ARLC to meet expansion bidders.

[Last Week]

Note - GWS yet to report

It's always endearing when there's a note on annual reports indicating that funding is from 'perfectly legitimate funding'.

 

[Billythekid]

Why do you y’all keep comparing our expansion to the suns and giants anyway, the situation is totally different. There was demand whatsoever for either team and the AFL forced them into areas where they had no fan base and were guaranteed poor crowds and ratings.
That plus it just generally costs a lot more to run an AFL club.

There is clearly far more demand for more nRL teams. Perth has been crying out for a team for years and currently has no NRL presence. Brisbane is a ruby league stronghold and an expansion team would immediately see good crowds and ratings. That plus both would be great for our TV schedule. A new Brisbane team allows a game in Brisbane every week and gives us more QLD v NSW matches and a new big local derby. Perth allows us a lot more leverage to play around with time slots.

Having said that if we seriously only expand to 17 teams and that team is Brisbane that will about do me.

 

[Perth Red]

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.

theyve spent $170mill and brought in over $300mill, that’s what a ninth game brings, more revenue. I dont understand why as the most watched sport in Australia we can’t sell a ninth game for more than the $30million ish it would cost us? Do we have no faith in our product?

like said pointless comparing to suns or gws, they operate on budgets that would be double most nrl clubs. Brisbane we keep being told is a safe bet, perth has a multi millionaire happy to own the club. It’s not like we are suggesting the nrl start clubs in Adelaide and Darwin that would be massive risk and investment needed.
It’d be nice if an independent journalist actually asked Greenberg why we aren’t generating a ninth game to sell.

 

[MugaB]

theyve spent $170mill and brought in over $300mill, that’s what a ninth game brings, more revenue. I dont understand why as the most watched sport in Australia we can’t sell a ninth game for more than the $30million ish it would cost us? Do we have no faith in our product?

like said pointless comparing to suns or gws, they operate on budgets that would be double most nrl clubs. Brisbane we keep being told is a safe bet, perth has a multi millionaire happy to own the club. It’s not like we are suggesting the nrl start clubs in Adelaide and Darwin that would be massive risk and investment needed.
It’d be nice if an independent journalist actually asked Greenberg why we aren’t generating a ninth game to sell.

I reckon they want to see what they get for a 17th team, then go fk it and bring in an 18th club anyways, to again see what the 9th game is worth, no point in saying yes to perth now, only to have the media sht all over the thought of a perth team by AFL pulling media strings.
Its best to blindside them closer to date than annouce everything 4 years away from kick off, i have a hope theyd be smarter to expand by 4 teams like Arko did in 95

 

[Perth Red]

Tv negotiations are likely to be start second half of this year, if they intended to have a ninth game to put on the table then it would need to be decided by then. Tv aren’t stupid they won’t just let the nrl bring in a ninth game after the deal is done and try and sell it separately. interesting comments by Todd though on today’s article that nothing is decided and two teams aren’t off the table. It seems the whole Brisbane ate in is being driven by the Brisbane media, if they have inside info or of they are just pushing their wheelbarrow only Todd and the commissioners would know.

 

[MugaB]

Tv negotiations are likely to be start second half of this year, if they intended to have a ninth game to put on the table then it would need to be decided by then. Tv aren’t stupid they won’t just let the nrl bring in a ninth game after the deal is done and try and sell it separately. interesting comments by Todd though on today’s article that nothing is decided and two teams aren’t off the table. It seems the whole Brisbane ate in is being driven by the Brisbane media, if they have inside info or of they are just pushing their wheelbarrow only Todd and the commissioners would know.

I hope perth get a team, not just for your sake, but to just show that we still have the balls to go looking for new markets, not just open lower grade teams in PNG and Fiji, and only have a pathway and nothing else.
Regardless of sponsorships or on field success, having a team im PNG, Perth and Adelaide can really show that the NRL can do anything with RL and that AFL is limited, hell i just saw a Veitnamese team photo on the logos thread, not that that's something NRL would do, but as long as the core teams in NSW are not getting merged or Culled and we add more teams outside of that, the game will be better for it, Quality of players will spread, if there are more clubs, being 2nd string only to spend your career in ESL won't happen, and the whole Quality argument is moot, more 1st grade game time means more experience, and this get more Quality, and even with more clubs you might see a rise in participation, which again gets more veiwers and more fans, instead of relying on NSW/QLD only.

 

[tri_colours]

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.

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.

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.



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.

How exactly am I cherry picking ??? You quote me saying

Yes many of the AFL clubs rely on handouts. No others to extent of the Sons And the GWS.

. And there's a chart above showing that there are other clubs also.

Then you have to resort to misquoting me. What is your problem? Did you think just run out of arguments ? Just make something up because you had nothing else to say?


