Central Coast Bears, 2013.

[Perth Red]

The rumours that one expansion team will be from the heartland and one will be from non-heartland are getting loud again.

I have never heard anything but this. Can't think of anyone who has come out and suggested another NSW AND Q'land team would be a good idea.

Even the respective bids have all clearly backed Perth for inclusion and admitted the real scrap is between themselves for the 2nd spot.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Yeah..its hardly an earth shattering "rumour"...

Where have you heard this from BDGS?

Not mumbling to yourself again I hope?

 

[BDGS]

I have never heard anything but this. Can't think of anyone who has come out and suggested another NSW AND Q'land team would be a good idea.

Even the respective bids have all clearly backed Perth for inclusion and admitted the real scrap is between themselves for the 2nd spot.

That's probably because you are located in WA.

I have met a group of people who bitch and wine about the WA bid and the existence of the Melbourne Storm.

Oddly enough, more times then not its coming from Broncos supporters.

That said, all i stated was that rumour is getting louder again, i didn't say it disappeared before.

But it does pretty much guarantee a spot in the NRL for WA.

Yeah..its hardly an earth shattering "rumour"...

Where have you heard this from BDGS?

Not mumbling to yourself again I hope?

What are you? jealous or something?

Get out and about.

 

[AuDragon]

That's probably because you are located in WA.

I have met a group of people who bitch and wine about the WA bid and the existence of the Melbourne Storm.

Oddly enough, more times then not its coming from Broncos supporters.

Oddly enough, as a Broncos member, fan, and also member of 2 Broncos discussion forums, I've never heard bitching and moaning about the WA bid. But I've heard plenty about the Bombers and CC bids though, go figure... :sarcasm:

 

[BuffaloRules]

What are you? jealous or something?

Get out and about.

Jealous of what?

Not your exciting posts, thats for sure...

 

[Perth Red]

Oddly enough, as a Broncos member, fan, and also member of 2 Broncos discussion forums, I've never heard bitching and moaning about the WA bid. But I've heard plenty about the Bombers and CC bids though, go figure... :sarcasm:

Our Red Army membership officer is a Broncos fan so your not all bad!

I am sure there are lots of fans pro expansion and lots anti, lots for expansion beyond traditional areas and lots who would still rather see a NSWRL and Q'land cup competition. the world is made up of all sorts!

it's the people making the decisions that i worry about!!

 

[BDGS]

Oddly enough, as a Broncos member, fan, and also member of 2 Broncos discussion forums, I've never heard bitching and moaning about the WA bid. But I've heard plenty about the Bombers and CC bids though, go figure... :sarcasm:

Fair enough, I didn't say all Broncos fans were but out of the 20 or so i have meet in the flesh, 18 were Broncos supporters.

I guess that's just how it when with the most well supported club in Australia.

Jealous of what?

Not your exciting posts, thats for sure...

Take your mum's advise.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Take your mum's advise.

Dont bring my mother into gimp.

 

[Goddo]

it's the people making the decisions that i worry about!!

Perth don't have anything to worry about -
Adelaide doesn't exist as a bid, but even if it did it wouldn't be as good as Perth (timezone and size of city).

PNG is laughable.

Unless the Wellington bid suddenly apears and is absolutely awesome (even then it would be in Perth's favour with the NRL probably wanting more Australian clubs currently), Perth will get the "interstate" licence.

So long as they don't trip over their own feet and make CC look the only option, the second licence will likely be the best out of Ipswich/Brisbane.

I think the Bears will only get in if something happens to a Sydney club. And if something happened (to say Cronulla), I can see it making an already jittery NRL not expand at all during the next TV deal, just bringing in the Bears as a replacement.

 

[rednblack]

Also, if the club is CC and northern Sydney, why do we keep hearing the BS line that this is not another Sydney club? They can't keep changing the goalposts to suit their agenda and then deny their previous position. Either it is another Sydney club (and therefore should be rejected as part of the expansion) or it is not, and therefore the Sydney portion of their market can be disregarded.

It's really simple...

The bid will be for a Central Coast team. Period.
As part of that bid, the CC club will capitalize the under-utilized North Shore region as a catchment area for it's juniors, since no Sydney-based club wishes to do this (such as Manly, who have ignored the region). Those juniors will grow up within the CC Bears catchment area - hence, their local team will be the CC Bears.
The Central Coast is indisputably not Sydney (as considered by either the Government or the NRL).

If we considered a hypothetical scenario whereby the Sharks or the Eagles relocated to the Central Coast, would they not retain the right to engage with their traditional localities, and to claim the juniors in either the Shire or the Northern Beaches respectively as their own? By your logic, those areas would requisitely by abandoned as a condition of any such move.

And as for some other posters here, for whom the notion that the league must be present in all capitals to be considered a worthy organization as to be called "National", why not cull ALL teams, and replace them with air-dropped "ready-made" clubs, in the same way the A-League did post NSL? Do you really think this would work? It gets a "team" wherever the NRL wants one. It delivers a "national" competition. If location is just not an important consideration, surely by your logic then this is the ONLY way to go. If, however, you believe as I do and many more besides, that interaction with a local community and development of local juniors IS important, surely you must concede that the Central Coast bid is light years ahead of any other at the present time.

