Redcliffe put their hand up

[Pippen94]

Why move the Raiders, a functioning and sustainable club that is the only club in it's market, when there're at least 3-4 clubs in Sydney at any one time that aren't sustainable?

If we were living in a world where all the Sydney clubs were huge successful clubs then I'd see your point that regional clubs aren't as valuable as metropolitan clubs and therefore, under certain circumstances, maybe one of them should make way for a more important and valuable metro club, but we simply don't live in that world.

All about dots on map, huh?
NRL is profitable because of broadcast deal. Canberra adds nothing to that - not one of 5 capitals which count. Gf appearance was a disaster for NRL. Afl won't commit team there - too small.

 

[Pippen94]

Its staggering to see the FC losses of some clubs like the eels over the last 5 years. It amounts to over $30million! Not saying we should get rid of eels but if it was a business world then youd be hard pressed to make a business case for continuing it!

Yeah, get rid of most popular team in biggest Rugby League market!! New Perth fans will make up for that - just Storm fans

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Redcliffe would have to pay rent on Suncorp. They'd better be able to attract 25k plus crowds or that rent will be a killer for them.

I wrote in my post

''The Dolphins have their own stadium so no need to pay rent for any stadium other than Suncorp''

The facted that they are committed to playing the vast majority of their games at Suncorp means that they understand that a second Brisbane club (including themselves) must play out there for broad appeal and commercial reasons.

25k won't be a problem when you consider that they will have the following high-drawing games off the bat in season 1:

Broncos 52k
Cowboys 35 - 40k
Storm 35 - 40k
Warriors 25 - 30k
Titans 30 - 35k

The remaining 5 games will only need to draw an average of about 14k to hit a 25k Suncorp average for the season.

 

[flippikat]

I don't really think the Sunshine Coast thing will happen for the following reasons in my opinion:

• The Sunshine Coast Falcons are a rival QLD Cup team
• The Melbourne Storm are linked with the Sunshine Coast which is a rival NRL team
• The Dolphins have their own stadium so no need to pay rent for any stadium other than Suncorp

I'm certainly all for NRL clubs taking matches to the Sunny Coast though.

Those are fair points.. but keep in mind that feeder arrangements can change over time. I wonder if the Sunshine Coast Falcons would switch allegiances from Melbourne Storm to South Queensland Dolphins in return for a guaranteed game or two there every season? Yes, the main feeder club for SQ Dolphins would be Redcliffe, but I think dual feeder club arrangements have happened in the past.

 

[Perth Red]

Yeah, get rid of most popular team in biggest Rugby League market!! New Perth fans will make up for that - just Storm fans

Did you read, "not saying we should get rid of them"? I'm making a counter argument to yours which is suggesting only clubs with strong business value should be in the NRL. If you just looked at the P&L of the Eels no business in its right mind would keep the doors open. But footy isnt like other business so Eels bring value, just like the Raiders in their way. The TV deal is based on content sale AND popularity. If you got rid of clubs that weren't drawing lessor TV viewers in the overall audience you would end up with about 12 clubs and only 6 games to sell. Do you think the TV deal would be as valuable with only 6 games?? For the umpteenth time it doesnt matter how many people in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide or Canberra are watching NRL, neutrals from NSW and Qlnd are tuning in to watch them and that is what the NRL is selling, the overall TV audience. Melbourne are the SECOND most watched team in the NRL ffs.

 

[Perth Red]

Those are fair points.. but keep in mind that feeder arrangements can change over time. I wonder if the Sunshine Coast Falcons would switch allegiances from Melbourne Storm to South Queensland Dolphins in return for a guaranteed game or two there every season? Yes, the main feeder club for SQ Dolphins would be Redcliffe, but I think dual feeder club arrangements have happened in the past.

If that is the goal, to sustainably cover two market areas then why not set it up as a joint venture? Share ownership and guarantee the SC a feeling of ownership so people their commit to the club. If not it will only happen whilst the Dolphins feel they have something to make out of it which will eventually pee people off like has happened in Perth and Gosford.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Those are fair points.. but keep in mind that feeder arrangements can change over time. I wonder if the Sunshine Coast Falcons would switch allegiances from Melbourne Storm to South Queensland Dolphins in return for a guaranteed game or two there every season? Yes, the main feeder club for SQ Dolphins would be Redcliffe, but I think dual feeder club arrangements have happened in the past.

Yeah that's a good point, I guess the Falcons may not always be linked with Melbourne and that could change especially if Redcliffe a (relatively more) local option opens up. The SC / Redcliffe option makes a lot of sense if Melbourne were out of the picture.

I wonder how committed the Storm are long-term to the Sunny Coast? I know they have their netball team and academy up there but it may be a stop-gap until they can start producing more Victorian juniors.

 

[flippikat]

If that is the goal, to sustainably cover two market areas then why not set it up as a joint venture? Share ownership and guarantee the SC a feeling of ownership so people their commit to the club. If not it will only happen whilst the Dolphins feel they have something to make out of it which will eventually pee people off like has happened in Perth and Gosford.

