18th team still possible this tv deal

[LeagueXIII]

What about the Bears. News Corp dont care about perth or adelaide they just want a full stadium that looks good on tv they dont care where it is played.

 

[Colk]

What about the Bears. News Corp dont care about perth or adelaide they just want a full stadium that looks good on tv they dont care where it is played.

What about them?

 

[Pippen94]

What about the Bears. News Corp dont care about perth or adelaide they just want a full stadium that looks good on tv they dont care where it is played.

They want teams in metros because advertisers pay for that. Preferably Sydney which is most lucrative

 

[Pippen94]

I cannot see Melbourne ever getting a second team. The Storm's success on the field has drawn support from proud Victorians who like to stick it to Sydneysiders. They've been adopted as everyone's second team behind their AwFuL club. A second NRL team wouldn't be successful on the field and would end up like the Hunter Mariners, as Storm fans would hate them and the rest of Victorians wouldn't care about RL enough to get behind a new team.

I think Adelaide and Perth have potential. Especially Perth. I don't think the ARLC has the desire to make a team work in Adelaide or Perth, but there's support from Perth's RL community that could get them over the line. I think the ARLC would consider Perth if enough businessmen from the Pirates stumped up $15m to $25m for a licence as insurance.

I don't see much interest for NZ 2. At least not from businessmen or the community. There is interest for Brisbane 3 and Perth.

God knows how things will work out. Our game never does the sensible thing.

They want a Perth but they want somebody else to pay for it. Don't blame them

 

[Colk]

They want teams in metros because advertisers pay for that. Preferably Sydney which is most lucrative

Not when you already have 9 sides there. It is no longer lucrative

 

[Colk]

They want a Perth but they want somebody else to pay for it. Don't blame them

All clubs need to stand on their own two feet. It’s a very conservative thought process - not wanting to invest in anything - but it is at least understandable

 

[Pippen94]

Not when you already have 9 sides there. It is no longer lucrative

Yes it is because advertisers & businesses will always target city of 5 million ppl up road from town will 300k.

 

[Pippen94]

All clubs need to stand on their own two feet. It’s a very conservative thought process - not wanting to invest in anything - but it is at least understandable

That's business. Dolphins expansion are being funded by extra TV cash.

 

[Colk]

Yes it is because advertisers & businesses will always target city of 5 million ppl up road from town will 300k.

The problem with that argument is that you have already nine sides in one market

It’s what you call saturation point - where any new player in a market ceases to attract new customers or space but essentially takes customers away from existing players and thereby shrinking the reach of each individual player within that market.

Essentially you are not adding any sponsorship or advertising in a market which is already at full capacity

Also I’m not also arguing to put a team in a market of 300k

 

[Colk]

That's business. Dolphins expansion are being funded by extra TV cash.

That’s good business

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

That's the real kicker here - our bid (singular) for NZ2 has flown so far under the radar.. it has virtually no profile here, no fanfare, nothing but the odd interview snippet whenever an article about NRL expansion runs in the media.

As far as I know there's just the "Southern Orcas" bid which is aiming to be based in Wellington with the odd game in Christchurch.

Compared to the very public Perth bid nipping at the NRL's heels for nearly two decades, and it's a huge contrast.

I wonder.. *if* the NRL are set on NZ 2 as team 18, will they pick a pre-determined syndicate to set it up from the get-go, or throw it open & invite interested bidders to pitch (as per Brisbane 2)?

The latter scenario could be interesting.

One option would be to ask Sky TV to buy a stake in NZ 2. Even if they're just a minority stock holder, it gives them an incentive to promote the team so it has every chance of succeeding. Strong media coverage is vital for any RL club in foreign territory.

 

[Pippen94]

The problem with that argument is that you have already nine sides in one market

It’s what you call saturation point - where any new player in a market ceases to attract new customers or space but essentially takes customers away from existing players and thereby shrinking the reach of each individual player within that market.

Essentially you are not adding any sponsorship or advertising in a market which is already at full capacity

Also I’m not also arguing to put a team in a market of 300k

I guess clubs must be folding then or keen to move to greener pastures?! Oh wait, it's the regional clubs needing bailing out.
We don't know saturation point but Melbourne does 9 afl clubs & not only is Sydney the biggest & most lucrative market it's the fastest growing.
Let's rationalize teams from market TV pays billions of dollars so you can have more dots on map.

