Central Coast Bears NRL Bid.

[siv]

Roosters are setting up camp in Woy Woy

While Newcastle have tried to dominate the northern areas of the CC

 

[flippikat]

The feeling I have is that the NRL commission is more likely to choose another South-East Queensland team along with Perth in the next expansion round, then Adelaide & NZ 2 in the one following that.

I really do think the Bears best chance may have escaped when the Gold Coast were chosen over them in 2005... The commission seem intent in expanding beyond New South Wales.

 

[Misanthrope]

That's my concern too. The NRL seem to not value the Central Coast region particularly highly - perhaps due to the poor numbers they put out for games there or the poor numbers their only professional team at this point generates.

Maybe the Bears should be considering representing another region? Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, an NZ center?

 

[Prometheus]

The NRL seem to not value the Central Coast region particularly highly - perhaps due to the poor numbers they put out for games there or the poor numbers their only professional team at this point generates.

The NRL will only want to expand in areas that add to the value of future TV rights deals. If everyone on the Central Coast already watches league (and on a regional station, which doesn't really count in the ratings) then it isn't seen as being as valuable as a team that would open up new television markets.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Very good point.

If the bears faithful want to see the colours back , what would be the harm in looking at another region ?

They would play in Sydney 4 or 5 times a year.

They could even come up with an agreement to play some pre-season games in Gosford ( hell even a pre season game at north Sydney) , perhaps even a regular season game.

Surely that would be better than nothing?

 

[docbrown]

The NRL will only want to expand in areas that add to the value of future TV rights deals. If everyone on the Central Coast already watches league (and on a regional station, which doesn't really count in the ratings) then it isn't seen as being as valuable as a team that would open up new television markets.

• If you solely used that logic then it would also rule out a second Brisbane side which would be a mistake
• Gosford is actually within the Sydney metro TV sample. Outside of Gosford the northern part of the Central Coast is in the regional sample.
• It's a myth that regional ratings aren't important. 9 want to buy Southern Cross: why? Regional ad income in NSW & QLD is the 3rd biggest market in the country. 9 also own NBN which also covers the Bears market. They're like to own 2 regional broadcaster on the Central Coast by the time the NRL expands.
• Former Bears fans are also dispersed across the country now.
• Having their team back will increase their interest in not only watching their own team but also other games in the comp.
• It's also likely to increase interest in Rugby League in North Sydney
• That said TV is unlikely to be the sole criteria
• Bears have the largest existing fan base out of any of the bids
• Bears have the strongest history and sense of identity
• Bears are likely to produce the biggest away crowds when they play teams in Sydney

 

[_MayMoo 2]

Rubbish,

Your suggesting that because people on the Central Coast watch league on TV they shouldn’t have a team.
What about the swathe that cuts from the North Shore all the way up to the Central Coast that has no team and has a groundswell of Bears supporters.
You need to look after you grass roots. The Bears brand is a strong one and it makes perfect sense for the CC Bears to be a franchise.
Laugh at the Mariners crowds if you must but it is ridiculous to ignore this area.

Another thing is the potential strength and longevity of a franchise – This will be a major consideration. Due to the above and many other factors the CC Bears bid has this in truckloads.

 

[_MayMoo 2]

• If you solely used that logic then it would also rule out a second Brisbane side which would be a mistake
• Gosford is actually within the Sydney metro TV sample. Outside of Gosford the northern part of the Central Coast is in the regional sample.
• It's a myth that regional ratings aren't important. 9 want to buy Southern Cross: why? Regional ad income in NSW & QLD is the 3rd biggest market in the country. 9 also own NBN which also covers the Bears market. They're like to own 2 regional broadcaster on the Central Coast by the time the NRL expands.
• Former Bears fans are also dispersed across the country now.
• Having their team back will increase their interest in not only watching their own team but also other games in the comp.
• It's also likely to increase interest in Rugby League in North Sydney
• That said TV is unlikely to be the sole criteria
• Bears have the largest existing fan base out of any of the bids
• Bears have the strongest history and sense of identity
• Bears are likely to produce the biggest away crowds when they play teams in Sydney

x 2

 

[Prometheus]

• If you solely used that logic then it would also rule out a second Brisbane side which would be a mistake

And the fact that people in Brisbane (and the Central Coast) already watch NRL on TV is why Channel Nine told the ARLC during last year's negotiations that expansion would not add any value to the TV deal. As soon as Nine said that, the ARLC shelved its expansion plans for five years.

