Axe the Sharks to make way for the Reds

[Jankuloski]

But what facts are we basing this asumption that Adelaide cannot support a team, and Perth can? This data from the website Perth Red left made me rethink this attitude if on average Adelaide Rams had as much of a crowd as Perth, Penrith or Cronulla. I realise that currently it's true that Perth has bigger crowds for one off games, but that may not show anything about what potential teams would get.

There seems to be a bigger problem when these teams (Adelaide and Perth) are playing away. It seems that people outside of Perth and Adelaide are not interested in seeing them.

 

[Perth Red]

Loudy isn't interested in anywhere outside of NSW and Q'land! In England they are called flatcappers, you know the earth is still flat type. Of course Adelaide and Perth could both sustain succesful teams if RL in this country is where it should be. Sadly after decades of poor admin we continue to want to "shore up our heartlands" and "get Sydney strong first". FFS we've had a 100 years!

The frustrating thing is not that there will be no expansion to new areas for RL in the next decade, probably, but that there weren't even be a long term plan to make it happen. Oh well at least you can all cream yourselves when every now and again a big crowd turns up for a semi between two Sydney teams.

 

[StinkyPete]

i hear raiders aren't getting good enough crowds and NRL are looking to move them somewhere in 2012 when there stadium contract is up. just a rumor. to add to that I know Logan are investigating how much building a stadium would cost and a apparently NRL are pro this.

 

[Loudstrat]

Loudy isn't interested in anywhere outside of NSW and Q'land! In England they are called flatcappers, you know the earth is still flat type. Of course Adelaide and Perth could both sustain succesful teams if RL in this country is where it should be. Sadly after decades of poor admin we continue to want to "shore up our heartlands" and "get Sydney strong first". FFS we've had a 100 years!

The frustrating thing is not that there will be no expansion to new areas for RL in the next decade, probably, but that there weren't even be a long term plan to make it happen. Oh well at least you can all cream yourselves when every now and again a big crowd turns up for a semi between two Sydney teams.

You dumb tool. You are only interested in decimating Sydney because you have an anti NSW chip on your shoulder. I still maintain that the 20 team ARL comp was the way to go. You seem to want a 12 team comp with 5 Sydney teams, plus Beijing.

You have whinged throughout this thread about failing Sydney teams. Name them.

You wanted to punt Penrith. You whinge about sub 15k crowds, but a one off jagging half that is proof for you that the NRL should rush in in two seconds flat and pour millions of $ that it doesn't have into propping one up.

We can all see through your agenda. Sadly, the great 20 international comp of 1995, played across 4 time zones, was decimated by the petty jealousy and mental ineptitude shown by people such as you.

 

[Rainbow]

Bottom line is that Melbourne are underpinned to the tune of $6,000,000 per season. This is in a marketplace where sport is deemed to be the number 1 pasttime.

At the same time, the Sharks and Newcastle (to name the 2 most obvious) are struggling to make ends meet.

Why would you go outside traditional areas, like Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth to expand our competition?

If it was my money, and this is a big point, as it is a massive investment, I would be looking at either the Central Coast and a 2nd Brisbane team before looking at entertaining a team outside of the existing states. even Melbourne are a 50/50 proposition at this point and I would punt them prior to Cronulla and Newcastle.

TV rights and News Ltd ownership are the only things keeping Melbourne in the comp. But 2012 is approaching fast and if Mr Stokes doesn't see the value in a team outside of the traditional areas then so be it.

In my opinion, this is the main reason that News wants out of the game now.

 

[Jankuloski]

Enough allready with the 6 mil that's being funnelled into Storm! They spend just about most of all teams off the field and on it. They produce massive ammounts of money for News which is sponsoring them through the NRL. It might suck, but it's ludacris to claim that storm aren't viable. They just got a new stadium, which will surely see their crowds improve.

Punting them would be equal to RL shooting itslef in the foot...through the head.

 

[Vossy]

considering they lose 8 million a year but get it back to even thanks to news..yeah really viable

 

[Loudstrat]

Bottom line is that Melbourne are underpinned to the tune of $6,000,000 per season. This is in a marketplace where sport is deemed to be the number 1 pasttime.

At the same time, the Sharks and Newcastle (to name the 2 most obvious) are struggling to make ends meet.

