Redcliffe put their hand up

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

you keep picking out one metric and using it to judge whether a team in valuable or not, this time it's ratings in New Zealand. So Perth is not valuable because people in NZ won't watch them? seriously?
Who said Skysports is going to fork out big money for a second NZ team anyway? do they even have the money considering they are owned by the same company as Fox?

I like the idea of a second NZ team but Perth has 2 million people, it's bigger than Auckland and probably the whole south island. There is plenty of room and opportunity for League over there, only people stuck in the past can't see that.

NZ2 will probably draw higher attendances than Perth and lead to more kids playing the game.

The Reds averaged 8,200 and 8,900 in 96 and 97 with a decent team. If that happens with another Perth team it will end up just like the Reds, because it will need strong attendances to draw money. It's not going to have businesses throwing money at it, like Brisbane 2 and NZ2 will enjoy, because Perth is a dyed in the wool fumbleball city.

What business is going to throw mega bucks behind a team that is watched on TV by 20,000 or 30,000 people in its home town without a large following elsewhere?

Perth does not strengthen international RL. Even if it creates more players, they do nothing to narrow the gap between Australia and everyone else. There's money and fans to be made from having a strong Test football scene.

That's a few reasons NZ2 shits all over Perth. Here's another one. Perth doesn't deserve a new team that will prevent under-represented heartland areas from having a 3rd team that will create derbies and more opportunities so local juniors do not have to relocate. More teams in Brisbane and NZ mean more school clinics and media opportunities to promote the game.

If you think Perth is so great because it has 2 million people, most of whom are dyed in the wool fumbleball fans, then take the Raiders out of the tiny regional city it's in and send them west. The Raiders would fall over without Leagues club revenue and don't provide any money drawing derbies for any other club, like the Cowboys do when they play the Broncos.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Thus totally defeating the whole point of a second Brisbane team; to have a game at Suncorp every week.

If the Dolphins get a license it'll be a joke.

I think it's more about the brisbane tv market then having a game at Suncorp every week....also to create a Derby type game

 

[Perth Red]

Melbourne draw ratings higher than most clubs, to say Perth wont rate is nonsense and impossible to call.

SKyNZ pay $20mill a year for TV rights and have done since forever, I doubt their is any appetite for them to pay more regardless of how many NZ teams there are as if you are a RL fan in NZ the only way you can watch NRL is by subscribing and so they arent generating new subscribers.

6pm AEST is a rating well for PTV and should be the permeant new slot for the ninth game. What Perth gives is the opportunity to have an afternoon game played in front of a big crowd once a fortnight in that slot. The away fortnights will be an East Coast team playing at 6pm AEST.

Ch9 havent demanded a second Brisbane club in the last deal in which they paid a massive increase on their previous deal. Wouldnt you think if it was that valuable part of their offer for $185milla year would have been an insistence on another Brisbane club???

The only advantage I can see to a second NZ team from a TV point of view is that every Friday 6pm game could be in NZ but as the Warriors are already kicking up a fuss about that I dont suppose the new club would be very happy either.

Dont worry about crowds, we got this.

 

[flippikat]

Given the Covid uncertainty, I think if the NRL announces Redcliffe as a "safe choice" soon as team 17 (debut season 2022 or 23), then at the same time they could say an 18th team will be chosen in 2022 or 2023 (debut season sometime between 2024-26) to give some time for Covid to blow-over - to a degree- before that choice is made.

That could buy them time to determine whether 18 can logistically/feasibly be Perth, NZ2, or something ultra-conservative like Central Coast, based on how the recovery is tracking.

 

[T-Boon]

the only chance perth has is a relocation. That is the basket they need to put all their apples in.

 

[flippikat]

the only chance perth has is a relocation. That is the basket they need to put all their apples in.

I hate to say it, but I'm increasingly thinking you're right. Trouble is that the NRL have downright refused to seriously entertain that option.

With the very real possibility that clubs 17 & 18 will be in conservative/heartland consolidation markets, the onus goes on Sydney to rationalise/relocate, or else we're staring at a 20+ club competition to fulfill the top tier game's commercial potential.

 

[T-Boon]

I hate to say it, but I'm increasingly thinking you're right. Trouble is that the NRL have downright refused to seriously entertain that option.

With the very real possibility that clubs 17 & 18 will be in conservative/heartland consolidation markets, the onus goes on Sydney to rationalise/relocate, or else we're staring at a 20+ club competition to fulfill the top tier game's commercial potential.