Fair point there from the Sunshine Coast perspective.. if Redcliffe want to broaden their reach from suburban or even city to truly regional, then a joint venture or some sort of formal, lasting agreement is certainty for the SC side.

However.. Redcliffe have coveted an NRL for so long, it's hard to see them giving up complete control of this venture. Not now that they're so close to winning the prize.

 

[flippikat]

I wonder how committed the Storm are long-term to the Sunny Coast? I know they have their netball team and academy up there but it may be a stop-gap until they can start producing more Victorian juniors.

Do the Netball team and the Falcons Qld cup team & league academy have any overlap in terms of operations? Eg clubrooms, training facilities, etc..

With little overlap, it'd be easy to have the Storm still owning/operating the netball, and divesting itself of all league operations.

The model I'm thinking of is the Redcliffe Dolphins as the NRL team's reserve team, and the SC Falcons as more a development-slanted team. Generally local late teens-early 20s players coming through, with a view to come up through (to the Dolphins NRL team).. an academy up there under the ownership/management of the Dolphins would make sense - if the Storm are willing to sell up and farm juniors somewhere else.
Maybe instead of a Joint Venture as PerthRed suggested, the Dolphins may just buy a controlling stake in CC Falcons.. or buy the whole club?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Fans in Brisbane, Auckland and Sydney have at least one club they can follow if they are NRL fans. If you took Raiders out of Canberra who would NRL fans in Canberra be able to watch? Same with Perth and Adelaide, its the ultimate arrogance and selfishness to say we need another team in our city because we dont like the one we have when RL fans in other cities have no options at all to follow a local NRL club.

What about cricket, basketball, soccer, fumbleball and netball fans in Canberra?

The governing bodies of those sports have recognised they are irrelevant. You cannot have a team everywhere. I've seen people on here argue that smaller heartland areas should be happy with having a team in the Queensland Cup and NSW Cup.

Why can't RL fans in the regional city of Canberra be happy with having a team in the NSW Cup?

Or is that "different" somehow because the rules you make shouldn't apply to you?

RL fans in Adelaide and Perth need to do what RL fans in Brisbane did between 1909 and 1987. Build up their local competitions until there's a big enough supporter base and player base to warrant a seat at the table with the big boys. Telling us that we must give them a team, at our expense, then fund them with our players, to the detriment of our teams, is the height of socialist insanity and entitlement.

Does any one else see the arrogance and disrespect of PR inviting himself into a foreign country and rudely telling the nationals of it how to run their game, then whinging nonstop when the governing body doesn't give him what he wants?

He ignores the hardships that Queensland RL fans and officials were subjected to between 1909-1987, either because he's a selfish prick who doesn't care about us or is too dumb to understand the history of the game in Australia, and tells us we must continue to be under-represented just so he can get what he wants.

Queensland has done the hard yards and deserves a second and third team in Brisbane.

Besides, PR already has a team that he follows. Melbourne Storm.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Markets don't need to do anything to "deserve" a team - the NRL should be convincing those markets that they want a team! and then putting in the resources to grow

but no, whats apparently best for the NRL is to always play the defensive..

AFL is gaining a little bit of traction in QLD! Oh no! we need to have a bunch of teams in Brisbane to combat this!!
the AFL has 2 teams in Sydney?? Shit! we need to make sure we keep our 9 teams or the AFL will win!

Its ridiculous.

and yet noone stops to think how the AFL is gaining that traction (its by having teams and investment in the area btw). Perth, Adelaide, NZ cities out of Auckland all aren't going to grow without a dedicated team in the area.

I want NZ to have 3 teams.

I am the only person on here regularly advocating for three NZ teams.

Dane, mongoose and PR want NZ to be limited to 1 or 2 teams.

Queensland and NZ got no helping hand, yet RL flourished in both areas. The NSWRL killed the BRL through poker machine revenue that they had access to from the 50s. Revenue that BRL clubs didn't have due to Queensland legislation prohibiting poker machines. The NSWRL used it to their advantage. So forgive me for not wanting to give 2 backwater fumbleball states a leg up at Queensland's expense after everything we've been through. They already get Origin games that should be in Queensland, but that's not enough for PR and Dane.

 

[flippikat]

I want NZ to have 3 teams.

I am the only person on here regularly advocating for three NZ teams.

Dane, mongoose and PR want NZ to be limited to 1 or 2 teams.

Mate, I *live* in Wellington (have all my life), and I can tell you that we're not ready for 3 teams here.

Two, yes - especially if the Warriors convert their late season form this year into a strong few years ahead.. but a 3rd is 10 years away at least, and Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane 2 (and probably 3) would be ahead of us getting a 3rd team.. due to timezones & market size.

I admire you're commitment to 3 NZ teams, but from this Kiwi's viewpoint you're in cuckoo-land.

 

[adamkungl]

but from this Kiwi's viewpoint you're in cuckoo-land.

wasnt he suggesting a Tigers half-relocation to Perth earlier?