Why would you go outside traditional areas, like Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth to expand our competition?

If it was my money, and this is a big point, as it is a massive investment, I would be looking at either the Central Coast and a 2nd Brisbane team before looking at entertaining a team outside of the existing states. even Melbourne are a 50/50 proposition at this point and I would punt them prior to Cronulla and Newcastle.

TV rights and News Ltd ownership are the only things keeping Melbourne in the comp. But 2012 is approaching fast and if Mr Stokes doesn't see the value in a team outside of the traditional areas then so be it.

In my opinion, this is the main reason that News wants out of the game now.

So true. Cronulla and Newcastle are struggling - so what? They are still in the game - that is what is important. Both hugely important (especially Newcastle) to the game - Newcastle like Canberra are the linchpins to what makes us different to AFL -our strong regional presence - which the AFL will struggle to get into for a number of reasons.

I'm not about to bag Melbourne for their reliuance on News Ltd. Suffice to say that Cronulla and Newy don't get handouts from anyone yet survive with much smaller populations to draw from. The fact is that AFL is the dominant code in Melbourne - and their survival in that environment requires a prop up that the Code or it's stakeholders cannot afford to duplicate. If Melbourne cannot pay it's way, how can we expect smaller centres with similar sporting biases to maintain a side and be self funding?

There is not a RL fan anywhere who would not want the Reds back in. However, the consensus seems top be that a Sydney club needs to need killed off first. Why?

 

[Jankuloski]

Because the NRL keeps saying they will not expand. So the only way for the Reds to get in is for someone to get relegated.

That seems to be the situation. If it doesn't have to happen - great!

 

[Loudstrat]

Because the NRL keeps saying they will not expand. So the only way for the Reds to get in is for someone to get relegated.

That seems to be the situation. If it doesn't have to happen - great!

No they don't. 2013 they are aiming at.

 

[Jankuloski]

Are they aware of this?

Gallop has been saying they don't want to put dots on the map, there was an article about a report issued by the NRL that expansion will not bring in new TV money last year, and to top it off, all 16 clubs said "no to expansion" about a month ago. What makes you so sure they are?

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

considering they lose 8 million a year but get it back to even thanks to news..yeah really viable

If they lost news money they wouldnt be around and news wouldnt be fighting to keep them under the proposed new commission.

At 100 for foxtel they only need just over 6500 people to subscribe in melbourne to get their money back at the excessive 8m you claim

 

[bobmar28]

i hear raiders aren't getting good enough crowds and NRL are looking to move them somewhere in 2012 when there stadium contract is up. just a rumor. to add to that I know Logan are investigating how much building a stadium would cost and a apparently NRL are pro this.

Ipswich-Logan Jets? I think a team like that would increase the value of the TV rights.

 

[bobmar28]

So true. Cronulla and Newcastle are struggling - so what? They are still in the game - that is what is important. Both hugely important (especially Newcastle) to the game - Newcastle like Canberra are the linchpins to what makes us different to AFL -our strong regional presence - which the AFL will struggle to get into for a number of reasons.

I'm not about to bag Melbourne for their reliuance on News Ltd. Suffice to say that Cronulla and Newy don't get handouts from anyone yet survive with much smaller populations to draw from. The fact is that AFL is the dominant code in Melbourne - and their survival in that environment requires a prop up that the Code or it's stakeholders cannot afford to duplicate. If Melbourne cannot pay it's way, how can we expect smaller centres with similar sporting biases to maintain a side and be self funding?

There is not a RL fan anywhere who would not want the Reds back in. However, the consensus seems top be that a Sydney club needs to need killed off first. Why?

Because 9 teams in one city is too many.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Bottom line is that Melbourne are underpinned to the tune of $6,000,000 per season. This is in a marketplace where sport is deemed to be the number 1 pasttime.

At the same time, the Sharks and Newcastle (to name the 2 most obvious) are struggling to make ends meet.

Why would you go outside traditional areas, like Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth to expand our competition?

If it was my money, and this is a big point, as it is a massive investment, I would be looking at either the Central Coast and a 2nd Brisbane team before looking at entertaining a team outside of the existing states. even Melbourne are a 50/50 proposition at this point and I would punt them prior to Cronulla and Newcastle.