• Gosford is actually within the Sydney metro TV sample. Outside of Gosford the northern part of the Central Coast is in the regional sample.
• It's a myth that regional ratings aren't important. 9 want to buy Southern Cross: why? Regional ad income in NSW & QLD is the 3rd biggest market in the country. 9 also own NBN which also covers the Bears market. They're like to own 2 regional broadcaster on the Central Coast by the time the NRL expands.

The regional location of the Central Coast's ratings really wasn't the main point of the statement I was making. My point is that those people are already watching the NRL even without a team.

As for Nine's regional ambitions...... when pigs fly. Nine is barely staying afloat financially. Then there is the media ownership laws and the fact that if they bought Southern Cross they would be going into direct competition with their network partners WIN.

• Having their team back will increase their interest in not only watching their own team but also other games in the comp.
• It's also likely to increase interest in Rugby League in North Sydney

There isn't a lack of interest as it is.

• That said TV is unlikely to be the sole criteria

True, but it'll be the major criteria. Look at how the Commission bowed down to Nine as soon as Nine said they don't want expansion within the next five years.

• Bears have the largest existing fan base out of any of the bids
• Bears have the strongest history and sense of identity

You mean just like how Souths had the game's biggest fan base and strongest history and sense of identity just before they were booted out of the competition?

Businessmen don't care about stuff like that.

• Bears are likely to produce the biggest away crowds when they play teams in Sydney

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.

Your suggesting that because people on the Central Coast watch league on TV they shouldn’t have a team.

Not at all. I love the idea of the CC Bears and I most definitely think that the CC should have a team. But what I think should happen is not in any way related to how the ARLC are going to decide what will happen.

 

[docbrown]

eople in Brisbane (and the Central Coast) already watch NRL on TV is why Channel Nine told the ARLC during last year's negotiations that expansion would not add any value

During negotiations 9 were going to say anything that resulted in them paying less for the rights. Doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Should the NRL's expansion policy be dictated by Channel 9? No. Are Channel 9 the only bidder? No. Do they have F&LR any more? No.

Plus don't think for a second that if the NRL expands and there's 9 games up for grabs that some how only 8 would get sold because Channel 9's not interested...

If you want to be more accurate about the statement, what they actually claimed was that there was no value in a 9th game at all. They did not say 'expanding to the Central Coast or Brisbane has no value for us'. They weren't dismissing the Bears and Brisbane, they were dismissing all expansion options.

So you really can't use it to say other expansion options are superior to the Bears & Brisbane because it's not what was said at all.

The regional location of the Central Coast's ratings really wasn't the main point of the statement I was making. My point is that those people are already watching the NRL even without a team.

Well sorry but you did say "and on a regional station, which doesn't really count in the ratings" which is kind of BS and should be commented on as such but I'm fine to let it pass if you understand why that's so.

How much NRL are they watching though? Are we picking up and retaining the fringe viewership? How many games are the fringe viewers watching? That's the research you need to look at.

When you look at previous market research for other sport comps, a club in the area tends to produce greater local interest in the overall league and that in turn increases overall viewers. It's sometimes called ID Drop Off.

Melbourne Storm drew around 60k for their home game. Let's say Perth is as successful and it pulls half that. Adelaide might even be worse.

Could the introduction of the Central Coast Bears increase the existing audience by what Perth or Adelaide can? Are there enough people who aren't watching rugby league now (or aren't watching enough) who would watch more of if it the Bears were introduced?

I'd say given the size of the North Sydney & Central Coast market and the spread of Bears fans nationwide, it's not as impossible as you might believe it to be.