The relocation area (in the case Perth) needs to offer money to an existing club such as West Tigers or Penrith Panthers. Make it irresistible.
The NRL could support this by saying to Perth we will rubber stamp a relocation to Perth if you can unify and get some interest from an existing club and they could also get support from the clubs by saying we will back a team relocating to Perth with extra salary cap and grant money which will be cheaper than us having a brand new NRL team over there.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think it's more about the brisbane tv market then having a game at Suncorp every week....also to create a Derby type game

Ever since the earliest market studies were done on a potential second Brisbane club just over a decade ago there has always been a conclusion that the club should be based out of Suncorp full time because it's centralised, it's the best RL stadium in the world, and it would massively cut costs for the broadcasters because they can use their current set up at Suncorp instead of having to invest in more equipment and having to move it between stadiums.

In other words one of the keystones behind the push for a Brisbane club even from the earliest days has always to get a game out of Suncorp every week, and if a bid isn't providing that then it shouldn't even be considered.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

As someone with no involvement or attachment to a new brisbane team - even though I'm all for one to become a 17th side in the NRL - I like the idea of Redcliffe as opposed to a brand new brisbane team like firehawks etc

And apologies for using an AFL comparison here (outrageous!) - but I'd suggest this would be akin to Port Adelaide coming in with a huge existing fan base - but also a huge fan base that hate them all ready made. It's worked well here in Adelaide for them.

So my question is to those far more knowledgeable than I on Qld Rugby League - is there a big fan base existing for Redcliffe - ie how would they rank in terms of support against other clubs their comp - and secondly, would they have a historic and significant "hatred factor" of any kind?

 

[The Great Dane]

I hate to say it, but I'm increasingly thinking you're right. Trouble is that the NRL have downright refused to seriously entertain that option.

With the very real possibility that clubs 17 & 18 will be in conservative/heartland consolidation markets, the onus goes on Sydney to rationalise/relocate, or else we're staring at a 20+ club competition to fulfill the top tier game's commercial potential.

Only V'Landys has refused to seriously entertain that option.

V'Landys won't be around forever.

Besides none of the clubs will relocate so it's a waste of time discussing it.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Melbourne draw ratings higher than most clubs, to say Perth wont rate is nonsense and impossible to call.


Dont worry about crowds, we got this.

View attachment 42179

Mate I'm with you, Adelaide bias of course. But despite consistent mentioning of this that you've (rightly) made here on LU, my experience is people in NSW/Qld/ACT don't get it, see it, or want to see it.

Same goes for Adelaide - the last 3 Storm Roosters games have Drawn between 16k & 21k at the Adelaide Oval. For a city with no team for over 20 years, a small, next to insignificant local rugby league competition, and at an "unfriendly" stadium for rectangular sport. Crowds would never be an issue in Perth or Adelaide. I couldn't be more confident of that.

Ratings for each of these cities would increase the overall eyeballs on screens significantly more than a CC or CQld team - with a far smaller population base, of whom I'd suggest are already watching league on TV - ie already in the existing eyeball pool.

The Storm are a great case study in how a successful expansion team should work. They are successful on the field, and off it. And sustained over a long period of time. Structuring an expansion team in WA or SA on their models would prove to to be an outstanding success IMO.

 

[Pippen94]

Ever since the earliest market studies were done on a potential second Brisbane club just over a decade ago there has always been a conclusion that the club should be based out of Suncorp full time because it's centralised, it's the best RL stadium in the world, and it would massively cut costs for the broadcasters because they can use their current set up at Suncorp instead of having to invest in more equipment and having to move it between stadiums.

In other words one of the keystones behind the push for a Brisbane club even from the earliest days has always to get a game out of Suncorp every week, and if a bid isn't providing that then it shouldn't even be considered.

Where is this market research you mention? TV is biggest push behind 2nd Brisbane team. Western Corridor want a stadium built in south somewhere.

 

[Pippen94]

Melbourne draw ratings higher than most clubs, to say Perth wont rate is nonsense and impossible to call.

SKyNZ pay $20mill a year for TV rights and have done since forever, I doubt their is any appetite for them to pay more regardless of how many NZ teams there are as if you are a RL fan in NZ the only way you can watch NRL is by subscribing and so they arent generating new subscribers.

6pm AEST is a rating well for PTV and should be the permeant new slot for the ninth game. What Perth gives is the opportunity to have an afternoon game played in front of a big crowd once a fortnight in that slot. The away fortnights will be an East Coast team playing at 6pm AEST.

Ch9 havent demanded a second Brisbane club in the last deal in which they paid a massive increase on their previous deal. Wouldnt you think if it was that valuable part of their offer for $185milla year would have been an insistence on another Brisbane club???

The only advantage I can see to a second NZ team from a TV point of view is that every Friday 6pm game could be in NZ but as the Warriors are already kicking up a fuss about that I dont suppose the new club would be very happy either.

Dont worry about crowds, we got this.

View attachment 42179

Melbourne are a top performing team so get featured in prime time a lot. In Melbourne tho team averages about 20k per match.

