ARLC to meet expansion bidders.

[The Great Dane]

The Broncos and the Storm are the best managed, best resourced and probably best sponsored teams in the NRL and there is a reason for that. The Storm games on fox are usually amongst the highest rating as well.

This is an aside, but I'd argue that considering their base and their resources that the Broncos probably aren't one of the better run clubs in the comp.

If they were well run they would be a permanent fixture in the top four and would win a comp every few years, somehow they've managed to totally stuff that up over the last decade and bit now though.

Like a millionaire that could be a billionaire except he is too busy driving fancy cars and chasing supermodels around at exclusive parties, they are too comfortable in their success I'd say.

 

[flippikat]

The Suburban clubs are only a "great strength" if your plan is to never seriously grow beyond the borders of Sydney.

If the idea is to have a Sydney comp with some token ring-ins from outside, then somebody call John Ribot because we need another Super League.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Scratch a bit below the surface, and the tension between conservative/suburban-minded & progressive/expansion-minded sections of the rugby league community is (imo) as big today as it was in the 1990s. Maybe even bigger, given the NRLs empty lip-service on the issue of expansion.

At least the old NSWRL & AFL tried SOMETHING.. even though it was cack-handed & dodged some hard issues.

 

[Pippen94]

Utd and City, Jets and Giants, Lakers and Clippers, Celtic and Rangers, Boca Juniors and River Plate, West Coast and Fremantle, Yankees and Mets, I could go on, and on, and on, and on, but I shouldn't need to so I won't.

Most of those teams started as small suburban clubs & grew out of area - like Redcliffe.
Only Clippers, Jets & Fremantle are a similar situation & each of those clubs still very much younger brother.

It's definitely Broncos first, then Warriors, then probably Melbourne, then a few of the bigger Sydney clubs, then after that who knows they'd all be of a relatively similar value.

What do warriors bring? Small TV deal with nz sky? Melbourne draw 20,000 viewers in home city. Parramatta, South's bring far more fans to game & therefore contribute more to broadcasting deal - NRL main source of income. More fans subscribing to foxtel to see Sydney teams than Melbourne, Auckland or Canberra.

The Suburban clubs are only a "great strength" if your plan is to never seriously grow beyond the borders of Sydney.

If the idea is to have a Sydney comp with some token ring-ins from outside, then somebody call John Ribot because we need another Super League.

Big broadcast deal is direct result of tv ratings in Sydney of local clubs. Only Broncos in Brisbane have similar impact. Melbourne have been around 20 years with still next to no audience. Afl has same problem in Sydney & Brisbane. Heartland renerates the income.

 

[Pippen94]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Scratch a bit below the surface, and the tension between conservative/suburban-minded & progressive/expansion-minded sections of the rugby league community is (imo) as big today as it was in the 1990s. Maybe even bigger, given the NRLs empty lip-service on the issue of expansion.

At least the old NSWRL & AFL tried SOMETHING.. even though it was cack-handed & dodged some hard issues.

Why fund clubs like GC & gws to tune of millions when they don't bring in any money?

 

[flippikat]

What do warriors bring? Small TV deal with nz sky? Melbourne draw 20,000 viewers in home city. Parramatta, South's bring far more fans to game & therefore contribute more to broadcasting deal - NRL main source of income. More fans subscribing to foxtel to see Sydney teams than Melbourne, Auckland or Canberra.

I guess the Warriors also bring merchandise sales & a number of ex-pat NZ fans to the gates of their away games.

 

[flippikat]

Why fund clubs like GC & gws to tune of millions when they don't bring in any money?

Because AFL take a *long term view*.

They realise that a 2nd club in the Sydney & SE Qld markets may be a tough sell initially, but they're betting on it eventually taking hold, developing good derby rivalries with their more established neighbours & one day yeilding solid off-field results.

 

[The Great Dane]

Most of those teams started as small suburban clubs & grew out of area - like Redcliffe.
Only Clippers, Jets & Fremantle are a similar situation & each of those clubs still very much younger brother.

In most cases that isn't true, in fact I can only see 1 example among the above (City, but they were only a parish/suburban club for 14 years before they refocused) and maybe a couple more (United and Celtic) but you'd really have to stretch the definition of suburban club to suggest that United and Celtic were set up as a suburban clubs.

