A Johns said he wants a 12 team NRL, well

[MilkShark]

We definitely have too many teams. We need more mergers or clubs removed from the competition.

There are too many Sydney clubs, i'd remove 2 of the below:

Roosters
Rabbits
Parra
Bulldogs

Gold Coast - remove them

The Dragons merger in place should never have happened. They should have merged with Sharks (hurts to say that). Play out of Cronulla. They can be Sharks or Dragons.

Illawarra play out of Wollongong

Tigers merger also should never have happened.Tigers are removed, Wests play out of Campelltown.

I am trying to spread the clubs out.

I don't care about clubs histories, I care only about the good of the game. The clubs removed can act as feeder clubs for the remaining NRL teams perhaps.

We have too many bad players making a living out of this game, the standard of the game I believe is at an all time low.

 

[Travitoh]

Using the logic of the available talent debate...

Less teams = less games
Less games = less money
Less money = less talent
Less talent = less teams

If a club is genuinly struggling to survive then sure, relocate them or absolve them and replace them elsewhere. But cutting clubs just because won't work.

Attendances are overrated, the game gets it's money from tv and is doing very well out of it. Ratings are the new attendances.

 

[carcharias]

More less = more less
More or less.

 

[Perth Red]

Attendances are overrated, the game gets it's money from tv and is doing very well out of it. Ratings are the new attendances.

How so? a 30k crowd avg earns you more than the TV money as a club. Its only over rated because most clubs arent even close to drawing the crowds that will turn them a healthy profit.

Last year Broncos earnt $19.7mill from their fanbase and $13.4mill from TV

 

[Quicksilver]

If only we had 16 cities the size of Brisbane that had a rich Rugby League heritage.

 

[Travitoh]

.

 

[Travitoh]

How so? a 30k crowd avg earns you more than the TV money as a club. Its only over rated because most clubs arent even close to drawing the crowds that will turn them a healthy profit.

Last year Broncos earnt $19.7mill from their fanbase and $13.4mill from TV

Would Perth average 30k? I know Adelaide wouldn't.

Is $19.7m in ticket sales alone? Or does it also include memberships and merch?

 

[Perth Red]

If only we had 16 cities the size of Brisbane that had a rich Rugby League heritage.

or clubs that could attract fans on the scale of some other sports and a governing body that didn't put so many obstacles in the way to fans attending?

 

[Perth Red]

Would Perth average 30k? I know Adelaide wouldn't.

Is $19.7m in ticket sales alone? Or does it also include memberships and merch?

membership, merch and ticketsales. Revenue generation from a large fanbase.

No Perth wouldn't, the question is why wouldnt it? Same as every other club currently lounging around on a 14k or less avg. The comment was TV is worth more than attendance, it is when you dont have a big fanbase. If you can develop a big fanbase it isnt for the clubs bottom line, that is a fact.

 

[Travitoh]

membership, merch and ticketsales. Revenue generation from a large fanbase.

No Perth wouldn't, the question is why wouldnt it? Same as every other club currently lounging around on a 14k or less avg. The comment was TV is worth more than attendance, it is when you dont have a big fanbase. If you can develop a big fanbase it isnt for the clubs bottom line, that is a fact.

So Brisbane earn more money through tv than gate receipts. TV money is only there if the ratings are big enough.

RL is a game suited to TV. Fans can settle in on the couch for hours during a cold winters weekend and not miss a moment of live NRL as they watch games back to back to back. The game is very much played in one area of the field which tv can easily cover and get up close with cameras to bring the action to you.
Buying merch and memberships still gives supporters a sense of involvement as they watch from the armchair on subscription tv.
It's not just RL. Cricket is arguably Australia's biggest sport and it's crowds have been poor for a while now. Yet Foxtel went out and paid good money for the tv rights because they know people will watch it.

 

[Perth Red]

So Brisbane earn more money through tv than gate receipts. TV money is only there if the ratings are big enough.

