Brisbane2 Bid News

[adamkungl]

Not at all. I prefer the satellite strategy with derby games between the satellite sides brought to the bigger central hub stadium. It's still possible to do the satellite strategy with two teams at the hub instead of one but that's not where I'd be starting. I'd be starting with the Sunshine Coast, allow the west of Ipswich area a few more years to grow out and then go for a lot more western biased franchise with stronger associations with Toowoomba. And only if there's still demand after the north and west teams are established then go with the second hub side.

Leigh

Agree with his.

Townsville
Sunshine Coast
Brisbane
Toowoomba-Ipswich
Gold Coast

would be a very good spread of QLD teams.

 

[Perth Red]

Agree with his.

Townsville
Sunshine Coast
Brisbane
Toowoomba-Ipswich
Gold Coast

would be a very good spread of QLD teams.

Problem with this is we are still in our suburban small club thinking mode. If we are serious about our game becoming the undisputed No1 code in the country then we should be looking at min 25K crowds and clubs generating $30-50mill incomes. Only clubs with large catchments , large stadiums and decent corporate links can do this. If not we remain a local club comp (which is not a negative as it feels like the club is part of the community) but have ato accept that we will fall behind as a code at the top tier.

 

[docbrown]

I'd bet the Warriors get that timeslot for home games almost exclusively.

That and Noon Sundays (2pm NZ). Gallop has intimated as much.

 

[Quidgybo]

Problem with this is we are still in our suburban small club thinking mode. If we are serious about our game becoming the undisputed No1 code in the country then we should be looking at min 25K crowds and clubs generating $30-50mill incomes. Only clubs with large catchments , large stadiums and decent corporate links can do this. If not we remain a local club comp (which is not a negative as it feels like the club is part of the community) but have ato accept that we will fall behind as a code at the top tier.

Except these are large catchments that are in the process of developing. The difference is we spread the clubs out so they each has their own large catchment that will grow with them as the clubs grow and their needs for a larger support base grow. Instead of recreating the problems of Sydney where clubs are all on top of each other fighting to divide the same saturated market as their needs to remain competitive grow ever larger.

Leigh

 

[Perth Red]

Question remains would you rather have 2 Brisbane Broncos ie large rich clubs with massive fan bases playing out of Suncorp or 3-4 Cowboys/Panthers/CC Bears, smaller clubs representing local areas with smallish stadia getting sub 20k crowds? Personally I prefer the AFL model of more homogeneous big clubs that are financially strong and pulling massive crowds.

ps the Bears fans argument that the Titans need more time isn't a factor imo, by the time the teams come in the titans will have had a further 3-4 years to strengthen.

 

[Quidgybo]

Question remains would you rather have 2 Brisbane Broncos ie large rich clubs with massive fan bases playing out of Suncorp or 3-4 Cowboys/Panthers/CC Bears, smaller clubs representing local areas with smallish stadia getting sub 20k crowds? Personally I prefer the AFL model of more homogeneous big clubs that are financially strong and pulling massive crowds.

Which is fine if you only base your planning on where these markets are today. But they won't always be small markets of a couple hundred thousand. In fifty years when these markets are pushing a million we'll already have entrenched large rich clubs with massive fan bases. I'd rather try and locate the new clubs so they can grow into their markets over the coming decades than get that far down the track and be left trying to work how to relocate clubs based too close together to survive (again) without causing too much damage.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

Going on comments from most posters on this forum, we want:

Queensland, most people seem to think 5 is the ideal number, most argument seems to be over location, something like:

Brisbane (current)
Gold Coast (current)
Townsville (current)
Sunshine Coast (or Central Queensland)
Ipswich-Logan (or Brisbane II)

Teams to ensure a adequate national spread in:

Perth
Adelaide
Melbourne (current)
Canberra (current)

2 (maybe 3) NZ sides:

Auckland (current)
Wellington

That is a total of 11 clubs, 5 of which are expansion clubs, before we even get to NSW.

Which means for a 20 or 22 team comp requires 9 or 11 NSW sides respectively. 9 would be 1 less than we currently have. To get to the point where we have everything we want and still have space for another NSW side requires 6 expansion sides.