 

[flippikat]

wasnt he suggesting a Tigers half-relocation to Perth earlier?

Why yes, yes he was.

It comes down to this: we have stuff-all money, and stuff-all influence on the Australian RL establishment. We are not in a position to ask for 3 NRL clubs.

A 2nd NRL team, sure.. we might be able to argue it'll add a bit of spice here, and a bit more revenue - but the big fish are Brisbane (2 & 3), Perth & Adelaide. They need to be 'landed' first.

Even after that, we're looking at a 20 team comp.. unless by some miracle Sydney rationalizes it's footprint. If depth is already being tested, going into a 20+ club competition for tiddly markets like Wellington is nuts.

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe instead of a Joint Venture as PerthRed suggested, the Dolphins may just buy a controlling stake in CC Falcons.. or buy the whole club?

I was more suggesting a NRL license co-owned by both clubs. Though I dont know if Falcons have a LC or asset base do they? Last thing SC needs is another club coming in and buggering off like Manly did and Storm will eventually.

 

[Perth Red]

Why yes, yes he was.

It comes down to this: we have stuff-all money, and stuff-all influence on the Australian RL establishment. We are not in a position to ask for 3 NRL clubs.

A 2nd NRL team, sure.. we might be able to argue it'll add a bit of spice here, and a bit more revenue - but the big fish are Brisbane (2 & 3), Perth & Adelaide. They need to be 'landed' first.

Even after that, we're looking at a 20 team comp.. unless by some miracle Sydney rationalizes it's footprint. If depth is already being tested, going into a 20+ club competition for tiddly markets like Wellington is nuts.

Some nuts think Christchurch is a good idea because it is getting a new stadium (which will be lovely). Despite the fact it is less than 400k, dominated by the successful Crusaders (who can only avg sub 15k crowds) and has ltd RL support or corporate opportunity. The only viable option is Auckland2 but why would you cannabilise the Warriors who are hardly the games strongest club?

 

[flippikat]

Some nuts think Christchurch is a good idea because it is getting a new stadium (which will be lovely). Despite the fact it is less than 400k, dominated by the successful Crusaders (who can only avg sub 15k crowds) and has ltd RL support or corporate opportunity. The only viable option is Auckland2 but why would you cannabilise the Warriors who are hardly the games strongest club?

I happen to be one of those nuts, lol. I think if a NZ 2nd club is desirable for the NRL, Christchurch has it over anywhere else due to the stadium, their sporting culture, and their inbuilt hatred of all things Auckland. As far as the attendance goes, I think it's a case of "build it & they will come" - NZ HAS to have more covered stadia built here, because our professional sports have to be evening kickoffs for overseas TV.

In summer, that's no problem, but in a Kiwi winter it just ain't family-friendly in an outdoor stadium.

 

[flippikat]

I was more suggesting a NRL license co-owned by both clubs. Though I dont know if Falcons have a LC or asset base do they? Last thing SC needs is another club coming in and buggering off like Manly did and Storm will eventually.

I don't think Redcliffe want that at all. Co-ownership usually means shared decision-making, which means Redcliffe cedes control, and gets consensus in return.

I have a feeling that Redcliffe want complete control over this venture - and to be honest, given the impotency of the joint ventures we've already seen, who can blame them?

 

[Perth Red]

I don't think Redcliffe want that at all. Co-ownership usually means shared decision-making, which means Redcliffe cedes control, and gets consensus in return.

I have a feeling that Redcliffe want complete control over this venture - and to be honest, given the impotency of the joint ventures we've already seen, who can blame them?

Im sure your right, in which case they shouldn't pretend they are somehow representing the SC fans I say. It will only breed resentment and end in tears that its yet another club coming in to take jnrs and happy to take fans money without giving anything back long term. Most feeder club arrangements dont seem to last long term.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Mate, I *live* in Wellington (have all my life), and I can tell you that we're not ready for 3 teams here.

Two, yes - especially if the Warriors convert their late season form this year into a strong few years ahead.. but a 3rd is 10 years away at least, and Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane 2 (and probably 3) would be ahead of us getting a 3rd team.. due to timezones & market size.

I admire you're commitment to 3 NZ teams, but from this Kiwi's viewpoint you're in cuckoo-land.

I never said you would add NZ2 and NZ3 in 2020 FFS. I've stated before in another thread, Brisbane 2 would be in 2023, NZ2 would be 2028, Brisbane 3 would be mid 2030s and NZ3 would be some time in the mid 2040s.

Didn't you once claim Perth should have 2 teams?

You do realise that Perth cannot sustain 1 team on its own, right?

The Reds went bust in 1995 and had to be bailed out by News Ltd. It's why they went with Super League. That was when Fremantle were making their debut season and only won a few games. Now Perth has two mega AwFuL clubs and an RU club.

How on Earth do you expect Perth to support 2 RL teams against that?

The Force failed in Perth and had to be bailed out by a sugar daddy. RU is far bigger than RL in Perth, about double the size, at least. Let that sink in.

Adelaide will probably never be in a position to support its own team and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Same goes for Perth.