Central Coast Bears NRL Bid.

[Perth Red]

I know of many and i grew up in the area, and you're sitting in Western Australia, pretending it never happened coz it never happened to you, you only had a relatively new team for 3 years, we lost a team that was inaugural from 1908, theres no comparison, but not having a top flight team means no presence, as youve seen with the no pirates in sg ball this year

ive never said it didnt happen, just that I haven’t seen any valid evidence of what actually has happened. No one can produce any so it’s just opinion until we see some evidence.
Pirates sg ball are in hiatus due to covid, intention is to be back next year presuming borders reopen. Nothing to do with not having an nrl club. In fact since the game started to re-emerge in 2010 our jnr numbers have gone up in leaps and bounds. If we can do it in afl land with no nrl near by why cant ns? What are the nswrl and bears doing to get kids playing the game? What are the roosters doing to get kids supporting them? Laziness and lack of strategy in Sydney is a bigger problem than clubs being cut or merged!

 

[LeagueXIII]

NRL crowds in Sydney have improved since the Bears were turfed and 4 teams were merged into 2. Participation has dwindled because of changing demographics and attitudes now that people are aw

How have tv ratings improved....

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

We cannot compare TV ratings as it was a different environment. Before 1998, Ch9 would broadcast a match on delay at 8.30pm Fri and then run a 1 hr highlights package on a Sunday night from 6.30pm to 7.30pm, with about 15 minutes of ads mixed in, before 60 Minutes. That was it. Optus Vision had the rights to the ARL and its rollout only covered Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Foxtel didn't get the rights until 1998.

Ch 9 didn't air the Fri game live until the mid-2000s. I could be wrong, but I think the Sun game was broadcast in full but on delay from around 1998 until 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[taipan]

Northern Eagles started off well in Gosford, their attendance avg in their first year was second best of any venue. I'm guessing the bad blood soon emerged after that and turned fans away? Like NS it doesnt show it has to be a certain way, just that if you dont do it right the inevitable outcome will be poorer. Look at Tigers, the nomadic nature of their stadium use continues to be a hinderance but they persist out of some failed logic of loyalty. Do it right and it can work, ask the Swans.

The crowd avg for the mergers is still better most years than for the previous individual clubs meaning greater chance of sustainability. Tigers good years have seen them avg 17-18k Balmain in modern times best was 10-11k and Wests was under 10k nearly every year. one club getting 18k fans is more sustainable than two clubs sharing 20k fans.

Starting off well is called the novelty factor.The joint venture between two clubs who hate each other's guts was never going to work.It was predicted beforehand and voila.

You keep crapping on about the crowds for mergers averages being better, huge no, moderate at times, in the main above average.Junior increases actually dipsville. Hardly a great advertisement.In any case if it's so beaut, why has not the AFL tried joint ventures.

 

[taipan]

But its so easy to to relocate "the dragons to Adelaide", and "sharks to perth" all these random whinges on the forum picking teams in Sydney without knowing what they bring to that community and catchment in Sydney.
So many facts and figures from Superleague and 1990s to prove that rationalization of the code will work, IT WON'T!!! Look at busted arse Union, even they flicked WA, the code is horrendous now, it was thriving at club level before SuperRugby ruin it, turn it into a weekly state of origin vs international clubs, now a laughing stock...
League needs to be smarter, not be dictated by the lack of presence, but by strengthening its current heartlands, 17th and 18th licence should cover SEQ, and swallow up brisbane's attention, and gold coast should thrive by having more nearby rivals also, this should shït on ALFs Suns and Lions doorstep, likewise trying to move any sydney based club will give a leg up to Giants and Swans, right now Giants are biding there time, but as soon as tigers eels or panthers drop the ball, Western Sydney becomes a more profitable place for ALF

They aren't Sydneysiders.Nothing surprises me.Rationalisation has happened at great cost in Sydney,we can expand without any further down the line.
People continue to overlook the huge outlays for the Storm ,and the fact only now after 20plus years are they getting on teh right side of the ledger.
Without huge sums put in by News Ltd and private equity by a few Melbourne businessmen, they'd be shot ducks.
I dread to think if they had a few crap years.

 

[taipan]

You lob the insult “you’re not from Sydney” like we’re second rate participants. Guess what, we’re not. We’re actually the future of Rugby League. There is little growth in Sydney in best case situations. If we want our game to realise it’s potential, we need to put as much energy into outside of Sydney as we put in to maintaining the area, if not a lot more. Sydney has had its time lauding over the rest of us- time for something more. Watching the Manly game on the weekend at Brookvale it was embarrassing that this is top flight RL. And no, the answer is not more Stadiums in Sydney, it’s clubs that actually work in in the three good stadiums that will soon populate the area.

