Brisbane2 Bid News

[Goddo]

Just on the article, touched on it the WA Reds thread but if only 40% of players voted against expansion how is that a crushing blow to bid hopefuls? 31% support it and I gues sthe other 29% don't care. Hardly an overwhelming response!

LOL I know Red. Also, the reasons they gave against expansion were a bit baffling -

1. Financial reasons - this is what players are really concerned about - will new teams spread the salary cap out, meaning better players won't get cushy pay rises? It won't happen that way at all, but thats what they are thinking when citing this as a reason.

2. Logistical reasons - wtf? The players don't like flying to games or something? Are they scared of planes, or scheduling?

3. TV revenue diluted across more sides - 2 extra teams means more games to sell (admittedly of low value if they don't unlock new/undersupplied markets), and opens more places for players - ie, better players will command more of the salary cap, and lower players will have more oportunities.

4. Expansion will spread tallent too thin - true, it will spread it out a bit more, but it gives more oportunities for younger/fringe players, and will lure more players back from Europe.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I think it proves once and for all that players are the last people who should have a say in the running of the game. Too many blows to the head.

 

[Perth Red]

Don;t know, 60% favouring or neutral on expansion and majority wanting Perth, sounds ok to me!

 

[RedVee]

LOL I know Red. Also, the reasons they gave against expansion were a bit baffling -

1. Financial reasons - this is what players are really concerned about - will new teams spread the salary cap out, meaning better players won't get cushy pay rises? It won't happen that way at all, but thats what they are thinking when citing this as a reason.

2. Logistical reasons - wtf? The players don't like flying to games or something? Are they scared of planes, or scheduling?

3. TV revenue diluted across more sides - 2 extra teams means more games to sell (admittedly of low value if they don't unlock new/undersupplied markets), and opens more places for players - ie, better players will command more of the salary cap, and lower players will have more oportunities.

4. Expansion will spread tallent too thin - true, it will spread it out a bit more, but it gives more oportunities for younger/fringe players, and will lure more players back from Europe.

I think they are worried that each team will get a lesser cut from the TV steak.

Talent? well it will never get better without expansion.... that is: how about growing some more juniors from places that currently supply none to few? add them (in time) to those coming from currently strong places.

perhaps they want expansion without growing team numbers? well, that requires teams to relocate, or to merge, or die. I bet they won't vote for those options for their own club.... NIMBy-ism?

 

[Goddo]

Yeah nimby-ism it is. When they had to chose a location for expansion, they went with:

44% Perth
25% Brisbane (not sure if its just Brisbane Bombers (vomit name) or South East Queensland in general)
25% Central Queensland
23% Gosford

Thats a total of 117%, so its hard to know what the terms of the poll were. Could they pick 2 options? In which case the three remaining bid locations (Ipswich, PNG, Wellington) got 83% of the vote.

Or could they pick as many options as they like?

Either case, it seems the players are generally aware of the issues at play, namely TV money, ratings, new markets, timeslots, juniors et cetera. I wonder how many of them are reading this?

 

[BDGS]

Just on the article, touched on it the WA Reds thread but if only 40% of players voted against expansion how is that a crushing blow to bid hopefuls? 31% support it and I gues sthe other 29% don't care. Hardly an overwhelming response!

I think they only surveyed 104 players as well, not like they asked each one.

 

[duylm]

LOL I know Red. Also, the reasons they gave against expansion were a bit baffling -

1. Financial reasons - this is what players are really concerned about - will new teams spread the salary cap out, meaning better players won't get cushy pay rises? It won't happen that way at all, but thats what they are thinking when citing this as a reason.

3. TV revenue diluted across more sides - 2 extra teams means more games to sell (admittedly of low value if they don't unlock new/undersupplied markets), and opens more places for players - ie, better players will command more of the salary cap, and lower players will have more oportunities.

It's just typical short sightedness which is human nature unfortunately. They'd rather have a larger slice of a small pie than a decent slice of a much bigger pie, particularly when the small pie is the current status quo. I'm sick of saying this, but once again an INDEPENDENT commission will have the long term future of the game in mind and look past self interested parties, players in this instance.

 

[flippikat]

Well I dunno about everyoneelse here, but I just wish they'd get on and announce name, colours and jersey.

the website hasn't had many updates recently either.

 

[Goddo]

Team name, logo colours and branding will be anounced on Monday 18 July.

5 days until they tell us all its the Brisbane Bombers.

 

[Perth Red]

wonder if they go with red and black? With both the Reds and Bears bids featuring red and black in their colours it will be interesting to see if all three do!

 

[Canard]

Alliteration aside, why would you go for the Bombers? Its a name so firmly entrenched in Aussie Rules history.

Why not something a bit less identifable with another code like the Wallabies, Dogders or Knickerbockers.

 

[sheepbender]

Looks like "Bombers" will be the chosen name, bollocks to that I say.. How unoriginal..

 

[BunniesMan]

Bombers? I thought it was a unwritten rule that the codes didn't copy each others names (with the exception of old teams like Richmond/Balmain Tigers and Western/Canterbury Bulldogs).

I would have preferred Brisbane Bulls but Bombers isn't too bad. There was heaps of much worse options.

 

[andrew057]

Bombers is terrible.

 

[sheepbender]

Alliteration aside, why would you go for the Bombers? Its a name so firmly entrenched in Aussie Rules history.

Why not something a bit less identifable with another code like the Wallabies, Dogders or Knickerbockers.

How is the Wallabies name not identifiable with another code of footy? Are you kidding?

Dodgers has nothing to do with League, and Knickerbockers, well just the suggestion is laughable..

 

[The.X.Factor9]

Looks like "Bombers" will be the chosen name, bollocks to that I say.. How unoriginal..

Just read some of this thread... I would have went with South Queensland spartans(after my favourite movie 300).

 

[sheepbender]

Bombers is terrible.

Seconded... Its so unoriginal, its just typical of Clubs not listening to fans.. In my other thread, Bombers only has about 8 votes, and sure its not representative of all people interested in the Bid, but there are names with far more votes, that are far better choices..

 

[BLKOUT!]

Brewers would be terrible as it'd just make me think of the Milwaukee Brewers Major League Baseball team. I like South QLD Cyclones or Rivercity Kookaburras

 

[hellteam]

If Bombers is the choice, I'm supporting the CQ bid. Seriously, what a f**kin joke. Copying an AFL team what the hell.

 

[hellteam]

Bombers is embarrassing. Firstly, we can't have another BB team in Brisbane. Secondly, it's an AFL team's name. Thirdly, it's a shit name.

Fourthly, I'm supporting CQ bid now.