I just showed you a graph on how much teams like the Suns cost. And then you come up with this little gem

" 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."

Don't you read the paper? Or listen to what goes on in the outside world?


The AFL are playing the long game, I do agree there. But your the one that's trying to compare Apples to Oranges. The NRL aren't the AFL. They haven't been building up a bank for just 8 years.

 

[Pippen94]

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.

That's absolutely false - apart from teams I mentioned all clubs started small with many competing rivals. United & City first played prior to both adopting Manchester moniker.
Fremantle most resembles Redcliffe being geographical break & focused on one particular region. Funny you call Redcliffe new manly while it has more in common with Fremantle. Bombers similar to Clippers & Jets covering same area as existing team. Both teams pale to rivals.

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.

There is no way in hell that warriors existence add quarter of value to broadcast deal. Warriors add nothing to FTA in australia - there absence would make no difference to value. Timeslots important to fox but still without you can get around that - not like warriors draw large home crowds.
All Sydney teams draw bigger ratings in Sydney & probably attract my foxtel subscribers overall. This large audience allows big broadcast deal. Less Sydney teams would hurt ratings as NRL relies on Sydney & Brisbane. Melbourne doesn't watch NRL like Sydney doesn't watch afl.

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.

Dolphins represent bigger population & different demographic. Less competition with room to grow. If NRL wants to increase revenue there should be at least 3 brissy teams. If goal is dots on map then add perth, Adelaide, Christchurch wherever, but this would bring nothing but cost of funding.

 

[tri_colours]

Why do you y’all keep comparing our expansion to the suns and giants anyway, the situation is totally different. There was demand whatsoever for either team and the AFL forced them into areas where they had no fan base and were guaranteed poor crowds and ratings.
That plus it just generally costs a lot more to run an AFL club.

There is clearly far more demand for more nRL teams. Perth has been crying out for a team for years and currently has no NRL presence. Brisbane is a ruby league stronghold and an expansion team would immediately see good crowds and ratings. That plus both would be great for our TV schedule. A new Brisbane team allows a game in Brisbane every week and gives us more QLD v NSW matches and a new big local derby. Perth allows us a lot more leverage to play around with time slots.

Having said that if we seriously only expand to 17 teams and that team is Brisbane that will about do me.

Ok, then look at the storm. and how they went for the first dozen or so years. The networks wouldn't show them till after midnight - that's gives an idea of what they thought of them. And just having to show them will cost the networks money.

The NRL needs to have plenty of cash behind them before they can start putting teams in AFL territories, funding them tune of what the Suns, GWS are getting, and The Storm Was.

The Networks have shown little or no interest in a Perth team. So how can you be so certain?

 

[Dogs Of War]

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!

Until the next TV rights come around, and broadcasters realise they don't really want to pay for the eyeballs those 2 clubs provide. So 1-2 games per round are worth less.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Dolphins represent bigger population & different demographic. Less competition with room to grow. If NRL wants to increase revenue there should be at least 3 brissy teams. If goal is dots on map then add perth, Adelaide, Christchurch wherever, but this would bring nothing but cost of funding.

If your bringing in the Dolphins, then they are representing the Sunshine Coast. I can't see a North Brisbane identity working at all. And they don't represent Brisbane itself.

Not sure a South Queensland Dolphins (ala Crushers) works either. Just a stretch to try and represent such a large area.

 

[Perth Red]

Until the next TV rights come around, and broadcasters realise they don't really want to pay for the eyeballs those 2 clubs provide. So 1-2 games per round are worth less.

again you’re making the mistake in thinking the majority of people watching the games on tv are the two sets of fans of the clubs involved. they’re not. They are mostly neutrals tuning in to watch a game of RL. It’s why tv audience numbers are generally very consistent for the timeslots on fta and pay tv for nrl regardless of whose playing. League ladder position is far more influential on how many tune in than the actual club playing.

 

[Perth Red]

Ok, then look at the storm. and how they went for the first dozen or so years. The networks wouldn't show them till after midnight - that's gives an idea of what they thought of them. And just having to show them will cost the networks money.

The NRL needs to have plenty of cash behind them before they can start putting teams in AFL territories, funding them tune of what the Suns, GWS are getting, and The Storm Was.

The Networks have shown little or no interest in a Perth team. So how can you be so certain?

how much is plenty?
When the afl made the decision on expansion with gws and suns they had a Revenue of $320mill a year, compared to the nrl’s current $520mill a year.

 

[Pippen94]

again you’re making the mistake in thinking the majority of people watching the games on tv are the two sets of fans of the clubs involved. they’re not. They are mostly neutrals tuning in to watch a game of RL. It’s why tv audience numbers are generally very consistent for the timeslots on fta and pay tv for nrl regardless of whose playing. League ladder position is far more influential on how many tune in than the actual club playing.