As for Nine's regional ambitions...... when pigs fly.

What are you trying to claim here? That 9, 7 & 10 don't care about regional markets? They already own regional stations. Why do they buy them if they don't matter? :crazy:

The 9-SC talks won't heat up till June. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. 10 are stripping copper wiring out of the walls. That's what 9 has up its sleeve.

True, but it'll be the major criteria. Look at how the Commission bowed down to Nine as soon as Nine said they don't want expansion within the next five years.

Major criteria? Yeah. But so are a bunch of other things - fan base, economic stability, future growth potential, risk etc.

I've already told you that "no TV network will buy a 9th game" argument is a myth though.

You mean just like how Souths had the game's biggest fan base and strongest history and sense of identity just before they were booted out of the competition?

Businessmen don't care about stuff like that.

What's your point though? That the NRL kicked out a club like the Bears and then later realised it was a mistake? That favours the Bears argument then...

If you recall I said that out of the bids that are feasible floating around, the Bears are the ones that actually have an existing base and branding. Is brand awareness important to businessmen? Yes. Is an existing consumer base important? Yes.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.

Okay - out of the following clubs West Coast Pirates, an Adelaide franchise, Central Qld, West Corridor bid, Brisbane Bombers, a hypothetical NZ bid and the Central Coast Bears - in your opinion, and be subjective but logical here, but which one is likely to produce the biggest away crowds when they play teams in Sydney?

In my opinion, hence why I said likely, I would favour the Bears on this point. Why? 1) They have existing fans in Sydney whereas those other teams do not 2) The proximity of the Central Coast to Sydney is closer than all those other teams

But feel free to argue your point. Remember that any club that is introduced is going to play quite a fair bit of their season in Sydney. We've seen from the Titans and Cowboys - two teams from Qld a heartland state - what impact they can have on crowds when they play in Sydney. I'm not saying that it's the sole factor in the Bears favour but in my opinion is an advantage that they have over the likes of Perth, Adelaide, CQ, NZ2 and potentially even Brisbane 2.

Sorry, but I really don't agree with the logic of your Channel 9/regional TV/anti-Sydney away crowd points.

 

[Prometheus]

You are well within your rights to disagree.

Time will tell what will happen, until then all this is just words. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and the Bears do make it into the competition.

 

[bobmar28]

• If you solely used that logic then it would also rule out a second Brisbane side which would be a mistake
• Gosford is actually within the Sydney metro TV sample. Outside of Gosford the northern part of the Central Coast is in the regional sample.
• It's a myth that regional ratings aren't important. 9 want to buy Southern Cross: why? Regional ad income in NSW & QLD is the 3rd biggest market in the country. 9 also own NBN which also covers the Bears market. They're like to own 2 regional broadcaster on the Central Coast by the time the NRL expands.
• Former Bears fans are also dispersed across the country now.
• Having their team back will increase their interest in not only watching their own team but also other games in the comp.
• It's also likely to increase interest in Rugby League in North Sydney
• That said TV is unlikely to be the sole criteria
• Bears have the largest existing fan base out of any of the bids
• Bears have the strongest history and sense of identity
• Bears are likely to produce the biggest away crowds when they play teams in Sydney

There is no way NSW will get an 11th team. Expansion means expansion outside NSW.

Ffs there are places around the country that have no team while the Sydney area already has nine.

 

[docbrown]

There is no way NSW will get an 11th team. Expansion means expansion outside NSW.

Expansion means expansion to under-serviced markets. Central Coast qualifies as an under-serviced market by any marketing criteria.

Ffs there are places around the country that have no team while the Sydney area already has nine.

Ffs the Central Coast isn't Sydney. :roll:

The Central Coast Bears home games will be on the Central Coast, not Sydney.

The Bears have an existing Sydney fanbase that are more than likely not attending games at the present time and more than likely watching less or no rugby league. By reintroducing the Bears those people are more than likely going to watch and attend more rugby league. That doesn't negatively impact any other team, it would actually be a positive thing for an expansion club.