 

[Pippen94]

16.6666 (if that was a question). Nevertheless I don’t think I mentioned 300k anywhere.

Sydney clubs won’t die now because of the grants they now receive (not unless another extraordinary situation like COVID occurs) however saturation was an issue when you started moving away from a Sydney club completion to a competition involving different states. It just was.

Furthermore, even if you were to argue that there are not plenty of sides in Sydney already you wouldn’t still argue that putting another side in Sydney/NSW is a better option than putting a new team in Qld/NZ/WA (well you shouldn’t)

Sydney clubs get grants which come from TV money because advertisers pay tip dollar for the audiences the clubs draw in Sydney.

 

[Colk]

I guess clubs must be folding then or keen to move to greener pastures?! Oh wait, it's the regional clubs needing bailing out.
We don't know saturation point but Melbourne does 9 afl clubs & not only is Sydney the biggest & most lucrative market it's the fastest growing.
Let's rationalize teams from market TV pays billions of dollars so you can have more dots on map.

I think you are confusing past and present here. The discussion was about the 90’s. Now clubs are buffeted by large grants, so it is unlikely that any club is going to die (which is a good thing)

If we want to compare the support of NRL clubs in Sydney to that of AFL clubs in Melbourne then it is a pretty poor comparison. Their clubs make money and are well supported, some clubs in Sydney aren’t. Even with that in mind the same thing happened to them - clubs went broke and they made a decision to die, merge or relocate, so I don’t see why you are using them as an example

Also Melbourne is growing faster than Sydney. There is plenty of material which supports this if you wish to google it.

 

[Colk]

Sydney clubs get grants which come from TV money because advertisers pay tip dollar for the audiences the clubs draw in Sydney.

No they don’t; at least not in isolation. Sydney clubs get bigger grants because they are part of a competition that now has a bigger reach than what it did. If your point was correct then the Sydney competition would have fetched big TV deals but it didn’t.

The same is also true of AFL if you want to compare them again - they only got TV deals once they had more markets

 

[MugaB]

16.6666 (if that was a question). Nevertheless I don’t think I mentioned 300k anywhere.

Sydney clubs won’t die now because of the grants they now receive (not unless another extraordinary situation like COVID occurs) however saturation was an issue when you started moving away from a Sydney club completion to a competition involving different states. It just was.

Furthermore, even if you were to argue that there are not plenty of sides in Sydney already you wouldn’t still argue that putting another side in Sydney/NSW is a better option than putting a new team in Qld/NZ/WA (well you shouldn’t)

Im not arguing anything really, but i don't support the idea that there is an over saturation of the sydney market, not when there are areas regional and interstate that are smaller in population, yet are in the same competition, if your saying 16 teams could be in Sydney drawing 300k each, then they are not over saturated by have its current 9 clubs, as for adding interstate teams, my word we should focus on that first, before adding any more NSW based teams, (e.g central coast/NSB) but even if we raise the population from 300k to 500k, 10 teams can be done... so basically all the talk around over saturation can fk off, all that needs to be done via the clubs is to do better in growing support regardless... as i pointed out there are demographics of people who are not interested in sydney, these are generally foreigners and aren't interested in sport in general, and if they are its soccer or cricket or U.S based sports like NBA, as for comparisons with Melbourne, totally different demographics, yet AFL has ingrained a sports loving culture to where RL needs to focus on getting the same effect in Sydney...
For example getting the Tigers involved with Cricket in someway as the indian population is huge in the west and inner west..
Or getting Panthers involved with the NBA as the P.I.s and Filipino population in the west is also large and yet they care more about the NBA morso than the local Penrith or Parramatta RL clubs.. the Asian Communities in the South West and South, tend to watch a fair amount of Soccer, getting both Canterbury and St.george involved somehow... get all these communities to follow both their sporting passions and the local Rugbyleague side..
Simple things like tigers donating funds to the local cricket side, or Brian To'o meeting up with Michael Jordan, or Harry Kewell visiting Canterbury Bulldogs training session, promoting links between RL and the demographics of their area can ignite more interest from the casual local fan

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I guess clubs must be folding then or keen to move to greener pastures?! Oh wait, it's the regional clubs needing bailing out.
We don't know saturation point but Melbourne does 9 afl clubs & not only is Sydney the biggest & most lucrative market it's the fastest growing.
Let's rationalize teams from market TV pays billions of dollars so you can have more dots on map.

