Brisbane Jets

[mongoose]

Tweed Seagulls are one of the oldest clubs in Australia. You can't just get rid of them.

Toowoomba are already planning to come back into the Intrust super cup as Western Mustangs

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Tweed Seagulls are one of the oldest clubs in Australia. You can't just get rid of them.

Toowoomba are already planning to come back into the Intrust super cup as Western Mustangs

Put Tweed Heads in NSW Cup.

 

[The Great Dane]

Yeah, fair call about market share I suppose. And whilst I agree with you that we don't want to make the same mistake in South-East QLD that we did in Sydney, I think four clubs in SEQ in 2050 with the door closed at NRL level for QLD clubs from then on wouldn't be oversaturating the market.

It's could and should again.

I don't really want to talk about the GC specifically (because their situation is more complex), But could Brisbane support three clubs by 2050? Sure, hell with the grants as they are Brisbane probably could support significantly more than that.

Should it? No, because there's no way that it could support three large successful clubs, and each club it gets comes at the expense of a club in another market that almost certainly would be more valuable than Brisbane's third.
So what you'll end up with is three small unstable clubs that are reliant on the league, instead of 2 large successful clubs that kick arse and take names, i.e. you'd oversaturate the market.

Also once you set the precedent that submarkets in Brisbane of X size can have NRL clubs, it makes it extremely hard to argue that others can't also support one. In other words once you let Redcliffe and Ipswich in there's no rational reason to stop Logan, the Northern Suburbs, Wynnum and that coastal region, etc, from at least trying to get their own, which means we'll forever be talking about expansion in Brisbane when really the NRL just needs to get it done and move on.

Out of interest, do you think three is a good number in SEQ? Or the current two? I can definately see the argument for three right now, I just think two is not enough. Given three more decades I don't think four would be unreasonable but I would cap it at that.

That's a big question.

I think that it depends on a lot of factors. For example it depends on the format of the competition (a move to conferences or P&R would change everything), broadcasting, streaming, facilities, etc, but on South East Queensland specifically I'd advise caution because it'd be incredibly easy to get carried away and oversaturate the market.

If we had our time again the Titans probably don't get a license, but getting rid of them now would be a massive mistake, which means that the GC will need time to grow into the Titans.
There's also undeniable demand for another club in Brisbane, but a lot of people are making the mistake of assuming that just because those people want a beer that that means that they'll drink any beer that you give them, if you catch my meaning.

So I'd say that assuming that you can find the right club to fit into Brisbane, 3 is a good number for SEQ for the foreseeable future, or at least until the NRL has representation nationally and in NZ (i.e. Perth, Adelaide, South Island, and maybe a second North Island and Melbourne club). I would never put a third club in Brisbane unless there's massive undeniable demand for it, i.e. both the other clubs are very healthy and you have tens of thousands of people on waiting lists for season tickets massive.

That leaves the Sunshine coast as the only other realistic option for pre-2050, but odds are that that doesn't happen before 2050.

As a general rule, and putting Sydney aside for the moment, I'd say that long term (lets say over roughly the next century) the NRL's goal in the Trans-Tasman market should be to have two clubs in each major city (i.e. pop over roughly 2mil) and one in each of the other cities/regions that can support a club (i.e. pop over roughly 500k).

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

It's could and should again.

I don't really want to talk about the GC specifically (because their situation is more complex), But could Brisbane support three clubs by 2050? Sure, hell with the grants as they are Brisbane probably could support significantly more than that.

Should it? No, because there's no way that it could support three large successful clubs, and each club it gets comes at the expense of a club in another market that almost certainly would be more valuable than Brisbane's third.
So what you'll end up with is three small unstable clubs that are reliant on the league, instead of 2 large successful clubs that kick arse and take names, i.e. you'd oversaturate the market.

Also once you set the precedent that submarkets in Brisbane of X size can have NRL clubs, it makes it extremely hard to argue that others can't also support one. In other words once you let Redcliffe and Ipswich in there's no rational reason to stop Logan, the Northern Suburbs, Wynnum and that coastal region, etc, from at least trying to get their own, which means we'll forever be talking about expansion in Brisbane when really the NRL just needs to get it done and move on.

That's a big question.

I think that it depends on a lot of factors. For example it depends on the format of the competition (a move to conferences or P&R would change everything), broadcasting, streaming, facilities, etc, but on South East Queensland specifically I'd advise caution because it'd be incredibly easy to get carried away and oversaturate the market.

If we had our time again the Titans probably don't get a license, but getting rid of them now would be a massive mistake, which means that the GC will need time to grow into the Titans.
There's also undeniable demand for another club in Brisbane, but a lot of people are making the mistake of assuming that just because those people want a beer that that means that they'll drink any beer that you give them, if you catch my meaning.