So as for your statement about areas around the region, here's some you can rule out (but I'd be keen to hear your logic as to why they could work):

Long Term/Pipe Dreams:
PNG/Fiji - poor markets, remote, high interest but huge risk
SA - big market but stagnant growth, little interest, high risk (even the 2nd fumbleball team is struggling there)
Sunshine Coast - decent market but a 2nd Brisbane side is higher priority, also de-centralised
Melbourne - big market but already has an under-developed club & non-heartland area, highly competitive with other pro sport
NT/TAS/Central QLD/NSW Country/QLD Country - small markets, remote, less financial stability, high risk

The only one of those even worth considering in the next 15 years is Adelaide but it's probably not worth it until Perth & Melbourne have developed.

There are only 4 areas that offer any kind of market growth, existing base, economic stability and long term potential -

WA - (big non-heartland market with strong growth but high risk)

Brisbane 2 - (big under-serviced heartland market with strong growth but lower risk)

NZ2 - (big non-heartland market, dispersed but with game growth potential but high risk)

Central Coast - (medium under-serviced heartland market with strong growth but lower risk)

The Central Coast in 20 years is going to be as big as the Hunter Valley is today. It will be bigger than the Illawarra. There's going to be 1.6 million people from the Hawkesbury to Port Stephens serviced directly by only 1 club, the Knights. And people are complaining that Brisbane is under-serviced now in a similar manner.

Imagine if at the present moment the Knights or Dragons (Illawarra) weren't in the comp and people were arguing that they shouldn't be in the comp because there are currently too many NSW/Sydney teams. Would they be suggesting that those heartland markets should go to waste because people there can watch Sydney clubs play? It's illogical.:crazy:

 

[Perth Red]

The game now has the funds to take the risk knowing the returns could be so much greater. Dave smith's recent comments all but confirm how they see the NRL expansion playing out.

AFL's recent rebrand to include "Australia's Game" in all it's branding indicates where the battle for number one footy code will be played out over the next decade. With no teams in key markets and only one in Brisbane the prospect of NSW getting another club any time soon would seem very remote. It is a shame as I have no doubt a CC Bears would be more value adding to the NRL than a number of existing Sydney clubs.

 

[docbrown]

The game now has the funds to take the risk knowing the returns could be so much greater.

True but how many risky clubs do we want at the same time.

Ignoring the existing teams in NSW, QLD & ACT for the moment which have their own sets of risk issues, Melbourne still have a lot of question marks over them.

Melbourne & Perth at the same time isn't that bad and is manageable.
Melbourne, Perth & NZ2 at the same time? Well if the money's there it's doable. NZ2 is risky but less risky than Adelaide.

Melbourne, Perth, NZ2 & Adelaide? Hmm... really seems like an eyes-too-big-for-their-stomaches scenario if Melbourne & Perth haven't been bedded down and made stable.

AFL's recent rebrand to include "Australia's Game" in all it's branding indicates where the battle for number one footy code will be played out over the next decade.

The AFL expanded in Western Sydney, Canberra & the Gold Coast. We already have teams there. Putting a team in Adelaide & Perth does nothing to stop the AFL in those original areas so it's illogical to use the AFL's actions as a motive for the NRL's actions. In fact one of those areas - Gold Coast - the NRL team is still high risk. That logic actually favours an NRL expansion policy that is cumulatively lower risk, further reason as to why I'm against a putting teams in 3 high-risk expansion areas when combined with the issues facing Melbourne & Gold Coast.

I'm in favour of introducing 1 high risk & 1 low risk team in each of the next two expansion phases and for the NRL to announce plans for all 4 areas and to provide a clear timeline and support structure well before the first two successful areas are announced. That's how you expand, not by some tit-for-tat rationale.

A first wave could be - High Risk (Perth or NZ2) and Low Risk (CC or Bris2)
A 2nd wave could be High Risk (NZ2 or Perth) and Low Risk (Bris2 or CC)

It is a shame as I have no doubt a CC Bears would be more value adding to the NRL than a number of existing Sydney clubs.

