRL are individually worth what a handful of the dots on the map of Sydney are worth (especially if we are counting AFL dots), so if I was you I'd let that tired f**king slogan die.

 

[tri_colours]

If the broadcasters just wanted as many ads as possible then they'd just run old sitcoms on the cheap with 15 minutes of ads an episode 24/7, they don't do that because quality is important as well, and most old sitcoms aren't breaking ratings records.

Advertising space for a 5 minute show that has a billion viewers would be significantly more valuable then space on an hour show with 500k viewers.

Because Tasmania isn't a particularly valuable market... No offence to Tasmania (Canberra isn't exactly a jewel in the crown either), but not all markets are equal. It's not just about having dots on a map, but also where those dots are on the map, and before you say it, yes you can have to many dots on the one spot.

National coverage, or at least coverage that hits the key markets, is more valuable then regional coverage because it give advertisers exposure to more varied markets.

Some times there are advertisers that want targeted regional advertising, but more often than not the real money is in advertising that 5% of every major market sees, and not advertising that 25% of a single market sees.

Also a few of those "dots on the map" in the NRL are individually worth what a handful of the dots on the map of Sydney are worth (especially if we are counting AFL dots), so if I was you I'd let that tired f**king slogan die.

You answered your own question in your 2nd paragraph .

That's why Melbourne has 10 dots and Sydney has 9 and AFL spend 100' of millions trying to get more dots in Qld and Sydney while some people would like to give the more important ones away just to create a more geographical eye pleasing landscape.

 

[The Great Dane]

You answered your own question in your 2nd paragraph .

That's why Melbourne has 10 dots and Sydney has 9 and AFL spend 100' of millions trying to get more dots in Qld and Sydney while some people would like to give the more important ones away just to create a more geographical eye pleasing landscape.

The AFL has spent the last 20 years now trying to get more of the Melbourne clubs to relocate.

North Melbourne is probably the Melbourne based AFL club that is struggling the most at the moment, yet they are better off and bigger than even the most successful Sydney based NRL club (or any NRL club at all), and I remind you that despite that fact the AFL has spent the last 20 years trying to convince them to relocate out of Melbourne. That fact alone should be a massive warning sign!

If all the Sydney clubs were thriving then maybe you'd have a point, but they aren't, and the only reason we aren't constantly worried about one of them carking it like we were a few years ago, is because now the NRL is propping them all up. Take that $13mil a year away and half of them are back to being in the shit again.

If the roles were reversed and the AFL were based in NSW and QLD, then they would have spent fortunes trying to crack the WA, SA, and VIC markets, because realistically those markets are more or less just as important markets as the NSW and QLD markets in the Australian context.

Finally, the Broncos, Storm, and probably even the Warriors are each individually worth two or three of the smaller Sydney clubs to the NRL in the money that their presence in the competition nets them in broadcasting, sponsorship, and corporate dollars, similar would be true of any Perth or Adelaide clubs. So tell me again who are the more important dots on the map?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

well it's one of the most geniused ideas put forward... why the hell would people in the eastern suburbs follow the sharks? why replace a successful club like the roosters with a black sheep like the sharks?
why leave a league mad region like sutherland/cronulla for an area that doesn't even care about sport let alone league? I mean the roosters are the only league club anyone in east sydney are going to feign support for.

I can't disagree with what you've said there. I just find it funny that a troll post in now on to page 4.

 

[T-Boon]

I can't disagree with what you've said there. I just find it funny that a troll post in now on to page 4.

It wasn't a troll post.
I just don't get how this sort of move isn't at least worth discussing. In my opinion it is a topic worthy of discussion for each of the Sydney clubs.
Are they in the proper part of Sydney? How hard would it be to move? What would be the pros and cons?
I mean if Cronulla was kicking the worlds arse like Collingwood is I would get it. No go zone. But it is Cronulla.
6 games a year at Moore Park and 6 games a year at Shark Park and a name change. You would keep your Cronulla fans plus start recruiting some youngsters from the city. Then eventually reduce it to 3 games a year at Shark Park.
The Sharks could take over South Sydney since the Rabbitohs are now Balmain.

 

[mongoose]

Haha. Thanks.
Its a great idea though.
Cronulla can keep their link to the Cronulla region by playing there 3 times a year, plus play out of the best stadium in Sydney the rest of the time rather than sharks park which is the pits of hell. But to do that they might as well try to sneak in on the city by calling themselves Sydney.
I feel like with Rugby dying, the Roosters not really making the city their own then it is either hand the city to the Swans or someone else should step up and give it a go.
It makes even more sense since the Rabbitohs have abandoned their post and are like the Balmain team now or whatever the hell they are.

okay... but im not sure what makes you think the Sharks would draw bigger crowds than the Roosters in the city.

 

[mongoose]

North Melbourne is probably the Melbourne based AFL club that is struggling the most at the moment, yet they are better off and bigger than even the most successful Sydney based NRL club (or any NRL club at all),

Sorry but there is no way North Melbourne are bigger than the Broncos. I guess it all depends on what metrics we are measuring on but the Broncos are the highest rating or in the top 3 clubs on TV across all codes. If North Melbourne are bigger than even the Broncos then so must the Lions be and they are definitely not.