 

[Quidgybo]

No, the truth is that giving licences to the strongest bids, financially and supporter-wise, are the best ideas. Not subscribing to the 'dots on a map' school of expansion and winding up drowning in red ink because (surprise surprise) being in a fancier location doesn't guarantee viability!

The strongest bid financially is the one that brings the most money into the game, not just through their own balance sheet. If the Bears bring $7m to the table in guaranteed sponsorship and revenue and add $8m per year to the television deal then they're a long way behind a so called plastic team that only brings $5m to the table but adds $24m per year to the TV deal. The game can afford to subsidise the latter and still have everyone (clubs and grassroots) better off with a significantly bigger grant. Which markets the television networks want and how much they are willing to pay for those markets over others is a huge part of this, maybe even the biggest part.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

as for some other posters here, for whom the notion that the league must be present in all capitals to be considered a worthy organization as to be called "National", why not cull ALL teams, and replace them with air-dropped "ready-made" clubs, in the same way the A-League did post NSL? Do you really think this would work? It gets a "team" wherever the NRL wants one. It delivers a "national" competition. If location is just not an important consideration, surely by your logic then this is the ONLY way to go. If, however, you believe as I do and many more besides, that interaction with a local community and development of local juniors IS important, surely you must concede that the Central Coast bid is light years ahead of any other at the present time.

Not this crap again. Community engagment and local juniors are but two elements of the yet to be determined criteria for expansion.

I'd contest that when the NRL do release their criteria, impact on advertising and TV revenue, opening new markets and not having a negative impact on extant clubs will be pretty big criteria.

Talking up juniors is hardly apealling. Brisbane has far more with less NRL clubs, Perth is a completely untapped market. Central Coast is Newcastle's feeder, and North Sydney is Souths. Why introduce more teams and further dilute the market in NSW?

 

[Goddo]

The strongest bid financially is the one that brings the most money into the game, not just through their own balance sheet. If the Bears bring $7m to the table in guaranteed sponsorship and revenue and add $8m per year to the television deal then they're a long way behind a so called plastic team that only brings $5m to the table but adds $24m per year to the TV deal. The game can afford to subsidise the latter and still have everyone (clubs and grassroots) better off with a significantly bigger grant. Which markets the television networks want and how much they are willing to pay for those markets over others is a huge part of this, maybe even the biggest part.

Leigh

This. As Gyngel said, South East Queensland is the option the TV networks want, they don't currently have enough South Queensland product for the consumer demand.

Perth is also nice as it provides a good timeslot, and local content for WA with the anti-siphoning law changes.

 

[rednblack]

The strongest bid financially is the one that brings the most money into the game, not just through their own balance sheet. If the Bears bring $7m to the table in guaranteed sponsorship and revenue and add $8m per year to the television deal then they're a long way behind a so called plastic team that only brings $5m to the table but adds $24m per year to the TV deal. The game can afford to subsidise the latter and still have everyone (clubs and grassroots) better off with a significantly bigger grant. Which markets the television networks want and how much they are willing to pay for those markets over others is a huge part of this, maybe even the biggest part.

Leigh

But this requires throwing money at new non-viable clubs in the HOPE that one day they might be sustainable. Haven't we tried and failed at this enough? If a team costs half as much to run (ie: because they have their own sponsorships and are self-sustainable, and the NRL is not having to dip in and prop them up), then they don't need to bring as much to the TV rights. And that aside, an $8m increase? Surely you jest? I would contend that ANY new game per week should add at least $25-30m to the overall package, just on increased content alone.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

The strongest bid financially is the one that brings the most money into the game, not just through their own balance sheet. If the Bears bring $7m to the table in guaranteed sponsorship and revenue and add $8m per year to the television deal then they're a long way behind a so called plastic team that only brings $5m to the table but adds $24m per year to the TV deal. The game can afford to subsidise the latter and still have everyone (clubs and grassroots) better off with a significantly bigger grant. Which markets the television networks want and how much they are willing to pay for those markets over others is a huge part of this, maybe even the biggest part.

Leigh

This whole theory - a new region means more value to the TV rights - is crap.

There is a strong argument that PayTV - especially having owned rugby league for the last 10-11 years - has peaked in subscriptions. Why? well, logically, if your region doesnt have a team, then you already hjave bought PayTV to to see rugby league. (unless, like me, you're a Bears fan who refuses to have any Murdoch asset in their house). Therefore - the whole argument "a new region increases subscriptions" is rubbish.

NOTE: For many disaffected Bears fans who are like me, we may just take up a subscription if the CC Bears come in. That's a genuine increase in subscriptions.

The strength for the CC Bears is that they have commercial and business relationships (as well as Singo) that are nwo connected to rugby league and will pay to have exposure on TV. That is real value-add.