It might take 30 years to get to that point, and the NSW side would be at the bottom of the pecking order, because it would be the least likely to improve the value of the game. Not to mention other new markets for clubs may emerge.

Meanwhile, we carry a heavily NSW centric competition until we reach that 22 club point. But can the NRL even cope with a 22 team competition by, lets say 2030, at the soonest?

I'd say no. Player depth-wise there would be problems, unless our TV deal is so great that we can pillage Union internationally. In terms of TV value, we will run out of unique weekend timeslots broadcasters would be interested in, only adding value through clubs in new markets. Its a case of diminishing returns.

So to get to that idealised national comp we will have to cull a few sides. No one wants that of their team. But regardless, there will be increasing preasure on Sydney clubs over the next few decades, no doubt whatsoever.


This is a big problem the game has - we want certain things to make the competition stronger, yet our capacity for growth is limited by a few older struggling clubs, whos place in the game is firmly entrenched. But at the same time some seem to think that expanding in Gosford, on the fringe of Sydney, is the way forward.

Its not.

 

[docbrown]

Which means for a 20 or 22 team comp requires 9 or 11 NSW sides respectively. 9 would be 1 less than we currently have. To get to the point where we have everything we want and still have space for another NSW side requires 6 expansion sides.

It might take 30 years to get to that point, and the NSW side would be at the bottom of the pecking order, because it would be the least likely to improve the value of the game. Not to mention other new markets for clubs may emerge.

Meanwhile, we carry a heavily NSW centric competition until we reach that 22 club point. But can the NRL even cope with a 22 team competition by, lets say 2030, at the soonest?

I'd say no. Player depth-wise there would be problems, unless our TV deal is so great that we can pillage Union internationally. In terms of TV value, we will run out of unique weekend timeslots broadcasters would be interested in, only adding value through clubs in new markets. Its a case of diminishing returns.

If we get to 22 teams, I suspect at most you'd see 10 matches a week and 2 teams each week getting byes.

With 10 games you'd see capital city marketing within slots similar to Friday nights.

And yes, we will take as many players as we can get. PNG is barely tapped. The Pacific is a gold mine. With $1 Billio plus rights deals from now, we can double our Australian grassroots in NSW and QLD within 10-15 years and expand in WA, SA, VIC, NT and TAS.

I think we can cope with 18 teams within the next 5 years, 20 teams within the next 10 and 22 teams within 15-20 years.

 

[Knightmare]

In all honesty, I think the NRL should put some long-term plans for expansion in place now. Come out and admit Perth and Central Coast for 2013/14. Then announce 2 more teams for further expansion around 2018. Give the Bombers, CQ, PNG and even Wellington time to do the hard work the Bears bid has done and put their best case forward for admission. It would clear a lot of things up.

 

[flippikat]

*Original post edited*

Going on comments from most posters on this forum, we want:

<Breakdown of interstate clubs snipped>

That is a total of 11 clubs, 5 of which are expansion clubs, before we even get to NSW.

Which means for a 20 or 22 team comp requires 9 or 11 NSW sides respectively. 9 would be 1 less than we currently have. To get to the point where we have everything we want and still have space for another NSW side requires 6 expansion sides.

It might take 30 years to get to that point, and the NSW side would be at the bottom of the pecking order, because it would be the least likely to improve the value of the game. Not to mention other new markets for clubs may emerge.

Meanwhile, we carry a heavily NSW centric competition until we reach that 22 club point. But can the NRL even cope with a 22 team competition by, lets say 2030, at the soonest?

I'd say no. Player depth-wise there would be problems, unless our TV deal is so great that we can pillage Union internationally. In terms of TV value, we will run out of unique weekend timeslots broadcasters would be interested in, only adding value through clubs in new markets. Its a case of diminishing returns.

So to get to that idealised national comp we will have to cull a few sides. No one wants that of their team. But regardless, there will be increasing preasure on Sydney clubs over the next few decades, no doubt whatsoever.

This is a big problem the game has - we want certain things to make the competition stronger, yet our capacity for growth is limited by a few older struggling clubs, whos place in the game is firmly entrenched. But at the same time some seem to think that expanding in Gosford, on the fringe of Sydney, is the way forward.