TV rights and News Ltd ownership are the only things keeping Melbourne in the comp. But 2012 is approaching fast and if Mr Stokes doesn't see the value in a team outside of the traditional areas then so be it.

In my opinion, this is the main reason that News wants out of the game now

Melbourne may be given 6m by news or what ever the figure is but News see this as a good investment as it makes them more money through pay tv.
You must remember the storm play out of the worst stadium in Melbourne, fans are used to going to the MCG or Telstra Dome where the facilities are light years ahead. Once they move into the new stadium you will see there crowd figures jump significantly.
They are also not seen on free to air TV, which would not help with thier sponsorship.
Even if you took out the money from News they would still be one of the highest spending clubs in the league.
If someone offered you 6m a year to spend would you or would you knock it back?

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

You do realise that a second Brisbane side and a Gosford side will provide bigger income streams quicker that Perth and especially Adelaide!

Initially Gosford would create a bigger revenue stream than either perth or adelaide but what about in 30 years?
Another side in SEQ is a must before we get a CC side

 

[smithie]

Ipswich-Logan Jets? I think a team like that would increase the value of the TV rights.

I would prefer to see a second Brisbane team, to play out of Suncorp.

I don't think the QLD state govt. would be willing to fork out the cash for another stadium. In the last few years they have paid for the Suncorp redevelopment, Skilled Park and now the Carrara redevelopment. Another stadium will be a long way off. Maybe if Australia secure the World Cup bid.

 

[Perth Red]

Initially Gosford would create a bigger revenue stream than either perth or adelaide but what about in 30 years?
Another side in SEQ is a must before we get a CC side

Why would it? If I was a TV station i would rather have a new team that was opening up a new audience.

As I have stated many, many times, in order to expand properly we first need to invest to make the long term expansion viable. If Melbourne has taught us anything it should be that you can't just parachute an NRL team into a city without doing lots of groundwprk UNLESS you are prepared to prop it up for the first decade+.

It's a hell of alot cheaper to do prep work for 3-5 years before a new team is launched than it is to launch a new team cold and then have to pump money in to keep it viable.

lol at anyone who thinks Cronulla is more important to the long term future of the NRL than Melbourne.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Why would it?

As a television station could do what they do with friday night football and show a game invovling a queensland side live to queensland and a game live into NSW involving a NSW team thus creating the ratings bananza on a saturday or sunday.

As I have stated many times, in order to expand properly we first need to invest to make the long term expansion viable. If Melbourne has taught us anything it should be that you can't just parachute an NRL team into a city without doing lots of groundwprk UNLESS you are prepared to prop it up for the first decade+.

It's a hell of alot cheaper to do prep work for 3-5 years before a new team is launched than it is to launch a new team cold and then have to pump money in to keep it viable.

Yes i agree with you, the NRL should be doing alot more to groom potential ares for new teams in Perth, Adelaide and NZ2

lol at anyone who thinks Cronulla is more important to the long term future of the NRL than Melbourne

When have i ever stated this, I believe that our (sharks) decision to leave Adelaide was the wrong one. Are you aware that we are the only club that owns their own home ground, while we are cash poor we still have assets worth close to 30m.
Melboure is a sleeping giant in regards to what in can gerenate in regards to income for the code

As for my ideas on expansion I believe there is room for 4 more sides and my choices would be SEQ, Perth, Adelaide and NZ2. CC to get a side if a Sydney club does happen to fall over.

 

[Loudstrat]

Are they aware of this?

Gallop has been saying they don't want to put dots on the map, there was an article about a report issued by the NRL that expansion will not bring in new TV money last year, and to top it off, all 16 clubs said "no to expansion" about a month ago. What makes you so sure they are?

No to expansion was a political move which had something to do with the commission which was the hot topic at the time. I'd say it was the CEO's signalling their intention for the commission - to be a vehicle for them to control the finances of the game rather than have money spent in othre areas such as junior development and rural comps.

Gallops "dots on the map" comment was made to extinguish arguments based upon placing clubs merely to fill in blanks on the map. Wisely, Gallop knows that clubs are better placed where the people and the market exists, not just to plonk clubs in far flung places with little chance of survival.

Initially Gosford would create a bigger revenue stream than either perth or adelaide but what about in 30 years?
Another side in SEQ is a must before we get a CC side

Well, worry about that in 30 years ffs!