What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Brisbane Tigers make their bid to be 18th team

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
34,888
Both were complicit in the Rams demise, and Adelaide is absolutely crucial if the NRL's goal is to be the largest football code in the country. It's the fifth largest market in the country FFS.
Townsville
Canb
Newc
Gong
Central coast
Nz

vs Adelaide Perth Geelong and tasmania

so no not crucial at all
 
Messages
14,822
The NRL's market share outside of NSW, Qld, and the ACT is abysmal, the only way you change that is by investing in growth in those markets. The way you're going to see significant growth in WA, SA, and VIC is through expansion.

There's a very strong likelihood of Perth getting the 18th licence. That'll cover every major city bar Adelaide.

The ARLC would need to invest heavily in an Adelaide team for 10 to 20 years. The RLPA, QRL, NSWRL and 17 existing clubs would never allow it.

That leaves NZ2 and Brisbane 3 as the only realistic contenders for a 20 team competiton.

It'll suck not to have Adelaide, but it won't be the end of the world like you're making out.

There's no way the ultra-conservative ARLC will go anywhere near Adelaide within 20 years of admitting a team in Perth. They will sit back and keep a keen on eye on Perth's progress just in case it gets into trouble like the Titans.
 

Pippen94

First Grade
Messages
7,399
There's a very strong likelihood of Perth getting the 18th licence. That'll cover every major city bar Adelaide.

The ARLC would need to invest heavily in an Adelaide team for 10 to 20 years. The RLPA, QRL, NSWRL and 17 existing clubs would never allow it.

That leaves NZ2 and Brisbane 3 as the only realistic contenders for a 20 team competiton.

It'll suck not to have Adelaide, but it won't be the end of the world like you're making out.

There's no way the ultra-conservative ARLC will go anywhere near Adelaide within 20 years of admitting a team in Perth. They will sit back and keep a keen on eye on Perth's progress just in case it gets into trouble like the Titans.

Is there a Perth bid?!.& if so who's funding it?!
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
Yeah, here u suggest smiths..in later posts u vigorously defend name;

"..it out there that instead of the name Bombers, which everybody hated because it's the same as Essendon, that they could keep their branding (that's actually pretty cool) by trying something like the Cleveland Browns and name the team the Smiths, or something similar, after Kingsford Smith...
You know I do actually remember this conversation, and you've ripped that out of context, hence why you didn't actually link it...

I'll give you a hint, there's a difference between saying that they hypothetically could do something and advocating that they should do that thing.
 

Pippen94

First Grade
Messages
7,399
1. You know what is embarrassing and tiresome? Having every thread polluted by you with the same tropes: NSW has too many sides or it was really unfair that Queensland players were taken from the BRL competition 30 odd years ago et al.

Essentially you need to learn that you can’t change history. History is defined by winners or significant events not by losers or a thousand what ifs. For example annybody arguing for the restoration of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire? Would a Frenchman demand that King Louis not have his head chopped off? You can bitch and moan about it as much as you want but NSW had more money than the QLD competition and their clubs had every right to take QLD’s players if they wanted. They are the facts so get over it.

2. You are probably the most vitriolic and emotive poster on here so it is a little ironic to whinge about other posters doing the same. When other posters correctly point out the above they are called stupid or dumb or ignorant or whatever else. What’s dumb is arguing against history.

3. It’s absolutely risible that you think that the only reason that I and two others are against another Queensland team (I am only arguing against it being the next team as well - you are arguing context remember) is because of some weird argument (that you have made up in your head btw) that we are so worried about the impact that it’ll have on the team that we support.

The only thing you have to justify this position is coincidence that we happen to be against this side and also happen to be Raiders supporters. Oh and the fact that we bought a few great players from QLD in the 1980’s; notwithstanding the fact that most of our rep players (Lazarus, Daley, Clyde, Stuart, Mullins, Furner, Nagas, Jason Croker, Ben Kennedy, Wighton et al) have come from NSW/ACT (although I’ll take that as you conveniently forgetting that for the parameters of your argument). Furthermore, if you want to go personal and throw shade at the Raiders and say that we don’t produce players but the Cowboys do (by inference) then you probably should wait until the Cowboys produce anywhere near that level of talent or maybe inquire about why so many of your players come from NSW or NZ for instance (sorry other fans of the Cowboys for any offence but this guy is taking absolute s*** and needs to be told that)

I’ll give you my perspective; even though you’ll misrepresent it. If my views were only based on me being a Raiders fan, I’d argue for less sides, not more. Secondly, any new team/teams, wherever they are based, will have an impact on every other club. It will make it harder to source talent because there is more demand for it and it will be harder for any side to win it. That’s just common sense.

So no my view isn’t based on some Raiders bias, my view is based on my want for the sport to be bolder, to grow and to think not only of QLD and NSW all the time.

Another colk meltdown
 

Pippen94

First Grade
Messages
7,399
You know I do actually remember this conversation, and you've ripped that out of context, hence why you didn't actually link it...

I'll give you a hint, there's a difference between saying that they hypothetically could do something and advocating that they should do that thing.

..no, u don't know how to use search & assumed others don't
 
Messages
14,822
Yeah, here u suggest smiths..in later posts u vigorously defend name;

"..it out there that instead of the name Bombers, which everybody hated because it's the same as Essendon, that they could keep their branding (that's actually pretty cool) by trying something like the Cleveland Browns and name the team the Smiths, or something similar, after Kingsford Smith...
I forgot about that post. Let's see if he apologises to you for being wrong. I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
Why the nrl doesn’t need Adelaide or even Perth

hint one is the footprint where there is no afl and the other no nrl

league is already dominant in the majority of Australia then we’ve got nz

so our footprint of real clubs not dots on a map is greater than afl
You're the one advocating for dots on a map and you don't even realise it...

The AFL could have a bunch of teams in small regional markets as well if they wanted, but they know that money and market share is built around the five major markets in this country.
 
Messages
14,822
Is there a Perth bid?!.& if so who's funding it?!

Cummins, Sage and Puddy have expressed interest. The WA Gov is keen. Perth is the only non-RL city that has a chance of fielding a team within the next 20 years. Whether it comes to fruition is up for debate, but there's genuine interest. Adelaide is a pie on the sky idea that is at least 20 years from being viable.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
U said u didn't say it.
I found where u wrote it (actually many posts defending name too).
..yet u still arguing.. Why?!
You're right, instead of simply replying 'that's not true' for sake of brevity, I should have said that Pippen is a dishonest piece of shit who, like always, is intentionally trying to misrepresent the other people in the disscussion.

I'll be clearer next time.
 

Latest posts

Top