Its not.

I think this is the best analysis of the situation I've seen here.

Player depth and availability of TV timeslots are two big factors in how big the competition can expand to. One that wasn't mentioned above is sponsorship (especially sponsorship in a crowded Sydney market).

Your number of Non-NSW clubs is conservative, in that it only allows for 2 New Zealand teams (Warriors and just 1 more). Long term it's quite possible that New Zealand could support 3 or even 4 NRL teams.

And that's before any island-based team - Whether it be PNG or anywhere else in the Pacific. Unlikely now, sure.. but there is still a bid in place.

If they are declined a place in the NRL, it will be interesting to see what direction the PNG bid team move in - and how the NRL Commission works with them.

 

[smithie]

You know thats only temporary. May only be 1 season at Suncorp for the Jets if expansion is confirmed this year, and entry in 2014-15.

Steve Johnson (Western Corridor Bid Chairman) has recently stated a stadium at Ipswich/Springfield is "on the agenda but realistically it is 10 years away."

http://www.rlcm.com.au/latest-news/10174-ruggby-league

 

[BDGS]

Steve Johnson (Western Corridor Bid Chairman) has recently stated a stadium at Ipswich/Springfield is "on the agenda but realistically it is 10 years away."

http://www.rlcm.com.au/latest-news/10174-ruggby-league

That is when Ipswich should be coming into the NRL then. imo

 

[BDGS]

If the Brisbane Bombers do get off the ground as the NRL's 17th team, they are likely to pay the steepest rents in Australia.
The Queensland government enjoys a monopoly position with stadiums in Brisbane, owning both Suncorp Stadium and the Gabba.
Sydney has competition between the government controlled SCG and Sydney Football Stadium Trust and the privately managed ANZ Stadium at Homebush, while the big spectator sports in Melbourne can shop between the MCG and Etihad Stadium.
Advertisement: Story continues below
This year's sell out A-League grand final at Suncorp between the Brisbane Roar and Central Coast Mariners cost Football Federation Australia $750,000 in event and transport charges, compared to the $150,000 fee incurred when soccer's big game was played at the SFS.
No two deals at Suncorp are the same, with this month's capacity crowd Super 15 final between the Queensland Reds and the Canterbury Crusaders costing SANZAR $600,000 in rental.
The charges for staging this year's rugby league State of Origin series at the 52,500-seat Suncorp were higher than the costs at the 85,000-seat ANZ Stadium.
The NRL's Brisbane Broncos and the Roar are regular tenants of Suncorp and pay far higher rents than their rivals in other Australian states.
Brisbane is entitled to boast it is challenging Melbourne as the sporting capital of Australia, currently hosting the premiers in the A-League and Super 15, as well as rugby league's State of Origin shield.
However, if the Bombers receive an NRL licence, the code's new independent commission could demand the Queensland government review its prohibitive ground rental and transport charges.
The Queensland government also owns Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, home of the NRL's Titans and A-League's United.
The Titans pay $300,000 per game rental, while their rivals for the wooden spoon, the Sydney Roosters, pay $40,000 a game for hiring the SFS.
Gold Coast United's owner, Clive Palmer, considered charges at Skilled Park so prohibitive he placed a 5000 cap on the crowd to avoid a mandatory $16,500 ''transport management fee'' imposed by the event managers Stadiums Queensland.
However, the AFL's expansion team, the Gold Coast Suns, enjoys very generous terms at its Carrara Stadium, also owned by the Queensland government.
The Carrara negotiations took place just before the 2009 Queensland elections and AFL chief commissioner, Andrew Demetriou, was able to secure a very good deal with a state government desperate to retain seats on the Gold Coast.
The AFL contributed $10 million to the Carrara re-development which cost the federal and Queensland governments $145m and, for the AFL's small contribution, they were able to secure management rights.
The AFL subsequently passed the rights on to the Suns who are able to employ their own security, cleaners and caterers, while the sports which hire Suncorp and Skilled Park must pay the charges imposed by Stadiums Queensland.
To date, the Broncos and Titans haven't been tempted to sell home games to other cities, as the AFL's Tigers and NRL's Bulldogs have.
The Tigers transferred home games to Darwin and Cairns, each for $300,000, yet lost both to bottom of the ladder teams, Port Adelaide and the Suns respectively.
The Bulldogs played a round 18 home game against top of the table Storm in Adelaide, netting $140,000, but lost the match.
Still, Bulldogs chief executive, Todd Greenberg, is optimistic about playing future fixtures in South Australia.
Perhaps the Bulldogs' deal at ANZ Stadium, where they pay rent, compared to the NRL's Rabbitohs who receive $80,000 a match, may also have something to do with their willingness to play interstate, particularly with the South Australian government offering incentives for bigger crowds.
The disparity between payments to the Rabbitohs and Bulldogs at the same stadium, together with Queensland's exorbitant rents, does highlight the need for the NRL to have a stadium strategy, particularly with expansion on the horizon.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/stad...or-brisbane-20110719-1hn8v.html#ixzz1TJ0en9Ev

