AFL to spend $300 million on Gold Coast? Batlle with the NRL continues.

[Billythekid]

If the NRL let in a WA and let them have extra money over the salary cap and as a result won like 3 premierships in a row, i would never watch rugby league again. I don't know how AFL fans put up with that.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Because they're soft.

 

[griff]

I, as a RL fan, am in no way worried or concerned by the AFL's push. I wish them luck and hope it works out for them. But RL's destiny is in its own hands, not the AFL's. We have the fortune of the naturally better game to sell. If our game keeps its own house in order and continues to expand into new markets of its own to cover any loses suffered from rival sports moving into our markets then we have nothing to fear. If on the other hand we become merely reactive, insular and conservative, only ever worried about what the other guy is up to then we don't deserve to be the top code - either across the country or in our traditional markets.

I disagree. Not only should you worry about what the other guy is up to you should study what they are up to in minute detail. It is just sensible business. At the end of the day they are competitors. Any business worth its salt looks at market share, new competitive threats, new opportunities etc.

The NRL should be doing market research to pick up on new trends. For example, they might find North Melbourne fans would currently be more receptive to making the switch to become Storm fans. The ARU did plenty of that work in the late 90s in Sydney to switch RL fans and it was extremely successful.

The NRL should put extra marketing $$ into the Gold Coast those weekends when it is up against the AFL. If it convincingly beats the AFL that is a massive propaganda victory.

 

[Quidgybo]

I disagree. Not only should you worry about what the other guy is up to you should study what they are up to in minute detail. It is just sensible business. At the end of the day they are competitors. Any business worth its salt looks at market share, new competitive threats, new opportunities etc.

Of course you should keep an eye on your competitors. It is only common sense to see what they are doing right and replicate it and see what they get wrong and avoid making those same mistakes. But you can't sit around obsessing about them, only ever fighting the fight in your own backyard and even then only in reaction to their moves. The AFL will do what they decide to do and no amount of chest thumping and ridicule on our part will stop it from happening. They can and will be successful at carving niches in our terrritories regardless of our actions if they are willing to persist until the job is done. But again if we keep our own house in order and work to take the fight to new territories of our own (including the AFL's own backyard in the southern states and RU's backyard in NZ) then we can't help but be successful regardless of what they do. Only if we don't keep our own house in order and don't expand into new territories do we give our rivals an opportunity to overtake us. So while I am interested in what they do I'm not at all worried about the AFL's moves. Our destiny is in our own hands, not theirs. *That's* what worries me!

Leigh.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

So while I am interested in what they do I'm not at all worried about the AFL's moves. Our destiny is in our own hands, not theirs. *That's* what worries me!

Leigh.

That pretty much says it all doesn't it.


Probably the best thing to come out of this whole thing from our point of view is that it means the NRL will need to start setting goals and making announcements about expansion. Gallop has said he's looking at a team in Brisbane's west in a 5-10 year timeframe and the WARL and ARL are looking to have Perth in the NRL by 2012/13, not to mention the Central Coast and Wellington bids still waiting to apply again... This could actually force the NRL into action!

Imagine if the NRL announced tomorrow that they're adding two teams in 2011 and opening up the bidding process, it'd take all this attention away from the AFL on the Coast and bring it back to NRL. It probably won't happen but it could be a masterstroke from a media control point-of-view.

 

[Perth Red]

Didn't Gallop say last season that he can't see the NRL expanding for 10 years?

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Gallop was good for consolidation, we've done that now, we are the #1 code in many ways - we have to press on

 

[thommo4pm]

I don't disagree with that post Mr F.
But who is there to take over from Gallop?
It would need to be a strong leader and one obviously to take us forward in leaps and bounds, look at expansion in the coming years while not affecting the current teams, and keep producing the talent that our game does.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

I don't disagree with that post Mr F.
But who is there to take over from Gallop?
It would need to be a strong leader and one obviously to take us forward in leaps and bounds, look at expansion in the coming years while not affecting the current teams, and keep producing the talent that our game does.