Comparing Melbourne's nine AwFuL clubs with Sydney's nine NRL clubs gives clout to the relocation argument. Look at the attendances.

Carlton Blues
46,730

Collingwood Magpies
58,975

Essendon Bombers
47,733

Hawthorn Hawks
31,077

Melbourne Demons
28,968

North Melbourne Kangaroos
20,808

Richmond Tigers
59,987

St Kilda Saints
25,401

Western Bulldogs
26,747

Total Average = 38,491

AFL Tables - Crowds 2019

www.afltables.com

Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs
15,274

Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks
12,224

Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles
13,777

Parramatta Eels
18,396

Penrith Panthers
12,482

South Sydney Rabbitohs
15,601

St George Illawarra Dragons
9813

Sydney Roosters
17,251

Western Sydney Tigers
15,867

Total Average Attendance = 14,520

Rugby League Tables / Attendances 2019

Rugby League Tables - NRL Stats & Tables

afltables.com

Almost 24,000 more people attend an AwFuL game in Melbourne than an NRL game in Sydney. The extra amount of people attending AwFuL games in Melbourne is almost 10k greater than the 14.5k people from Sydney who bother to turn up see their team play.

The lowest drawing Melbourne-based AwFuL club draws 2.5k more people to its games than Sydney's best attended team!

One AwFuL game in Melbourne draws MORE people than two NRL games in Sydney!

I get that some home games for Sydney's NRL clubs are played regionally, but this holds true for a couple of Melbourne's AwFuL clubs as well. If Sydney wants to have nine teams then it needs to lift the attendances for its clubs. 14.5k is pathetic and is below the Melbourne Storm, who are embedded in fumbleball heartland. I'll also point out that the maligned Roosters attract almost 3k more people than the Sydney average, which makes a mockery of the comments about relocating them to Adelaide.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Im not arguing anything really, but i don't support the idea that there is an over saturation of the sydney market, not when there are areas regional and interstate that are smaller in population, yet are in the same competition, if your saying 16 teams could be in Sydney drawing 300k each, then they are not over saturated by have its current 9 clubs, as for adding interstate teams, my word we should focus on that first, before adding any more NSW based teams, (e.g central coast/NSB) but even if we raise the population from 300k to 500k, 10 teams can be done... so basically all the talk around over saturation can fk off, all that needs to be done via the clubs is to do better in growing support regardless... as i pointed out there are demographics of people who are not interested in sydney, these are generally foreigners and aren't interested in sport in general, and if they are its soccer or cricket or U.S based sports like NBA, as for comparisons with Melbourne, totally different demographics, yet AFL has ingrained a sports loving culture to where RL needs to focus on getting the same effect in Sydney...
For example getting the Tigers involved with Cricket in someway as the indian population is huge in the west and inner west..
Or getting Panthers involved with the NBA as the P.I.s and Filipino population in the west is also large and yet they care more about the NBA morso than the local Penrith or Parramatta RL clubs.. the Asian Communities in the South West and South, tend to watch a fair amount of Soccer, getting both Canterbury and St.george involved somehow... get all these communities to follow both their sporting passions and the local Rugbyleague side..
Simple things like tigers donating funds to the local cricket side, or Brian To'o meeting up with Michael Jordan, or Harry Kewell visiting Canterbury Bulldogs training session, promoting links between RL and the demographics of their area can ignite more interest from the casual local fan

Sorry, but what you've said here is delusional. On one hand you're clutching at straws to justify Sydney's poor attendances and apathy towards its RL clubs, but on the other you're arguing that there's no need to remove any of the teams. You even alluded to bringing back the North Sydney Bears!

Your suggestions on what the clubs should do to grow won't make any real difference. The NSWRL has been around since 1908 and has been given every advantage in the world to become a) the biggest RL competition in the world and b) cement RL as the main sport in Sydney. Despite having every advantage in the world, the NSWRL has failed to own Sydney to the same parochial extent that fumbleball owns Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth. What we see today is a true reflection of RL's standing in Sydney and it cannot get any better under the current model. It will most likely go backwards because Sydney is attracting more people from non-RL countries. It's best to consolidate RL in Sydney by cutting the dead weight so the remaining teams have a chance to grow.