So I'd say that assuming that you can find the right club to fit into Brisbane, 3 is a good number for SEQ for the foreseeable future, or at least until the NRL has representation nationally and in NZ (i.e. Perth, Adelaide, South Island, and maybe a second North Island and Melbourne club). I would never put a third club in Brisbane unless there's massive undeniable demand for it, i.e. both the other clubs are very healthy and you have tens of thousands of people on waiting lists for season tickets massive.

That leaves the Sunshine coast as the only other realistic option for pre-2050, but odds are that that doesn't happen before 2050.

As a general rule, and putting Sydney aside for the moment, I'd say that long term (lets say over roughly the next century) the NRL's goal in the Trans-Tasman market should be to have two clubs in each major city (i.e. pop over roughly 2mil) and one in each of the other cities/regions that can support a club (i.e. pop over roughly 500k).

The only way we can get what you're advocating is by relocating Sydney clubs to Adelaide and Perth.

 

[The Great Dane]

The only way we can get what you're advocating is by relocating Sydney clubs to Adelaide and Perth.

Frankly rationalisation of Sydney should have happened years ago, however you wouldn't necessarily need to relocate clubs to achieve what I proposed in the timeframe that I proposed it.

Unless the club is choosing to relocate of their own accord (which is unlikely to happen), I don't really support relocations at all to be honest. RL people have proven themselves to be way to sentimental and emotionally driven to pull them off successfully, so the NRL would f**k them up just like they f**ked up rationalisation and the mergers last time.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Frankly rationalisation of Sydney should have happened years ago, however you wouldn't necessarily need to relocate clubs to achieve what I proposed in the timeframe that I proposed it.

Unless the club is choosing to relocate of their own accord (which is unlikely to happen), I don't really support relocations at all to be honest. RL people have proven themselves to be way to sentimental and emotionally driven to pull them off successfully, so the NRL would f**k them up just like they f**ked up rationalisation and the mergers last time.

I cannot see the NRL going past 18 teams.

 

[The Great Dane]

I cannot see the NRL going past 18 teams.

You seriously can't see the NRL growing past 18 teams over the course of roughly a century? I mean really seriously.

For sake of argument lets just say that I accept that they can't or won't ever go past 18, if that's the case then the 17th and 18th licenses shouldn't go to Brisbane at all. Those spots should go to Perth and Adelaide to get national coverage, and then maybe we talk about Brisbane if rationalisation happens in Sydney.

 

[Perth Red]

Rugby league has a small suburban mentality, 4 teams in brisbane whilst we leave Big cities uncovered makes perfect sense for the game lol

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You seriously can't see the NRL growing past 18 teams over the course of roughly a century? I mean really seriously.

For sake of argument lets just say that I accept that they can't or won't ever go past 18, if that's the case then the 17th and 18th licenses shouldn't go to Brisbane at all. Those spots should go to Perth and Adelaide to get national coverage, and then maybe we talk about Brisbane if rationalisation happens in Sydney.

In a century I won't be here, so I don't know what will happen between now and 2121. It's possible the sport could cease to exist by then.

Adelaide and Perth are probably reliant on Sydney clubs falling over or relocating.

It would be madness to punish Brisbane just because Sydney is oversaturated. The commercial partners will never choose Adelaide or Perth over Brisbane 2 in a 17 or 18 team competiton. If Brisbane 2 is a run away success they'll probably want Brisbane 3 to be the 18th team.

Regional teams like the Cowboys, Knights and Raiders are here to stay and are great for the game, so good luck getting the ARLC to hand their licences to Adelaide and Perth. Another team or 2 in Brisbane will bring in more money and add excitement to the game. The ARLC knows this and is intent on making it happen.

I'd like to see a Perth team, but the people in charge have other ideas. Abdo said NZ2 will probably be the 18th licence. It falls in line with Colin Smith's blueprint of Brisbane 2, NZ2, Brisbane 3 and Melbourne 2/PNG, in that order.

 

[flippikat]

Put Tweed Heads in NSW Cup.

If this was to happen, it sets up for a good clash with Burleigh Bears each year if "inter-league" rounds started being scheduled between NSW & Qld Cup.

 

[The Great Dane]

In a century I won't be here, so I don't know what will happen between now and 2121. It's possible the sport could cease to exist by then.

Why are you challenging the proposition at all if you don't want to engage with it?

Adelaide and Perth are probably reliant on Sydney clubs falling over or relocating.

Why?

Just because you say so?