 

[T-Boon]

okay... but im not sure what makes you think the Sharks would draw bigger crowds than the Roosters in the city.

Short term they would probably struggle with crowds but long term I am confident they could outdraw the Roosters. My reasons are firstly I don't think the Roosters have done particularly well in terms of crowds in the City. They represent the eastern suburbs which is just a small part of the city/ city edge.
Maybe the Sharks could move into the city with the intent of down the line being a team for all of the inner/edge of the city suburbs. Play a couple games at North Sydney oval. North Sydney is a whole unrepresented area in heartland RL territory. Does not make any sense.

A lot of the other Sydney teams cannot do this because they are bound by their leagues clubs, but as far as I know Cronulla does not have a leagues club or if they do it is small.

 

[Perth Red]

You can fantasies , you can make up all the reasons you like. They get more money because they offer the networks thousands of more advertising minutes, as well as offering a lot more programming, as well
Fox spends plenty of time advertising.

If it was all about having more dots on the map , as you elude to, then why don't they just put a dot in Tasmania ? Rather than poor millions down that black hole in Qld? Some dots are obviously worth a lot more than others!

If that is al It was nrl would have gone to 4 qtrs a long time ago. Fox revenue mainly comes from subscriptions not advertising in game so the advertising opportunities in game has little to no bearing on what they pay.

because qlnd is worth more long term (afl desperately tried to get a team to relocate to tassie) but given the option of a second Sth qlnd team or tassie they went for the best long term growth potential, which isn’t tassie. You might not have noticed but they have had a two clubs per major state vision for a very long time.

ps where do you get 10k hours extra content from? Their game runs for an hour longer than ours and they play 198 reg season tv games which is exactly the same as us. So in fact they only have 198 hours extra content in a regular season.

 

[The Great Dane]

Sorry but there is no way North Melbourne are bigger than the Broncos. I guess it all depends on what metrics we are measuring on but the Broncos are the highest rating or in the top 3 clubs on TV across all codes. If North Melbourne are bigger than even the Broncos then so must the Lions be and they are definitely not.

For all the Broncos ratings how many of those people do you think are actually dropping money directly into the club?

Because 42,419 North Melbourne members are directly financially supporting their club, comparatively to Brisbane whom have 34,793 (I would like to see a breakdown of those numbers though).

Sure Brisbane's attendance is higher on average, but generally not by much, and North Melbourne is currently on a downward trend since 2016 while the Broncos haven't missed the finals since what 2013(?) and they've only missed the finals a handful of times in their whole existence.

If the Broncos are bigger than North Melbourne then it's only marginally so, and considering that North Melbourne is the worst of the Melbourne AFL clubs, and they have to compete with 8 other clubs in Melbourne while the Broncos have all of RL mad Brisbane to themselves, well frankly, that in of it's self makes the Broncos look very bad.

The Brisbane Lions aren't even close to North Melbourne or the Broncos BTW.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

It wasn't a troll post.
I just don't get how this sort of move isn't at least worth discussing. In my opinion it is a topic worthy of discussion for each of the Sydney clubs.
Are they in the proper part of Sydney? How hard would it be to move? What would be the pros and cons?
I mean if Cronulla was kicking the worlds arse like Collingwood is I would get it. No go zone. But it is Cronulla.
6 games a year at Moore Park and 6 games a year at Shark Park and a name change. You would keep your Cronulla fans plus start recruiting some youngsters from the city. Then eventually reduce it to 3 games a year at Shark Park.
The Sharks could take over South Sydney since the Rabbitohs are now Balmain.

Sorry mate - no offense, I thought you were having a bit of fun with the Sharkies fans

 

[T-Boon]

Sorry mate - no offense, I thought you were having a bit of fun with the Sharkies fans

All good, I can admit I bring this "troll" stuff on myself.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

All good, I can admit I bring this "troll" stuff on myself.

All good - you are an 'out-of-the-box' thinker.

O.T. But I like some of your ideas, especially reducing the number of players on the field to 12 or 11 to increase defensive fatigue and open up the play. I think it would make the game more entertaining much the same way that reducing from 15 to 13 did.

 

[Perth Red]

For all the Broncos ratings how many of those people do you think are actually dropping money directly into the club?

Because 42,419 North Melbourne members are directly financially supporting their club, comparatively to Brisbane whom have 34,793 (I would like to see a breakdown of those numbers though).

Sure Brisbane's attendance is higher on average, but generally not by much, and North Melbourne is currently on a downward trend since 2016 while the Broncos haven't missed the finals since what 2013(?) and they've only missed the finals a handful of times in their whole existence.

If the Broncos are bigger than North Melbourne then it's only marginally so, and considering that North Melbourne is the worst of the Melbourne AFL clubs, and they have to compete with 8 other clubs in Melbourne while the Broncos have all of RL mad Brisbane to themselves, well frankly, that in of it's self makes the Broncos look very bad.

The Brisbane Lions aren't even close to North Melbourne or the Broncos BTW.

broncos are the only nrl club comparable to afl clubs in terms of football operations generated revenue.
2018
broncos revenue was $46mill
Nth meLbourne was $39.6mill
biggest club in country was was WC eagles with a staggering $86.3million. Someone tell me again how tv grants are worth more than fanbase!