Brisbane2 Bid News

[ratsack2]

I cant bring myself to say it, but I will, I actually agree with Bunniesman on this one, first time the Brisbane 2 side loses a close game or loses a game that they had in the bag at half time, questions will be asked of the general public, imagine if they threw a grand final, it is asking for trouble.

also as a resident of outer Brisbane, i would not follow let alone support a brisbane 2 side, all we will have is 2 Broncos side, an Ispwich side I would support and go to games, otherwise it is just my team that I watch no others, and on another topic we need a fixed schedule at the start of the year or the NRL saying what games get on FTA so the struggling teams can say to potential sponsors we get x amount of games on FTA each year, surly it cant be that hard to organise, I am sick to death of the Broncos, titans, st scum being on TV every week

 

[ratsack2]

OK I'll admit it, I am Gay, must be agreeing with Bunniesman. well my kids say I am gay

 

[BunniesMan]

and on another topic we need a fixed schedule at the start of the year or the NRL saying what games get on FTA so the struggling teams can say to potential sponsors we get x amount of games on FTA each year, surly it cant be that hard to organise, I am sick to death of the Broncos, titans, st scum being on TV every week

This would be the fair thing to do. And in a perfect world it would be done like that and every team would get plenty of fta games. But in the real world it's just a fact that some teams like the Cowboys and Raiders just don't get the same ratings as the Broncos or the big sydney teams. And wooden spoon contenders don't get the same ratings as top 4 teams.

Souths got 5 games in 4 years and now we have 4 fta games in the first 5 weeks (and considering Souths v Dragons is round 6, we'll probably get 5 of our first 6 games on fta).

A fixed schedule, as fair as it is, would hurt our ratings, which would hurt us in tv rights negotiations. The AFL do fixed schedules and their looking at changing to our system for the next deal.

It isn't fair but we need the money more than we need fairness so I doubt the NRL would go for it.

 

[ratsack2]

therefore bunniesman if teams are foregoing games to get stronger ratings and more money in the competition then those teams should be compensated in some fashion for the lack of sposnorship dollars they get, they would then be able to strengthen their rosters and become more attractive for Tv viewing so they would get more FTA games

 

[ratsack2]

other wise we will also go down the track of having 4 or 5 strong teams that only get the sponsors creating super clubs that only have a chance of winning it, can the league afford to lose 80% of the 8 teams that continue to struggle.

keeping in mind your beloved souths were one of the weaker teams for decades and if not for the money of Russel you would still be, it is by luck more than good management that this happened and you now find yourself in the position you find yourself in

 

[beave]

lol whats with the need to make smart arse comments?

but you can say

I personally prefer stadiums that are over 70k when full and don't require a plane rid to get to.

and no one is allowed to retort to it??

stop it............

 

[Spitty]

Betting agencies make and lose profit's off races and footy games daily. But the losses they make are so minute in the grand scheme of things, that they still manage to turn massive profits in the long run and still manage to be massive companies.

The massive amount of negativity that would be attached to Brisbane 2 throwing a game at the orders of Centrebet, far outweighs the minor finacial loss they might make on 1 game across a weekend. In other word's the risk isn't worth the reward.

Besides even if they did fix everygame Brisbane 2 ever played over a 10 year period, the minor profit they'd make off that wouldn't make them any bigger company than they currently are. We're talking about 1 game of Rugby League a week for 24 weeks, compared to all the other sports across the world they frame markets for including a possible 10 daily race meet's with 8 races a meet held 365 days a year. It just doesn't add up.

I understand the argument that it could be the perception of throwing games that's damaging, but I think that perception would be held by a vast minority of people.

 

[Perth Red]

I'd be interested to know what is in it for Centrebet that they couldn't get from just being a main sponsor? At this rate Perth is the only bid not looking like it will be a rich mans play thing (although some rumours may put heed to us as well!)

 

[applesauce]

I'd be interested to know what is in it for Centrebet that they couldn't get from just being a main sponsor? At this rate Perth is the only bid not looking like it will be a rich mans play thing (although some rumours may put heed to us as well!)

C'mon Twiggy Forrest!

 

[AlwaysGreen]

C'mon Twiggy Forrest!

Gina Rinehart. Or Bondy. What's Bondy doing these days?

 

[BDGS]

jesus f**king christ. Part ownership of an NRL club by a betting agency...am I the only one who sees an issue here? Sponsorship is one thing, ownership is a whole new thing. It's all about perception, perception is reality, and allowing a betting agency to own a club is terrible f**king perception.

Have we learnt nothing from the news ltd conflict of interest? Being part owner of a sporting league and bidding for the rights to that league isn't a good idea. Owning a sporting team when you take bets on that sport isn't a good idea either.

I agree, I have no problem with crown and star city being major sponsors of NRL clubs, after allthey are just like any other business and if they were gout to start rigging games for profit, then the likelihood of them doing this is the same as Canterbury leagues, or Toyota doing it.

But to have a betting organisation part own a rugby league club, there are huge problems here. We will have allegations of price fixing, Brisbane 2 getting better odds then other NRL teams and etc. This is before even jumping into the conflict of interest topic.

but you can say



and no one is allowed to retort to it??

stop it............

I wasn't being a smartarse, I've been to a number of stadiums over 70k and loved the experience everytime. Just a personal thing really, if it makes you feel better I don't really see the big fuss over the SFS is.

The only stadium lower then 70k that can give Me a equal feel is the SCG. Again, just a personal thing.

