Brisbane Tigers make their bid to be 18th team

[Perth Red]

..yeah & fox footed bill. Expansion won't happen without broadcasters paying up. Don't hear them talking about Perth lol

FTA paid nothing, no value to FTA. Them be the facts.
The value of expansion will be in the 9th game content and going to open market. No ones paying more for the location of club 18 be it Perth or Brisbane3, thats the reality.

Both have their advantages. Perth better new time slot and new market opportunity. Brisbane3, bigger audience in queensland when they play. TV wont decide where club 18 is imo. Broncos/Dolphins, Govt offerings and NRL strategy will.

 

[Pippen94]

FTA paid nothing, no value to FTA. Them be the facts.
The value of expansion will be in the 9th game content and going to open market. No ones paying more for the location of club 18 be it Perth or Brisbane3, thats the reality.

Both have their advantages. Perth better new time slot and new market opportunity. Brisbane3, bigger audience in queensland when they play. TV wont decide where club 18 is imo. Broncos/Dolphins, Govt offerings and NRL strategy will.

If broadcasters not paying won't happen. (They will & it'll be qld)

 

[Perth Red]

If broadcasters not paying won't happen. (They will & it'll be qld)

You seem unable to grasp the points I'm making. Location of club 18 isnt going to be the key driver of tv offers. Game 9 content is, and competitive tension will be the biggie. We have enough evidence in both the introduction of club17 and the AFL deals to make a fair judgement that this will be the case.

 

[Wb1234]

Hh

So what you are arguing is that Tv revenue increase is in open market competition, not in new club location?

haha you are such a dope when you want to be

 

[Perth Red]

Hh

haha you are such a dope when you want to be

Must be as I have no idea what point you are arguing lol. You're use of AFL experiences would suggest you agree with me that location of new clubs is far less relevant than competitive tendering and content creation. Is that what you think?

 

[Wb1234]

Must be as I have no idea what point you are arguing lol. You're use of AFL experiences would suggest you agree with me that location of new clubs is far less relevant than competitive tendering and content creation. Is that what you think?

For the tenth time

when the nrl goes to market next time with the dolphins included and other stations able to bid their worth will show how much more valuable they are than the failed afl expansion clubs

and both networks want more brisbane teams

 

[Perth Red]

For the tenth time

when the nrl goes to market next time with the dolphins included and other stations able to bid their worth will show how much more valuable they are than the failed afl expansion clubs

and both networks want more brisbane teams

Bit of a unarguable position though isnt it because we wont know what Dolphins, or Brisbane3, are worth more than another location as its the competitive tendering that will be driving the value, not the location of club17 or 18, in all likelihood.
All we really know for sure is FTA didnt pay anything for Brisbane2 and Fox 'maybe' paid enough to cover cost of it in order to get Broncos off FTA and to have a say in which Brisbane2 club it would be. Hardly ringing endorsements for how valuable TV sees the Brisbane audience is it?

AFL got significant uplifts twice despite adding teams in locations you deem worthless to TV. That should probably tell you something.

 

[Wb1234]

Bit of a unarguable position though isnt it because we wont know what Dolphins, or Brisbane3, are worth more than another location as its the competitive tendering that will be driving the value, not the location of club17 or 18, in all likelihood.
All we really know for sure is FTA didnt pay anything for Brisbane2 and Fox 'maybe' paid enough to cover cost of it in order to get Broncos off FTA and to have a say in which Brisbane2 club it would be. Hardly ringing endorsements for how valuable TV sees the Brisbane audience is it?

AFL got significant uplifts twice despite adding teams in locations you deem worthless to TV. That should probably tell you something.

Yes we do
Both Fox and nein said they want more brisbane content

neither have ever shown any interest in Perth

afl previously had two more teams and had to add the gather round and tasmania to get a decent uplift in tv deals ignoring the Telstra garbage

 

[Perth Red]

Yes we do
Both Fox and nein said they want more brisbane content

neither have ever shown any interest in Perth

They said the same before Brisbane2 were admitted and paid nothing (Ch9). But yeh it will be different this time because......?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Good to see the insanity continuing in here.

 

[Wb1234]

They said the same before Brisbane2 were admitted and paid nothing (Ch9). But yeh it will be different this time because......?