Agreed. It's going to become this large heartland area that's a blank on the map.

 

[Perth Red]

True but how many risky clubs do we want at the same time.

Ignoring the existing teams in NSW, QLD & ACT for the moment which have their own sets of risk issues, Melbourne still have a lot of question marks over them.

Melbourne & Perth at the same time isn't that bad and is manageable.
Melbourne, Perth & NZ2 at the same time? Well if the money's there it's doable. NZ2 is risky but less risky than Adelaide.

Melbourne, Perth, NZ2 & Adelaide? Hmm... really seems like an eyes-too-big-for-their-stomaches scenario if Melbourne & Perth haven't been bedded down and made stable.



The AFL expanded in Western Sydney, Canberra & the Gold Coast. We already have teams there. Putting a team in Adelaide & Perth does nothing to stop the AFL in those original areas so it's illogical to use the AFL's actions as a motive for the NRL's actions. In fact one of those areas - Gold Coast - the NRL team is still high risk. That logic actually favours an NRL expansion policy that is cumulatively lower risk, further reason as to why I'm against a putting teams in 3 high-risk expansion areas when combined with the issues facing Melbourne & Gold Coast.

I'm in favour of introducing 1 high risk & 1 low risk team in each of the next two expansion phases and for the NRL to announce plans for all 4 areas and to provide a clear timeline and support structure well before the first two successful areas are announced. That's how you expand, not by some tit-for-tat rationale.

A first wave could be - High Risk (Perth or NZ2) and Low Risk (CC or Bris2)
A 2nd wave could be High Risk (NZ2 or Perth) and Low Risk (Bris2 or CC)



Agreed. It's going to become this large heartland area that's a blank on the map.

In terms of Melbourne, their budget is rumoured to be $20mill a year, the NRL extra grant is merely keeping them at the top of the pile to sustain interest in the game there and to help development costs. Perth have drawn 20,000 to last game held here, have a 7 figure main sponsor lined up, a redeveloped stadium with great corporate facilities and a supportive govt. I don't see the risk as high as you do. As cronulla, manly and Penrith are showing, being a NRL club in an overcrowded heartland can be just as great a risk to financial sustainability.

National expansion isn't about challenging the afl in their home states, it is about being able to counteract the perception the afl is going to be peddling very hard in the coming years that they are the only true national footy code.

I will be very surprised if expansion isn't

2017/18 Perth and Brisbane 2
5-7 years later nz2 and Adelaide

 

[docbrown]

In terms of Melbourne, their budget is rumoured to be $20mill a year, the NRL extra grant is merely keeping them at the top of the pile to sustain interest in the game there and to help development costs.

And they've struggled to convert their fringe fanbase (those within a passing interest, around 1,000,000) into a TV & Attendance fanbase. They're nowhere near stable yet and they've been in the comp for 15 years.

Perth have drawn 20,000 to last game held here, have a 7 figure main sponsor lined up, a redeveloped stadium with great corporate facilities and a supportive govt. I don't see the risk as high as you do.

True and all of that's important but they're still an unknown quantity. I don't think anyone can blindly guarantee that an expansion club in a non-heartland area is going to be successful. If anything the Australian sporting landscape is littered with the carcasses of clubs that thought they had it all in place. Perth in the NRL will also be high risk because of the fact that it is Perth.

As cronulla, manly and Penrith are showing, being a NRL club in an overcrowded heartland can be just as great a risk to financial sustainability.

That's more to their own ineptitude than anything else. And again, the Central Coast Bears aren't based in Sydney. They have their own unique under-serviced market outside of Sydney. If it were the North Sydney Bears playing out of North Sydney Oval, then yes you might have an argument there, but it's not. It's a Central Coast team outside of Sydney with the added benefit of revitalising an existing fanbase. Totally different scenario.

National expansion isn't about challenging the afl in their home states, it is about being able to counteract the perception the afl is going to be peddling very hard in the coming years that they are the only true national footy code.