Wrong broncos do much higher rating in Brisbane than all other teams.

 

[Perth Red]

Wrong broncos do much higher rating in Brisbane than all other teams.

How much?

 

[Pippen94]

How much?

Good that you know this before posting about expansion.
Almost double;
https://tvblackbox.com.au/sports/2019/10/8/2019-nrl-season-by-the-numbers?format=amp

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Good that you know this before posting about expansion.
Almost double;
https://tvblackbox.com.au/sports/2019/10/8/2019-nrl-season-by-the-numbers?format=amp

To be fair, these are national figures and doesn't specify people in Brisbane watching Brisbane. It also doesn't account for the fact that Brisbane predominantly get the better time slot most weeks which is that 7:30/8pm Friday time slot. Of course more people are going to view that game. It also doesn't account for whether the viewers are Brisbane supporters or the opposing team, more likely to be from outside of QLD watching the game because they can't be there to watch it in SE QLD (seeing as the opposition in the top 5 were Souths, Saints, Melb, Cowboys, and Parra...)

I think the bigger telling sign is the top 5 games on Pay tv primarily involved Melbourne. You could infer that the Vic market are more willing to sink money into PayTV as the coverage on FTA is limited. If they didn't have so many Broncos games in good time slots that have FTA coverage (ie Saturday) would more Brisbane fans be willing to cough up the cash to watch the Broncos on PayTV? Would this change which games rated higher on PayTV. If I were Fox, I'd be looking to get more access to exclusive Saturday games involving the Broncos, especially if they bring in a second Brisbane team.

 

[Pippen94]

To be fair, these are national figures and doesn't specify people in Brisbane watching Brisbane. It also doesn't account for the fact that Brisbane predominantly get the better time slot most weeks which is that 7:30/8pm Friday time slot. Of course more people are going to view that game. It also doesn't account for whether the viewers are Brisbane supporters or the opposing team, more likely to be from outside of QLD watching the game because they can't be there to watch it in SE QLD (seeing as the opposition in the top 5 were Souths, Saints, Melb, Cowboys, and Parra...)

I think the bigger telling sign is the top 5 games on Pay tv primarily involved Melbourne. You could infer that the Vic market are more willing to sink money into PayTV as the coverage on FTA is limited. If they didn't have so many Broncos games in good time slots that have FTA coverage (ie Saturday) would more Brisbane fans be willing to cough up the cash to watch the Broncos on PayTV? Would this change which games rated higher on PayTV. If I were Fox, I'd be looking to get more access to exclusive Saturday games involving the Broncos, especially if they bring in a second Brisbane team.

How many FTA time slots are there? Thurs, Fri & Sun are all good slots - Broncos can only play one.

Matches involving the Broncos average 173,000 for the season, while Queensland sides averaged 157,000. Matches involving two out of state teams rated an average of 107,000.

 

[Billythekid]

Ok, then look at the storm. and how they went for the first dozen or so years. The networks wouldn't show them till after midnight - that's gives an idea of what they thought of them. And just having to show them will cost the networks money.

The NRL needs to have plenty of cash behind them before they can start putting teams in AFL territories, funding them tune of what the Suns, GWS are getting, and The Storm Was.

The Networks have shown little or no interest in a Perth team. So how can you be so certain?

Seriously you can’t have read my post if this is your reply. We would never be funding the 2 new clubs to the tune of GWS and the suns because for a start it costs near double as much to run an AFL club. That plus as I also mentioned there is actual demands for these clubs. The Brisbane team would be plonked down right in NRL heartland. The Perth team has a consortium fighting for its inclusion and has shown they can retract fans to games. It’s not the same as GWS and the suns.

The storm comparison is irrelevant and is nothing like the expansion we’re currently looking at. Also you can’t really compare he funding they got as the situation with news Ltd totally skewed things.

The networks won’t show interest in anything because they don’t want to pay more.

 

[tri_colours]

Seriously you can’t have read my post if this is your reply. We would never be funding the 2 new clubs to the tune of GWS and the suns because for a start it costs near double as much to run an AFL club. That plus as I also mentioned there is actual demands for these clubs. The Brisbane team would be plonked down right in NRL heartland. The Perth team has a consortium fighting for its inclusion and has shown they can retract fans to games. It’s not the same as GWS and the suns.

The storm comparison is irrelevant and is nothing like the expansion we’re currently looking at. Also you can’t really compare he funding they got as the situation with news Ltd totally skewed things.

The networks won’t show interest in anything because they don’t want to pay more.

Carlton , Richmond , Collingwood etc about 12m .Some of there more costly sides 14-19m, NRL 13m . Suns 27m.