PHaC

 

[TITAN1]

PHaC

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh hang on,your serious.. :shock:

 

[t-ba]

Gallop isn't in charge. I'm amazed that after all these years people still don't get that 3 guys appointed by News Corp and 3 guys appointed by the ARL hold ALL of the power in regards to the games strategic direction.

You can have the strongest leader and the most astute businessman all rolled into one as the NRL CEO but it means nothing if the Partnership board says NO to expansion.

Gallop's probably just relaying the message from the Partnership board. It's not in his power to do much else.

 

[Quidgybo]

PHaC

I'll throw out another one for the future, Michael Searle. A very impressive rookie year in the games administration league.

That said I echo t-ba's sentiments. The CEO is very much the sacrificial lamb for the big decisions in the NRL. The partnership board decides what teams are offered franchises, what TV deal the game accepts and so forth. The CEO can only present them with options and follow the directions the board gives him (and be left to try and defend the indefensible even if he personally doesn't agree with such decisions). Reform of the partnership board is more important than any change in CEO.

Leigh.

 

[bobmar28]

I'll throw out another one for the future, Michael Searle. A very impressive rookie year in the games administration league.

That said I echo t-ba's sentiments. The CEO is very much the sacrificial lamb for the big decisions in the NRL. The partnership board decides what teams are offered franchises, what TV deal the game accepts and so forth. The CEO can only present them with options and follow the directions the board gives him (and be left to try and defend the indefensible even if he personally doesn't agree with such decisions). Reform of the partnership board is more important than any change in CEO.

Leigh.

Are you implying that the NRL didn't accept the highest bid for FTA TV rights?

 

[nqboy]

Are you implying that the NRL didn't accept the highest bid for FTA TV rights?

They didn't even put it out to tender, so how would we know what it was worth? Of course it was undervalued if no competition is allowed.

 

[Dean Moriarty]

I don't disagree with that post Mr F.
But who is there to take over from Gallop?
It would need to be a strong leader and one obviously to take us forward in leaps and bounds, look at expansion in the coming years while not affecting the current teams, and keep producing the talent that our game does.

Malcolm Noad. ;-)

 

[Quidgybo]

Are you implying that the NRL didn't accept the highest bid for FTA TV rights?

I'm not implying anything. I'm just pointing out that regardless of the views or proposals put forth by the CEO, the board has total power to accept or reject those views or order the CEO to pursue something entirely different. The Partnership Board decides the agenda and priorities for the NRL and the CEO either works towards those ends or gets another job. And for the record, yes that could include directions to negotiate certain deals on a basis other than the highest dollar value (eg. not accepting competition naming rights sponsorships from gambling companies). If you want to reform the direction of the NRL then the Partership Board is the first place to start.

Leigh.

 

[t-ba]

Are you implying that the NRL didn't accept the highest bid for FTA TV rights?

Well, I can imagine it now.

News Corp board Member #1: Hey fellas, Kerry Packer just called and said he'd offer X for the FTA rights. Isn't that awesome!
News Corp Board Member #2: What a coincidence. News just offered X for the PTV Rights. Speactacular!
News Corp Board Member #3: Well that's just dandy. There's no need to go tender whatsoever!

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Well, I can imagine it now.

News Corp board Member #1: Hey fellas, Kerry Packer just called and said he'd offer X for the FTA rights. Isn't that awesome!
News Corp Board Member #2: What a coincidence. News just offered X for the PTV Rights. Speactacular!
News Corp Board Member #3: Well that's just dandy. There's no need to go tender whatsoever!

And Monty, oops I mean Rupert in the background.

 

[bobmar28]

Well, I can imagine it now.

News Corp board Member #1: Hey fellas, Kerry Packer just called and said he'd offer X for the FTA rights. Isn't that awesome!
News Corp Board Member #2: What a coincidence. News just offered X for the PTV Rights. Speactacular!
News Corp Board Member #3: Well that's just dandy. There's no need to go tender whatsoever!

Did channel 7 offer more than Kerry Packer? Maybe they weren't interested. I'm sure they were given the opportunity to bid.

 

[nqboy]

Did channel 7 offer more than Kerry Packer? Maybe they weren't interested. I'm sure they were given the opportunity to bid.

Based on what? There was no mention of it in the press.