There are markets in Australia that have been starved of RL. Give them a seat at the table and we might see some actual growth.

 

[MugaB]

Sorry, but what you've said here is delusional. On one hand you're clutching at straws to justify Sydney's poor attendances and apathy towards its RL clubs, but on the other you're arguing that there's no need to remove any of the teams. You even alluded to bringing back the North Sydney Bears!

Your suggestions on what the clubs should do to grow won't make any real difference. The NSWRL has been around since 1908 and has been given every advantage in the world to become a) the biggest RL competition in the world and b) cement RL as the main sport in Sydney. Despite having every advantage in the world, the NSWRL has failed to own Sydney to the same parochial extent that fumbleball owns Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth. What we see today is a true reflection of RL's standing in Sydney and it cannot get any better under the current model. It will most likely go backwards because Sydney is attracting more people from non-RL countries. It's best to consolidate RL in Sydney by cutting the dead weight so the remaining teams have a chance to grow.

There are markets in Australia that have been starved of RL. Give them a seat at the table and we might see some actual growth.

Re-read the post again, theres no clutching at straws here..
Im not delusional in regards to saying the clubs can do better, and im not justifying their existence either, nor their crowd figures (thats something you turn to in justifying every argument, that and comparisons to ALFs crowds, who are going to one stadium to watch ANY game, regardless who they follow, which means those crowd figures are probably the same folk going to multiple games, ALA magic round)
all i was saying is the clubs can do better... and yes i agree we should be expanding elsewhere other than nsw.. but what you read is pretty much that its too many teams in sydney and that im advocating for more, this is not true, im saying it can be possible, but I'd prefer to see Perth, Adelaide, more Qld, another vic, more Nz, and Png ahead of say a CC/NSB

 

[MugaB]

Comparing Melbourne's nine AwFuL clubs with Sydney's nine NRL clubs gives clout to the relocation argument. Look at the attendances.

Carlton Blues
46,730

Collingwood Magpies
58,975

Essendon Bombers
47,733

Hawthorn Hawks
31,077

Melbourne Demons
28,968

North Melbourne Kangaroos
20,808

Richmond Tigers
59,987

St Kilda Saints
25,401

Western Bulldogs
26,747

Total Average = 38,491

AFL Tables - Crowds 2019

www.afltables.com

Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs
15,274

Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks
12,224

Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles
13,777

Parramatta Eels
18,396

Penrith Panthers
12,482

South Sydney Rabbitohs
15,601

St George Illawarra Dragons
9813

Sydney Roosters
17,251

Western Sydney Tigers
15,867

Total Average Attendance = 14,520

Rugby League Tables / Attendances 2019

Rugby League Tables - NRL Stats & Tables

afltables.com

Almost 24,000 more people attend an AwFuL game in Melbourne than an NRL game in Sydney. The extra amount of people attending AwFuL games in Melbourne is almost 10k greater than the 14.5k people from Sydney who bother to turn up see their team play.

The lowest drawing Melbourne-based AwFuL club draws 2.5k more people to its games than Sydney's best attended team!

One AwFuL game in Melbourne draws MORE people than two NRL games in Sydney!

I get that some home games for Sydney's NRL clubs are played regionally, but this holds true for a couple of Melbourne's AwFuL clubs as well. If Sydney wants to have nine teams then it needs to lift the attendances for its clubs. 14.5k is pathetic and is below the Melbourne Storm, who are embedded in fumbleball heartland. I'll also point out that the maligned Roosters attract almost 3k more people than the Sydney average, which makes a mockery of the comments about relocating them to Adelaide.

Roosters figures are fudged, and are on parr with other syd clubs, there's a dragons v chooks game that inflates their figure, but thats not to say they aren't responsible for owning it, just that anzac day games at the SCG/SFS aren't the norm, in terms of average crowd attendance, both clubs gain an advantage from that game depending on who is the home club for that season on that anzac day... take away that single event and they aren't that high in terms of average attendance