They've been peddling that for years and Rugby League still exists and is still growing. Most of it is just PR nonsense.

The AFL with 18 teams has full time teams in 7 cities and a part time team in an 8th.

The NRL has 16 teams (two fewer) with full time teams in 7 Australian cities & 1 New Zealand city plus a part time team in a 9th. The NRL is already bigger in terms of market access plus the NSW/QLD/NZ market is bigger than the SA/WA/VIC market.

What you're actually complaining about is less the AFL's PR nonsense but rather the NRL's inability to sell the actual reality to the public and media.

In order to match the NRL the AFL would need add teams in North Qld, New Zealand, Newcastle and Wollongong (you could also say Canberra). The NRL only needs to look at Perth & Adelaide and I would argue not even that, even just Perth alone justifies the N in the NRL. It's not like the AFL has teams in every state and territory either so if Adelaide misses out it's not different to Tasmania or Northern Territory missing out...

The AFL might be able to add 2 more teams to become a 20 team comp. At most that's 9 cities plus a potential part time 10th city.

Meanwhile if the NRL were to go to 20 teams with CC/WA/NZ2/Bris2, we would have 10 full time Australia cities, 2 New Zealand cities (potential a 3rd with sharing) and a part time team in an 11th Australian city (Wollongong). Leaving Adelaide out doesn't change that.

The NRL's task of putting teams in CC/WA/NZ2/Bris2 is going to be a hell of a lot easier than the AFL propping up GC/GWS and 2 other quagmires.

 

[Billythekid]

Melbourne have as big of a core fan base as most of the other teams in the comp. The only reason they lag behind a lot of other clubs is because of the lack of away fans. I realize this is the difficulty of being an isolated team like the storm but it's unfair to criticize their core fan base without factoring that in.

Even without the help the storm receive they would be in a better financial position than quite a few other clubs in the NRL.

I don't buy that this applies to Perth either. Perth has historically been a stronger market for league and i don't see why they would be expected to perform the same as the storm.

I don't even consider admitting Perth a risk. They have shown they have the fans, they have the stadium and by the looks sponsors won't be a problem either. They are in a big market that is growing rapidly and isn't quite as saturated as an area like Sydney or Brisbane.

This isn't argument against the CC btw as i think it's an area that deserves an NRL team. I just think Perth have made enough of a case to come in next.

It's a shame because Brisbane, CC, Perth and NZ are all areas which can definitely support a team and where we really want to expand too. It's a shame that 2 will have to miss out next time.

 

[docbrown]

Melbourne have as big of a core fan base as most of the other teams in the comp.

Probably one of the biggest. Their social media fans are at the top of the comp.

The problem is though that they haven't converted these fans to attendance, membership or tv audiences yet.

The only reason they lag behind a lot of other clubs is because of the lack of away fans.

True but also that converting casual into permanents thing I'd say.

Plus if the away fans is a problem in Melbourne, it's going to be compounded in Adelaide, Perth and New Zealand.

I don't even consider admitting Perth a risk.

Every expansion location has its risk. Some are riskier than others. To say that it has no risk though, well, I can't agree with that.

They are in a big market that is growing rapidly

True and I do say that all the time. I don't think anyone actually needs to be convinced about Perth's prospects so to some degree you're actually preaching to the choir.

I'm actually only skeptical about the sustainability of Adelaide. I keep hearing people say that Adelaide should get a team before the Central Coast and nobody has really put up a convincing argument other than to say it's a dot on a map. I've said for quite some time like you that Bris/CC/WA/NZ should be the next 4.

It's a shame because Brisbane, CC, Perth and NZ are all areas which can definitely support a team and where we really want to expand too. It's a shame that 2 will have to miss out next time.

If the NRL really wants to show some vision, it would outline its plan for all 4 areas when it explores the expansion issue.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Gee, only 10k for the Mariners GF qualifier on a beautiful day.

All those that said that the Central Coast would be lost to soccer without having an NRL team are clearly wrong.