Compared to other bids, the CC Bears' commercial strength is ahead by miles.

Time for anti-Bears idiots to find another bullshit excuse to keep them out.

 

[Perth Red]

And as for some other posters here, for whom the notion that the league must be present in all capitals to be considered a worthy organization as to be called "National", why not cull ALL teams, and replace them with air-dropped "ready-made" clubs, in the same way the A-League did post NSL? Do you really think this would work? It gets a "team" wherever the NRL wants one. It delivers a "national" competition. If location is just not an important consideration, surely by your logic then this is the ONLY way to go. If, however, you believe as I do and many more besides, that interaction with a local community and development of local juniors IS important, surely you must concede that the Central Coast bid is light years ahead of any other at the present time.

Mat eyou do your own arguments no favours when you bring up unrealistic and ridiculous scnearios like this. No one is suggesting culling teams to make the game more national, what they are suggesting is not adding to an already overly represented region when there are bigger regions with zero or under representation. We will be a National code one day and it will be through evolution not revolution.

 

[firechild]

The comparison with the A-League is poor. Soccer is a nationally played game, there is no more following in sydney than there is in Perth or Adelaide (by proportion) so it makes sense to do what they did. Rugby league is played primarily in NSW and QLD so while national representation is important, it makes sense to maintain a higher presence in these 2 states. Currently the region from Wollongong to Newcastle is a saturated market, there are just 3 clubs in QLD which is clearly not enough and there is a need to slowly expand beyond the traditional borders. Teams in Perth and somewhere in QLD make the most sense.

Manly have made some use of the playing talent on the North Shore, Asquith have been playing in the Manly A Grade for years and most recently a bloke by the name of Kieren Foran has made his way into the Manly squad. Can you name a few other players from the North Shore playing talent to make their way into the NRL? I know of Mitchell Pearce but his case is different with his father's influence. It's not like there is a whole lot there so I don't think it will adversely affect any club if a CC club were to draw from the North Shore juniors.

You're right that the CC bid is far more complete than the other bids but it does not change the fact that the location is not desirable compared to a few of the other bids. I'd certainly have it in front of PNG and probably at this stage in front of Wellington but I think Perth and either Brisbane 2 or Ipswitch are the current favourites to take the 2 expansion spots if/when they become available. In an ideal world I'd like to see Brisbane 2, Ipswitch, Perth, CC, Wellington and one other all added to make a 22 team competition but sadly the NRL is a long way off that financially, logistically and from a spread fo talent perspective.

 

[rednblack]

No one is suggesting culling teams to make the game more national.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. It has been toted here on any number of occasions (in any number of threads in which expansion has been discussed). Go back and look, people have been extolling the virtues of reducing the number of teams in NSW in order to introduce new ones elsewhere. How is this different?

The only difference I can see, is other people feeling threatened that THEIR team would have to go. If the national interest of the sport is of primary concern, tell me why this would be a poor consideration? The A-League seem to have plenty of money to throw around (look at their failed world cup bid, supported also by the federal government), a truly national competition, and manufactured teams in all the major Capitals, as well as NZ, Townsville and Newcastle. I thought this would be our idea of a good outcome for our sport?

Just not at the expense of any existing team, right?

Enlighten me, please?

 

[Perth Red]

what a handful of fans think is not very relevant is it? It is what the governing bodies, media players and corporate sponsors want that matters. In that respect there is no suggestion that there will ever be culling of teams to place new teams in far flung places. Now if you want to talk about attrition of clubs who can't keep up due to over saturated markets that is a different argument. likewise some fans feel there are some clubs that don't seem to add a lot to the NRL currently whilst there are other places that would likely add more if they had the opportunity to have an NRL team.

I doubt any fan would throw their hand up to see their team culled for the greater good of the game, even if that was a guaranteed outcome of them being punted, nor should they!

 

[rednblack]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. It has been toted here on any number of occasions (in any number of threads in which expansion has been discussed). Go back and look, people have been extolling the virtues of reducing the number of teams in NSW in order to introduce new ones elsewhere. How is this different?

The only difference I can see, is other people feeling threatened that THEIR team would have to go. If the national interest of the sport is of primary concern, tell me why this would be a poor consideration? The A-League seem to have plenty of money to throw around (look at their failed world cup bid, supported also by the federal government), a truly national competition, and manufactured teams in all the major Capitals, as well as NZ, Townsville and Newcastle. I thought this would be our idea of a good outcome for our sport?

Just not at the expense of any existing team, right?

Enlighten me, please?

By way of clarification, I don't consider this to be the best option available to us - just playing a little devil's advocate. Yet, if anyone is going to just say "no, we can't do that", I think they should have a convincing supporting argument as to why not, along with a viable alternative solution. Healthy debate and discussion lives on the principal that constructive thought is included. Merely naysaying is not constructive, and is a waste of everyone's time.

Oh, and this last is not a shot at you Red, I promise! Just getting it out there (or off my chest?)