I edited it

read the rest then respond

 

[Perth Red]

I edited it

read the rest then respond

Nothings changed, all the evidence suggests that location of expansion clubs plays a much smaller relevance to tv value than content amount and competition for rights. You yourself gave the prefect example of this when mentioning the intro of GWS, Suns and Tassie to the AFL comp. and the subsequent TV deals that followed.

 

[Pippen94]

They said the same before Brisbane2 were admitted and paid nothing (Ch9). But yeh it will be different this time because......?

Fox payed but you pretend otherwise coz it hurts ur feelings

 

[Perth Red]

Fox payed but you pretend otherwise coz it hurts ur feelings

Thats is still open to some conjecture. Yes they did pay, how much and if it was just making up a reduced agreement they had already signed the year prior no one can say for sure. If the $400mill amount announced is cash and contra then they didnt pay anymore for NRL in 2023 than they paid in 2017. If its cash only then yes it looks like they have paid a whopping $15-20mill a year more than in 2017 lol

 

[Wb1234]

Nothings changed, all the evidence suggests that location of expansion clubs plays a much smaller relevance to tv value than content amount and competition for rights. You yourself gave the prefect example of this when mentioning the intro of GWS, Suns and Tassie to the AFL comp. and the subsequent TV deals that followed.

Hahhaha this should be bookmarked

location of clubs plays a small role in the value of tv deals

s

 

[Perth Red]

Hahhaha this should be bookmarked

location of clubs plays a small role in the value of tv deals

s

You are literally the person who made that claim when you brought up GWS, Suns and Tassie lol You cant have your cake and eat it, which is it? those clubs are in locations with little tv value or they arent. Which is it?

 

[Wb1234]

You are literally the person who made that claim when you brought up GWS, Suns and Tassie lol You cant have your cake and eat it, which is it? those clubs are in locations with little tv value or they arent. Which is it?

When the nrl does it’s tv deal you will see what having successfully expansion clubs in metro markets means

sadly for your favourite sport their expansion has all been largely a a failure except for the swans and even then without super league they probably would’ve died off too

 

[Pippen94]

When the nrl does it’s tv deal you will see what having successfully expansion clubs in metro markets means

sadly for your favourite sport their expansion has all been largely a a failure except for the swans and even then without super league they probably would’ve died off too

In terms of TV swans have been huge failure

 

[Pippen94]

Thats is still open to some conjecture. Yes they did pay, how much and if it was just making up a reduced agreement they had already signed the year prior no one can say for sure. If the $400mill amount announced is cash and contra then they didnt pay anymore for NRL in 2023 than they paid in 2017. If its cash only then yes it looks like they have paid a whopping $15-20mill a year more than in 2017 lol

Blah

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

PR just posted the FC revenue above so where the f**k are you the seeing the Cowboys earning 7 x more than the Raiders? Just more bullshit for the sake of making an argument.

On p18 of the 2022 annual report from the North Queensland Cowboys :

Football Operations	Amount
Sponsorship & Corporate	$9,809,901
Merchandise	$2,013,944
Membership	$3,274,148
Game Day and Event	$7,495,133
TOTAL	$22,593,126​

https://cowboysleagues.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/AnnualReport-2022-DL-WEB.pdf

Wookie said the Raiders made $3m from "rugby league operations". I took his word.

I just read through the report and see the Raiders cover sponsorship and corporate under "Rendering of Services" and membership, ticketing and merchandise under "Sales of Goods". That brings the total to about $16m. Very good, but still well behind the Cowboys and the stronger Sydney clubs. The weaker Sydney clubs are below the Raiders.

I could say the Cowboys wouldn't have won their 2015 premiership without non-queenslanders Toumololo, Tamou and Lachlan Coote. Bulldogs developed Thurston too. Granville was at the Broncos first wasn't he? Cowboys basically bought a premiership winning team.

Cowboys didn't raid an entire competition, did they?

Raiders used pokie machine revenue to buy up State of Origin players from the BRL. The BRL didn't have access to this revenue stream until 1991. ACT legalised pokies in licenced venues in the 1970s.

Cowboys and Raiders were on the same playing field in 2015. Learn context.[/b]