 

[The Great Dane]

As someone with no involvement or attachment to a new brisbane team - even though I'm all for one to become a 17th side in the NRL - I like the idea of Redcliffe as opposed to a brand new brisbane team like firehawks etc

And apologies for using an AFL comparison here (outrageous!) - but I'd suggest this would be akin to Port Adelaide coming in with a huge existing fan base - but also a huge fan base that hate them all ready made. It's worked well here in Adelaide for them.

So my question is to those far more knowledgeable than I on Qld Rugby League - is there a big fan base existing for Redcliffe - ie how would they rank in terms of support against other clubs their comp - and secondly, would they have a historic and significant "hatred factor" of any kind?

The AFL alienated a huge portion of the potential fan base for the second Adelaide club when they announced it would be Port Adelaide instead of a neutral club.

The NRL can't afford to do that in Brisbane, mainly because it's f**king stupid to knowingly alienate so many potential customers, but also because none of the QRL clubs have demonstrable support large enough to support an NRL club.

At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you want a small suburban club or a club with mass appeal. Why you'd want a suburban club that struggles to make ends meet IDK, but that is the question.

 

[Pippen94]

I think it's more about the brisbane tv market then having a game at Suncorp every week....also to create a Derby type game

Ideally you'd have three teams with game three nights a week. Instead ppl talking about Adelaide & Perth like it's 1997.

 

[Perth Red]

Melbourne are a top performing team so get featured in prime time a lot. In Melbourne tho team averages about 20k per match.

Well its a good job we dont only show NRL in Melbourne then isnt it? lol. Melbourne actually are rarely on FTA and for the games most successful club are mostly on PTV. Probably because any respecting NRL fan in Melbourne has Fox or Kayo given the way Ch9 has shafted the game and fans in that state over the years! The fact Melbourne ar emore watched in NSW and Qland than many clubs from those states shows you that the audience is largely made up of neutral fans, not fans of the clubs playing.

 

[The Great Dane]

Where is this market research you mention? TV is biggest push behind 2nd Brisbane team. Western Corridor want a stadium built in south somewhere.

Most of it's not actually publically available, but you've got a Google machine you're free to use it to find articles on the results.

Or if you prefer you could trawl through some of the old threads here on expansion in Brisbane/Queensland.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

The AFL alienated a huge portion of the potential fan base for the second Adelaide club when they announced it would be Port Adelaide instead of a neutral club.

The NRL can't afford to do that in Brisbane, mainly because it's f**king stupid to knowingly alienate so many potential customers, but also because none of the QRL clubs have demonstrable support large enough to support an NRL club.

At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you want a small suburban club or a club with mass appeal. Why you'd want a suburban club that struggles to make ends meet IDK, but that is the question.

Hello Dane, been a while..

PA had a huge fan base before going into the AFL - loads who supported them, and loads who hated them. And it has worked well for them. It's not alienated anyone - it's brought rivalry immediately to the table and sustained it - not an ambivalent, beige start for a team that people don't know whether to follow, hate or otherwise. I don't know the ins n outs of Redcliffe in a similar vain thus asking locals/Qlders who know more than I.

 

[Pippen94]

The AFL alienated a huge portion of the potential fan base for the second Adelaide club when they announced it would be Port Adelaide instead of a neutral club.

The NRL can't afford to do that in Brisbane, mainly because it's f**king stupid to knowingly alienate so many potential customers, but also because none of the QRL clubs have demonstrable support large enough to support an NRL club.

At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you want a small suburban club or a club with mass appeal. Why you'd want a suburban club that struggles to make ends meet IDK, but that is the question.

Dolphins more like Fremantle - represents larger area & geographic divide.
What you are suggesting hasn't worked anywhere in the world. New team needs point of difference. Carbon copy of Broncos will fail like Melbourne City, Crushers etc.

 

[Perth Red]

Hello Dane, been a while..

PA had a huge fan base before going into the AFL - loads who supported them, and loads who hated them. And it has worked well for them. It's not alienated anyone - it's brought rivalry immediately to the table and sustained it - not an ambivalent, beige start for a team that people don't know whether to follow, hate or otherwise. I don't know the ins n outs of Redcliffe in a similar vain thus asking locals/Qlders who know more than I.

Redcliffe look like the Manly of Brisbane. Do we really want another Manly?

Dolphins more like Fremantle - represents larger area & geographic divide.
What you are suggesting hasn't worked anywhere in the world. New team needs point of difference. Carbon copy of Broncos will fail like Melbourne City, Crushers etc.

Not close, Fremantle were deliberately set up as a new stand alone club with no ownership or links to existing WAFL clubs so as not to polarise supporter bases. It would be more akin to a brand new Brisbane club but named after a area of Brisbane, Say North Brisbane somethings.