RL is a game suited to TV. Fans can settle in on the couch for hours during a cold winters weekend and not miss a moment of live NRL as they watch games back to back to back. The game is very much played in one area of the field which tv can easily cover and get up close with cameras to bring the action to you.
Buying merch and memberships still gives supporters a sense of involvement as they watch from the armchair on subscription tv.
It's not just RL. Cricket is arguably Australia's biggest sport and it's crowds have been poor for a while now. Yet Foxtel went out and paid good money for the tv rights because they know people will watch it.

No. They earnt $17million for game day and memberships (most would be ticketed memberships) and $13.4mill from TV.
What a load of rubbish, no sport is more suited to being a couch potatoe than another, except maybe golf and cricket as they go all day or all week. You go to the live game for the emotion and the experience, like going to a concert rather than listening to a stream of your fave band. There are many variables to why fans go to live sport or not, the fact is if you can get them there it can earn you alot of money, and more than you currently earn from the TV deal as a club.

Also it doesn't have to be an and/or. EPL, AFL, NFL, other soccer comps around the world etc have massive TV deals and massive attendances. Getting an an extra 15k to the game isnt going to impact the TV audience number or the appeal of the sport to TV, if anything full stadiums present as much better TV spectacles and make tv viewing more enjoyable.

 

[Travitoh]

No. They earnt $17million for game day and memberships (most would be ticketed memberships) and $13.4mill from TV.
What a load of rubbish, no sport is more suited to being a couch potatoe than another, except maybe golf and cricket as they go all day or all week. You go to the live game for the emotion and the experience, like going to a concert rather than listening to a stream of your fave band. There are many variables to why fans go to live sport or not, the fact is if you can get them there it can earn you alot of money, and more than you currently earn from the TV deal as a club.

Also it doesn't have to be an and/or. EPL, AFL, NFL, other soccer comps around the world etc have massive TV deals and massive attendances. Getting an an extra 15k to the game isnt going to impact the TV audience number or the appeal of the sport to TV, if anything full stadiums present as much better TV spectacles and make tv viewing more enjoyable.

Can you tell me when RL has averaged 15k more to a game than what it is currently getting?

 

[Perth Red]

Can you tell me when RL has averaged 15k more to a game than what it is currently getting?

Im guessing a rhetorical question?
Nor will it ever if we keep being happy with TV and pokies paying the bills and neglect the attendance revenue possibilities. Or do you think there is something inherently flawed with RL as a game that it cant manage to develop stronger crowds?

 

[Quicksilver]

Im guessing a rhetorical question?
Nor will it ever if we keep being happy with TV and pokies paying the bills and neglect the attendance revenue possibilities. Or do you think there is something inherently flawed with RL as a game that it cant manage to develop stronger crowds?

I don’t care pokies pay the bills. It’s an external revenue stream for the game. That’s great.

A lot of the big sports clubs around the world lose money and are propped up by wealthy owners. I have no problem with a licensed club doing the same here, in fact, I think it’s preferable.

 

[Travitoh]

Im guessing a rhetorical question?
Nor will it ever if we keep being happy with TV and pokies paying the bills and neglect the attendance revenue possibilities. Or do you think there is something inherently flawed with RL as a game that it cant manage to develop stronger crowds?

You don't think the game has never tried?
If you actually look at the numbers, attendances in the NRL since the turn of the century are as strong as they've ever been during the regular season. No decade outside of the 2000's and 2010's features in the top 17 of averages according to https://afltables.com/rl/crowds/summary.html, so while they may not be as high as you would like, the game has never attracted more to games than it has since 2000.
Sure, that doesn't mean the game should rest on those numbers, it should aim to grow more but the suggestion of culling teams because another sport attracts more is wrong, especially when no clubs in Sydney are currently being controlled by the NRL.

 

[firechild]

The AFL is 4th in the world for average attendance in a domestic sporting competition. To say that this is the standard we must achieve to get a pass mark is ridiculous. That's not to say we shouldn't be aiming higher but the domestic soccer competitions in Spain and Italy are 10-11k per game behind the AFL. The BBL is up there but the tradeoff is having only 8 teams. The cricket deal was worth less than $1.2b over 6 years and that included test matches, ODIs, international T20, WBBL as well as the BBL. Not really comparable to the NRL deal.