 

[RedVee]

can we lose the poll from this thread now?

 

[Brutus]

What a donkey Anna Bligh is.

Peter beattie and Terry Mackenroth would have told the AFL and Suns where to go regarding the Cararra re-development.

 

[Goddo]

If we get to 22 teams, I suspect at most you'd see 10 matches a week and 2 teams each week getting byes.

With 10 games you'd see capital city marketing within slots similar to Friday nights.

And yes, we will take as many players as we can get. PNG is barely tapped. The Pacific is a gold mine. With $1 Billio plus rights deals from now, we can double our Australian grassroots in NSW and QLD within 10-15 years and expand in WA, SA, VIC, NT and TAS.

I think we can cope with 18 teams within the next 5 years, 20 teams within the next 10 and 22 teams within 15-20 years.

Byes? :roll:
Thats great. So we will have 2 clubs being carried TV deal-wise every week. As I said, there is diminishing returns in terms of TV rights value as the comp grows larger.

I wonder how the networks would feel about not even reaching some markets each week? Or the clubs, having to split the revenue from 20 teams across 22.

Each expansion licence is a valuable and limited comodity.

You are overly optimistic about player depth too.

Steve Johnson (Western Corridor Bid Chairman) has recently stated a stadium at Ipswich/Springfield is "on the agenda but realistically it is 10 years away."

http://www.rlcm.com.au/latest-news/10174-ruggby-league

Interesting. Stadiums Queensland's highest priority right now is probably Dairy Farmers.

If such a stadium is so far off for Ipswich, I wonder what the circumstances around Central Queensland are.

 

[smithie]

Byes? :roll:
Thats great. So we will have 2 clubs being carried TV deal-wise every week. As I said, there is diminishing returns in terms of TV rights value as the comp grows larger.

I wonder how the networks would feel about not even reaching some markets each week? Or the clubs, having to split the revenue from 20 teams across 22.

Each expansion licence is a valuable and limited comodity.

You are overly optimistic about player depth too.



Interesting. Stadiums Queensland's highest priority right now is probably Dairy Farmers.

If such a stadium is so far off for Ipswich, I wonder what the circumstances around Central Queensland are.

I don't think Central QLD has ever been a realistic option. The population simply isn't there. It shouldn't be considered until the Cowboys get their new stadium.

 

[Goddo]

I know, but they have a stadium promise just like Ipswich. If Ipswich is 10 years away (at least thats do-able with Suncorp), how can CQ table a stadium as part of their bid for 2014?

If they face a similar situation to Ipswich this might be the final nail in the CQ bid's coffin.

 

[smithie]

Have both sides (Labor & LNP) promised this.

 

[Goddo]

Yes, both parties have, in both Springfield and Rockhampton.

Its likely that its all just pork barrelling though - neither party wants to be seen as "anti-RL". You always have to check the fine print with promises like that too - they might both commit to a stadium, but it might be Ausgrid quality, or it could be a Brookvale level commitment.

Who knows what the Stadiums Qld merkins will do... I think we will have to wait for the submitted bids before we get a more acurate idea.