It would be madness to punish Brisbane just because Sydney is oversaturated. The commercial partners will never choose Adelaide or Perth over Brisbane 2 in a 17 or 18 team competiton. If Brisbane 2 is a run away success they'll probably want Brisbane 3 to be the 18th team.

Nobody would be punishing Brisbane, that's not how business works. But let's accept that it is 'punishment'; Brisbane shouldn't be punished because Sydney is oversaturated but Perth and Adelaide should be... Methinks somebody is allowing their overwhelming personal bias to show again.

And what's in our commercial partners best interests isn't necessarily what's in the best interests of the sport, and as such their interests should always come second to the interests of the sport where possible. Or do you think that the decades of News underselling the NRL was a good thing, because that's what was in our commercial partners best interest...

In the long term gaining national exposure is way more valuable to the NRL than Nine and News making a few million dollars more each season off the backs of another Brisbane club, that they assume will be as successful as the first (which didn't work for the GC, so yeah).

I'd like to see a Perth team, but the people in charge have other ideas. Abdo said NZ2 will probably be the 18th licence. It falls in line with Colin Smith's blueprint of Brisbane 2, NZ2, Brisbane 3 and Melbourne 2/PNG, in that order.

The people in charge won't be in charge forever, and who gives a f**k about Colin Smith's opinion.

The guy obviously has a vested interest and loss all credibility when he just flat out stated that a big reason why the AFL's broadcasting revenue is bigger than the NRL's was because it has national coverage, but the NRL shouldn't follow suit because 'umm ah reasons'.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Lachlan Murdoch/News Corp are not interested in Adelaide and Perth as the game can still attract national sponsors. But it believes Melbourne is important.

Look at the last 20 years is this not the pattern? Ignored Perth and Adelaide ploughed a heap into Melbourne to get it going.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If this was to happen, it sets up for a good clash with Burleigh Bears each year if "inter-league" rounds started being scheduled between NSW & Qld Cup.

That would be a great game.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Why are you challenging the proposition at all if you don't want to engage with it?

I don't want to speculate on something that I will never see happen. If I am going to speculate it will be about something that will happen in my lifetime.

Why?

Just because you say so?

Because PVL, Abdo and Colin Smith said so. They hold power, so what they say matters. You can put forward a 10k word post stating why you believe they're wrong and how they don't have the balls to expand, but it's not going to change their minds.

Nobody would be punishing Brisbane, that's not how business works. But let's accept that it is 'punishment'; Brisbane shouldn't be punished because Sydney is oversaturated but Perth and Adelaide should be... Methinks somebody is allowing their overwhelming personal bias to show again.

Is it in the game's best interest to have Adelaide and Perth ahead of Brisbane 2 and NZ 2?

The suits at ARLC don't agree with you. Neither does Colin Smith, who is held in high esteem by the ARLC and media.

Ridicule them all you like, but they must know something.

Queensland RL fans have been treated like shit by the NSWRL since 1908. We lost our competition and have been under represented ever since. The longer this goes on the more open-minded people will become to other sports that treat us better.

Any businessman will tell you not to upset your main customer base in an attempt to win a few customers, as you'll likely lose more than you gain.

For what it's worth, I think Perth deserves a team and I am angry that the ARLC has shunned it.

And what's in our commercial partners best interests isn't necessarily what's in the best interests of the sport, and as such their interests should always come second to the interests of the sport where possible. Or do you think that the decades of News underselling the NRL was a good thing, because that's what was in our commercial partners best interest...

In the long term gaining national exposure is way more valuable to the NRL than Nine and News making a few million dollars more each season off the backs of another Brisbane club, that they assume will be as successful as the first (which didn't work for the GC, so yeah).

Until the game is no longer reliant on broadcasting revenue then it will have no choice but to appease its broadcast partners if it wants to get a good deal that keeps our elite players happy and not running off to RU. The ARLC has 16 clubs, 2 state bodies and the RLPA demanding big money. Any CEO/Chairman who doesn't cater to them gets the boot. Broadcasters know this and use it to their advantage.

The people in charge won't be in charge forever, and who gives a f**k about Colin Smith's opinion.

The guy obviously has a vested interest and loss all credibility when he just flat out stated that a big reason why the AFL's broadcasting revenue is bigger than the NRL's was because it has national coverage, but the NRL shouldn't follow suit because 'umm ah reasons'.