To be fair, I don't know enough about Borca or River Plate's history to know if they started out as suburban clubs, so maybe they did as well.

But lets assume that they did all start out as suburban clubs, there're very obvious reasons why they aren't suburban clubs anymore, and why we should be avoiding setting up suburban clubs if we can avoid it!

Also you will always have a big brother and little brother, it's impossible to have two clubs that are truly on even footing, however the disparity between, for example, the Eagles and Fremantle is much smaller than the disparity between the bigger Sydney clubs and the smaller ones, and both the Eagles and (I think) Fremantle are bigger than all of the Sydney clubs.

What do warriors bring? Small TV deal with nz sky? Melbourne draw 20,000 viewers in home city. Parramatta, South's bring far more fans to game & therefore contribute more to broadcasting deal - NRL main source of income. More fans subscribing to foxtel to see Sydney teams than Melbourne, Auckland or Canberra.

Do you know how much the NRL's deal with Sky is worth?
Because all I can find is estimates and not the actual numbers.

But the value of the deal it's self doesn't really matter, the fact that without the Warriors in the competition that that deal would be worth less than a quarter of what it's worth now is what matters.

They also add a time slot and value to advertisers and sponsors, all extremely valuable things.

Also not everything is about raw rating, and stop using the big Sydney clubs to try to justify the existence of the smaller ones, South would still exist how they do now if Wests didn't exist.

Big broadcast deal is direct result of tv ratings in Sydney of local clubs. Only Broncos in Brisbane have similar impact. Melbourne have been around 20 years with still next to no audience. Afl has same problem in Sydney & Brisbane. Heartland renerates the income.

All you've said there is that there are big clubs in Sydney that are valuable to broadcasters, but nobody is arguing that.

However what people are saying is that not all Sydney clubs are made equal and if you are really going to argue that the Sharks or Sea Eagles are more valuable than the Storm, Warriors, a potential Perth team, etc, then there's no helping you.

And the problem with Redcliffe is they more resemble a Manly then they do a Parramatta, and really in an ideal world, everybody with a brain would prefer they resembled any of the examples I gave you before.

 

[Perth Red]

Why fund clubs like GC & gws to tune of millions when they don't bring in any money?

they cost the afl around $45million and the ninth game was allegedly sold for $52milllion. Expansion into enemy territory and a surplus, that’s how to run a sports business!

 

[The Great Dane]

they cost the afl around $45million and the ninth game was allegedly sold for $52milllion. Expansion into enemy territory and a surplus, that’s how to run a sports business!

There's no reason why the NRL couldn't not only make expansion pay for it's self but profit off it as well either.

 

[Marlins]

they cost the afl around $45million and the ninth game was allegedly sold for $52milllion. Expansion into enemy territory and a surplus, that’s how to run a sports business!

For now maybe, though I still don’t see this working it for the afl.

what happens at the next broadcasting rights? Ratings are non existent in QLD.
Will Fox pay the same? Especially considering all their cuts. There has been ZERO increase in viewership in South QLD for the AFL.

so tell me this, if Fox or 7 goes, hey we’re not paying extra for the 9th game anymore, the numbers don’t add up.
Then tell me PR is your all important AFL still going cough up $25million a year?

without The TV monies, the Suns and Giants wouldn’t exist. With NsW and Qld numbers not increasing, why would the Networks keep paying for it.

A very real situation could occur. The afl don’t get the money they got last time.

 

[taipan]

they cost the afl around $45million and the ninth game was allegedly sold for $52milllion. Expansion into enemy territory and a surplus, that’s how to run a sports business!

And GWS still lost $1.5m in 2019.Money for nothing and the kicks are free.With apologies to Dire Straits.

 

[tri_colours]

Because AFL take a *long term view*.

They realise that a 2nd club in the Sydney & SE Qld markets may be a tough sell initially, but they're betting on it eventually taking hold, developing good derby rivalries with their more established neighbours & one day yeilding solid off-field results.

Because they can afford to take a long term view. They've been making money, uninterrupted for the past 30 years. Funds which allow them to support these bottomless black holes.