 

[bobmar28]

For a new team, sponsorships are important but I don't think this is the way to go about it. CQ with QRNational, WAReds with Cash Converters and CCBears with Mortage House. Those are genuine corporations which will add to the game without impacting on it negatively. Now Im not against punting agencies but the sudden surge of agencies getting involved with our game is slightly concerning. I, for one, am not a big punter and whilst I see the occassional fun of the odd punt, these sponsors will be putting their products in our faces every game.

The lack of genuine passion if also a worry. Whilst the W.A. Reds & CCBears have fanatical supporters (you and I for example), the other bids have failed to replicate that sort of fan fare. I thought for a second that maybe the Ipswich Jets had some growing, especially considering how a few posters from here were carrying on about them. However since this Brisbane 2 bid was launched, those same few people seem to have completely deserted the Jets bid.

I know a few things. I know that this Brisbane 2 bid has been all talk and no substance and action (even less then the Jets). Central Queensland, Western Australia & Central Coast have proved their worth for new franchises by the hard work over the last couple of years. W.A. & CC especially seem to be bids for the people. I think some of the richmen behind Brisbane 2 and occassionally CQLD are more concerned about themselves then their actual bids. Too much of it is about "they won't have this or that" instead of "we can offer the game of rugby league this and that". Just my 2 cents.

I haven't deserted the Jets. I just don't see any point in discussing the bid until this whole QLD multiple bids situation sorts itself out.

Imo The southwest corridor of Brisbane is where the NRL should be. Therefore Ipswich Jets should get the next franchise followed by WA Reds.

 

[supera]

so we've gone from outrage over casinos sponsoring club jerseys, to thinking ownership by a betting agency is ok?

i cant believe i'm about to say this - but i agree with bunniesman. the perception of what this means could be terrible, and its just not necessary, nor is it probably ethical for a sporting team, for a betting companies bottom line being affected by a sporting team that they own.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

so we've gone from outrage over casinos sponsoring club jerseys, to thinking ownership by a betting agency is ok?

i cant believe i'm about to say this - but i agree with bunniesman. the perception of what this means could be terrible, and its just not necessary, nor is it probably ethical for a sporting team, for a betting companies bottom line being affected by a sporting team that they own.

NRL rejects Centrebet plan

Adrian Proszenko and Josh Rakic

February 6, 2011


NRL chief executive David Gallop has all but ruled out Centrebet's hopes of becoming a part-owner of a new NRL club in Brisbane.

The consortium behind the bid has been in discussions with the betting agency about coming on board as a major partner should it succeed in earning an NRL licence.

However, Gallop indicated the league is likely to block the proposal.

''At first glance it's hard to see us approving that kind of arrangement,'' Gallop said. ''The steps we've taken in recent years have all been geared at getting greater control over gambling on the game. It's hard to imagine how you could separate the two interests.''

Gallop's comments are a blow to Centrebet's hopes of becoming involved beyond standard sponsorship status with the potential franchise. The betting agency recently earned the naming rights to the home ground of the Penrith Panthers.

''The second Brisbane bid and our potential involvement is all to do with what may potentially happen if and when the team arrives in a new competition,'' Centrebet spokesman Neil Evans said in response to Gallop's comments.

''We've been talking it up and we want to see rugby league expand in a sensational marketplace like Brisbane but it's [contingent on whether] this team is successful and if and when the NRL decides to expand. Who knows how the landscape will look in two years' time in terms of commercial relationships and partnerships. We're just planning and talking about something several hills in the future. There's a mixing-up of the potential for rugby league and the current hot potato that the whole thing is at the moment.''

The hot potato Evans referred to is the police investigation into a suspicious betting plunge on the Cowboys-Bulldogs match last August. The relationship between gambling and rugby league came further under the spotlight when Canterbury forward Ryan Tandy was charged with giving false and misleading evidence to the Crime Commission in relation to the matter.

Other recent developments include the South Sydney Rabbitohs signing a three-year corporate partnership with Star City Casino, while the Melbourne Storm unveiled Crown Casino as its major sponsor.

Craig Davison, the man behind the new Brisbane consortium, said the budding franchise would be financially sustainable even if the Centrebet ownership proposal was knocked back. ''With regards to Centrebet owning the club, that didn't come from us in terms of the directions we're heading,'' said Davison, a member of the Thoroughbreds group of Queensland businessmen who support the Brisbane Broncos.

''We've got a number of investors who are going to invest in the club and Centrebet are obviously keen to do that, '' Davison said.

''We'd seek NRL approval if that was to happen, but our direction has been [from] other private investors in Brisbane who are telling us they are keen to be involved.

''From Centrebet's [ownership] perspective you never say never and we were keen to get Centrebet as a sponsor, as well as others.''

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell had reservations about the proposed Centrebet-club partnership but said it was ultimately up to the NRL to make a call.

''I'm happy to be guided by David Gallop and his board, but the concern that we should have is to make sure that the advent of greater connections between any sport and gambling doesn't start to have an impact upon fair play and fair outcomes,'' O'Farrell said.


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-rejects-centrebet-plan-20110205-1ahks.html

 

[BDGS]

Good work David Gallop, protecting the game

 

[adamkungl]

Probably for the best. I have no issue with sponsorship, but going further it starts to get a bit shaky. All depends where you draw the line I guess.

 

[applesauce]

So he can see conflicts of interest that suit him?

I am against the Centerbet idea as much as anyone, but talk about pot/kettle...

 

[BDGS]

Sponsorship is no where near the same as ownership or part ownership.

 

[BunniesMan]

fmd, Gallop makes the right decision...

I can't believe the Brisbane2 bid even considered it. Isn't the bid run by successful businessman? They should have been smart enough to see that it was a terrible idea.

 

[adamkungl]

Sponsorship is no where near the same as ownership or part ownership.

That was applesauce's point. NRL *cough* NewsLtd* Cough*