No one at the ARLC has expressed any interest in doing what you're suggesting, so odds are that future administrations will be no different.
Colin Smith does have a point. AwFuL always had a larger footprint across the country and it needs teams in its non-heartland states because they have over 50% of Australia's population and, there was a fumbleball community there to work with. Plus AwFuL had teams in these markets over 30 years ago, long before broadcasting rights were so important. NRL is starting from scratch in an era where it costs a far lot more to start up teams in non-heartland areas. I think Perth has done more than enough to warrant having a team of its own, but Adelaide is a job that hasn't even begun.

 

[mongoose]

Lachlan Murdoch/News Corp are not interested in Adelaide and Perth as the game can still attract national sponsors. But it believes Melbourne is important.

Look at the last 20 years is this not the pattern? Ignored Perth and Adelaide ploughed a heap into Melbourne to get it going.

you could be right about sponsors but the game should have a strategy to grow and be national. Too many vested interests whether it be Newscorp, 9, the clubs, the state bodies that hamstring the games potential.

League could easily make inroads into Perth and Adelaide, it's honestly amazing that the NRL and so many gooses from Sydney think these cities wouldn't want to take part in the biggest domestic Rugby comp in the world. The NRL is like some mixed up self hating teenager sometimes

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

you could be right about sponsors but the game should have a strategy to grow and be national. Too many vested interests whether it be Newscorp, 9, the clubs, the state bodies that hamstring the games potential.

League could easily make inroads into Perth and Adelaide, it's honestly amazing that the NRL and so many gooses from Sydney think these cities wouldn't want to take part in the biggest domestic Rugby comp in the world. The NRL is like some mixed up self hating teenager sometimes

Perth is definitely ready for an NRL team. I think the game is crazy for not developing the game at the grassroots level in Adelaide and Perth. There should be Queensland Cup teams based in both locations.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Lachlan Murdoch/News Corp are not interested in Adelaide and Perth as the game can still attract national sponsors. But it believes Melbourne is important.

Look at the last 20 years is this not the pattern? Ignored Perth and Adelaide ploughed a heap into Melbourne to get it going.

Yep they did plough money in. And maybe they have ignored Perth/Adelaide etc. But are they interested?

Well like any business - if there is an opportunity for growth with a strong opportunity for ROI.... they would be.

Melbourne was, and is very important. The 2nd biggest city in Australia. that's a big market. They've pumped in money historically but that's no reason to continue to ignore Perth n Adelaide.

They are the two biggest cities/regions without an NRL team. They are Australian Cities. As is Melbourne which now has a successful rugby league team, entrenched in the most parochial AFL city by lightyears.

I'm an advocate for "Brisbane Mk2", but ignoring the two biggest population bases without an NRL presence to consider for an 18th team is a big oversight for mine. While that might have been the pattern for a while now - to continue it would be opportunities lost for mine.

 

[Diesel]

Why the Redlands don’t have a Q-Cup team baffles me. The Redland City Council population is 130-140,000, it could easily sustain a team with club rooms or training based at Capalaba, Cleveland or Wellington Point. The juniors are based at Thornlands, IIRC.
I get it’s sandwiched between the Souths-Logan and Wynnum-Manly but it’s a whole LGA without a team

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Yep they did plough money in. And maybe they have ignored Perth/Adelaide etc. But are they interested?

Well like any business - if there is an opportunity for growth with a strong opportunity for ROI.... they would be.

Melbourne was, and is very important. The 2nd biggest city in Australia. that's a big market. They've pumped in money historically but that's no reason to continue to ignore Perth n Adelaide.

They are the two biggest cities/regions without an NRL team. They are Australian Cities. As is Melbourne which now has a successful rugby league team, entrenched in the most parochial AFL city by lightyears.

I'm an advocate for "Brisbane Mk2", but ignoring the two biggest population bases without an NRL presence to consider for an 18th team is a big oversight for mine. While that might have been the pattern for a while now - to continue it would be opportunities lost for mine.

If I was in charge I would have given the 17th and 18th licences to Brisbane 2 and West Coast Pirates, and push for Manly to relocate to NZ and Dragons to Adelaide.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Why the Redlands don’t have a Q-Cup team baffles me. The Redland City Council population is 130-140,000, it could easily sustain a team with club rooms or training based at Capalaba, Cleveland or Wellington Point. The juniors are based at Thornlands, IIRC.
I get it’s sandwiched between the Souths-Logan and Wynnum-Manly but it’s a whole LGA without a team

I'd relocate Wynnum Manly to Thornlands, which is the home of Redlands Parrots. Merge the two clubs to become the Redland Seagulls. Both clubs use the colours red and green. Many of Wynnum's sponsors are from Redlands, like Bartons and Siromet Wines. I've seen plenty of Wynnum fans in Redlands.

Souths Logan need to relocate to Logan and become the Logan Magpies or Logan Scorpions.