 

[tri_colours]

they cost the afl around $45million and the ninth game was allegedly sold for $52milllion. Expansion into enemy territory and a surplus, that’s how to run a sports business!

The Suns and the GWS have cost the AFL, over the past 8 years , a combined $170m. this doesn't include the AFL's base payment of 12m a year.

And trying to make out they make money is classic Gilligan 1.0.1. There rating rarely get above 20k.

And this is how the NRL should be running there business- please.

The NRL wants more money at the next rights deal not less.

 

[The Great Dane]

The Suns and the GWS have cost the AFL, over the past 8 years , a combined $170m. this doesn't include the AFL's base payment of 12m a year.

And trying to make out they make money is classic Gilligan 1.0.1. There rating rarely get above 20k.

And this is how the NRL should be running there business- please.

The NRL wants more money at the next rights deal not less.

Why are you cherry picking the money spent on the Giants and Suns? A bunch of teams in the AFL get money over the 'base payment', it's how their grants system system works.

It's like in the NRL, you say that any money that is spent on expansion clubs is bad business, but you ignore money that is spent for the same reasons on other clubs... It's a massive double standard.

As far as I know nobody at the NRL is talking about the expansion clubs getting higher grants than the other teams anyway, so as far as we know they will get the same $13mil everybody gets, but what would be the big deal if they did get a bit more for a while?

 

[Perth Red]

For now maybe, though I still don’t see this working it for the afl.

what happens at the next broadcasting rights? Ratings are non existent in QLD.
Will Fox pay the same? Especially considering all their cuts. There has been ZERO increase in viewership in South QLD for the AFL.

so tell me this, if Fox or 7 goes, hey we’re not paying extra for the 9th game anymore, the numbers don’t add up.
Then tell me PR is your all important AFL still going cough up $25million a year?

without The TV monies, the Suns and Giants wouldn’t exist. With NsW and Qld numbers not increasing, why would the Networks keep paying for it.

A very real situation could occur. The afl don’t get the money they got last time.

thats a lot of ifs lol. They could take the nrl approach and do nothing just in case I suppose. But that mentality wouldn’t give them the Current $270mill a year more revenue than the nrl?

 

[Perth Red]

The Suns and the GWS have cost the AFL, over the past 8 years , a combined $170m. this doesn't include the AFL's base payment of 12m a year.

And trying to make out they make money is classic Gilligan 1.0.1. There rating rarely get above 20k.

And this is how the NRL should be running there business- please.

The NRL wants more money at the next rights deal not less.

afl has a varying grant scheme, it works well for them and the clubs. There are a number of traditional heartland teams getting significantly above base grant as well.

as long as the ninth game is worth more than the cost then it’s good growth. Tv aren’t paying g for a qlnd audience, they are paying for a ninth game every week. Reality is audience dont vary a lot for most games. Suns v Essendon for example draws close to as many as Essendon v st kilda. Just like a small club like manly v Souths doesn’t really draw any less than Bulldogs v eels. Fans tune in to watch games on fta and they are already subscribers on Fox so fox don’t care as long as the monthly subscriptions come in. The two clubs could be anywhere in reality.
Afl have chosen expansion to spend their ninth game content money on. Meanwhile we do nothing, tick tock.

 

[tri_colours]

Why are you cherry picking the money spent on the Giants and Suns? A bunch of teams in the AFL get money over the 'base payment', it's how their grants system system works.

It's like in the NRL, you say that any money that is spent on expansion clubs is bad business, but you ignore money that is spent for the same reasons on other clubs... It's a massive double standard.

As far as I know nobody at the NRL is talking about the expansion clubs getting higher grants than the other teams anyway, so as far as we know they will get the same $13mil everybody gets, but what would be the big deal if they did get a bit more for a while?

Yes many of the the AFL clubs rely on handouts. No others to extent of the Sons And the GWS. The Suns cost the Suns 27m this year. Why would we want that? Why would it even be considered that at this time.

I never said spending money on expansion clubs was bad business, What I said was investing in expansion clubs at the moment, One that will lose millions, is bad business. And at a time when the NRL a trying to extract as much money as possible can from the next rights deal.

Isnt Peter V'landys the chairman, I think he may have mentioned it.

What do you mean for a few years ??? The Suns have been around for years and there handouts just keep spiralling upwoods, $27m this year - that's a record, a record for the biggest hand out in one season. In the last 8 years the AFL has had to fork out to GWS and the Suns $170m. Why would we want to take that on? The ARL are trying to build up a bank, there not trying to send the game broke. Down the track there might come a point where we can afford that but its not now.

 

[tri_colours]

Yes many of the the AFL clubs rely on handouts. No others to extent of the Sons And the GWS. The Suns cost the Suns 27m this year. Why would we want that? Why would it even be considered that at this time.

I never said spending money on expansion clubs was bad business, What I said was investing in expansion clubs at the moment, One that will lose millions, is bad business. And at a time when the NRL a trying to extract as much money as possible can from the next rights deal.

Isnt Peter V'landys the chairman, I think he may have mentioned it.

What do you mean for a few years ??? The Suns have been around for years and there handouts just keep spiralling upwoods, $27m this year - that's a record, a record for the biggest hand out in one season. In the last 8 years the AFL has had to fork out to GWS and the Suns $170m. Why would we want to take that on? The ARL are trying to build up a bank, there not trying to send the game broke. Down the track there might come a point where we can afford that but its not now.

 

[tri_colours]

afl has a varying grant scheme, it works well for them and the clubs. There are a number of traditional heartland teams getting significantly above base grant as well.

as long as the ninth game is worth more than the cost then it’s good growth. Tv aren’t paying g for a qlnd audience, they are paying for a ninth game every week. Reality is audience dont vary a lot for most games. Suns v Essendon for example draws close to as many as Essendon v st kilda. Just like a small club like manly v Souths doesn’t really draw any less than Bulldogs v eels. Fans tune in to watch games on fta and they are already subscribers on Fox so fox don’t care as long as the monthly subscriptions come in. The two clubs could be anywhere in reality.
Afl have chosen expansion to spend their ninth game content money on. Meanwhile we do nothing, tick tock.

Note - GWS yet to report

 

[The Great Dane]

Yes many of the the AFL clubs rely on handouts. No others to extent of the Sons And the GWS. The Suns cost the Suns 27m this year. Why would we want that? Why would it even be considered that at this time.

So you are cherry picking just because it ruins your argument if you don't. Got it.

You still haven't given a reason why you are ignoring the fact that a bunch of AFL clubs get extra money, or why it's only a negative thing when expansion clubs get extra money.

I never said spending money on expansion clubs was bad business, What I said was investing in expansion clubs at the moment, One that will lose millions, is bad business. And at a time when the NRL a trying to extract as much money as possible can from the next rights deal.

Oh so it both is and isn't bad business at the same time. Makes sense.

But again, we have no reason to believe that expansion clubs will cost the NRL anymore than any of the other clubs in the league, so your whole argument is based on a false premise.

What do you mean for a few years ??? The Suns have been around for years and there handouts just keep spiralling upwoods, $27m this year - that's a record, a record for the biggest hand out in one season. In the last 8 years the AFL has had to fork out to GWS and the Suns $170m. Why would we want to take that on?

The AFL are playing the long game. I mean they'd probably literally see it as a long term investment.

They set up and own GWS and the Suns themselves, and went into it knowing that it'd cost them hundreds of millions in the short term, but with the hope that both clubs will take and that in the long run that they'll get a return on their investment.

The NRL on the others hand isn't talking about doing that, they are talking about a relatively safe expansion strategy where the cost of expanding should be almost totally covered by the owners of the clubs and the broadcasters, they are also going into relatively safe markets were there's proven demand for the product from both fans and sponsors, instead of trying to build a market from scratch like the AFL is trying to do in Western Sydney and on the GC.

Basically, you are comparing apples and oranges.

The ARL are trying to build up a bank, there not trying to send the game broke. Down the track there might come a point where we can afford that but its not now.

If that were the case, then they'd be idiots to halt growth and what they should do is get rid of some of the excess Sydney clubs that the competition doesn't need and are just a drain on resources.