Look at the best of the best internationally (NBA, NFL, EPL etc). There are no oversaturated metropolitans there- max 2-3. Now I know we are a long way from those heights (and probably never will get anywhere near there) but where is our aspiration and vision to be bigger than we are??

I’m not even a fan of rationalisation in Sydney anymore (in the short to medium term) nor do I think we should have NRL teams in minor regional areas (think central qld, Christchurch/Wellington etc), but I do want the game to think bigger, be bigger than some shitty 20th Century Metropolitan competition from NSW. I just want the competition to treat all areas equally.

I think you need to read my many posts, in which I have supported another Brisbane side,and indeed a Perth side making 18 teams.
My point is simply to state the push on these threads ,comes in the main from people who are outside of Sydney, doesn't involved their club and the Sydney clubs are expendable, so that can be achieved.I respond on that basis.
When I see someone bag a club that averages 11-13k in Sydney area(with facilities needing to improve) then praise the Broncos getting say 28k out of a 2m population a great stadium, on a per population basis these Sydney clubs are doing their part.Plus they do help the ratings ,which eventually helps TV revenue.

Please don't compare NRL with the NBA,NFL and EPL, they compete in huge markets countrywide,We have all these codes here in a population of 25m.
We had in the past 12 clubs in Sydney ,now we have 9 plus put up with 2 AFL clubs ,who look forward to the NRL cutting back clubs further in Sydney.

I agree completely without hesitation your last para.I am pro expansion, and I have stated if a Sydney club (and yes the Sharks if they were going belly up) they would need to move.
My view is why the hell cut Sydney teams ,if they can continua financially and get better facilities.

The problem (and no one had a clue what would eventuate), decades ago rationalisation should have been made
,but after seeing Norths flicked and Souths flicked for a couple of years,teh result was not only damaging but a PR disaster for the code.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

They aren't Sydneysiders.Nothing surprises me.Rationalisation has happened at great cost in Sydney,we can expand without any further down the line.
People continue to overlook the huge outlays for the Storm ,and the fact only now after 20plus years are they getting on teh right side of the ledger.
Without huge sums put in by News Ltd and private equity by a few Melbourne businessmen, they'd be shot ducks.
I dread to think if they had a few crap years.

The Storm were a liability for about 20 years. They were fortunate to be formed out of the carcasses of 3 clubs, allowing them to be competitive from day 1.

The benefit of relocating a Sydney club to Perth, even if it's a partial relocation for first few years, is the club will have the infrastructure in place to compete from day 1.

I know you disagree, but I think Southern Sydney would be better served having just 1 club representing it. There's not even a million people living in Sutherland and the St George district.

Southern Sydney is Georges River Council, Bayside Council and Sutherland.


Georges River Council
146,841
Bayside Council
156,058
Sutherland
218,464

Total
523,363

Logan has 326k thousand people and it has far more RL players and fans than Southern Sydney.

 

[Perth Red]

I think you need to read my many posts, in which I have supported another Brisbane side,and indeed a Perth side making 18 teams.
My point is simply to state the push on these threads ,comes in the main from people who are outside of Sydney, doesn't involved their club and the Sydney clubs are expendable, so that can be achieved.I respond on that basis.
When I see someone bag a club that averages 11-13k in Sydney area(with facilities needing to improve) then praise the Broncos getting say 28k out of a 2m population a great stadium, on a per population basis these Sydney clubs are doing their part.Plus they do help the ratings ,which eventually helps TV revenue.

Please don't compare NRL with the NBA,NFL and EPL, they compete in huge markets countrywide,We have all these codes here in a population of 25m.
We had in the past 12 clubs in Sydney ,now we have 9 plus put up with 2 AFL clubs ,who look forward to the NRL cutting back clubs further in Sydney.

I agree completely without hesitation your last para.I am pro expansion, and I have stated if a Sydney club (and yes the Sharks if they were going belly up) they would need to move.
My view is why the hell cut Sydney teams ,if they can continua financially and get better facilities.

The problem (and no one had a clue what would eventuate), decades ago rationalisation should have been made
,but after seeing Norths flicked and Souths flicked for a couple of years,teh result was not only damaging but a PR disaster for the code.

that’s hardly surprising, if your in the market where the talk of rationalising might mean your club merging or relocating of course your going to be against it lol. You could argue people with no particular barrel to push other than the desire to see the game grow are less biased in their views.

be interesting to see data on how many people watching a game on tv are neutrals and how many only tune in to that game because their team is playing. Given the consistency of audiences for time slots it might suggest that the vast majority are neutrals.

no team is getting cut, the onlyreason you would is if you wanted to change the footprint of the nrl without adding extra clubs due to cost, inability to sell extra games or dilution of talent. I think melbourne have shown that investment in growth areas is worthwhile for the game.

 

[Perth Red]

The Storm were a liability for about 20 years. They were fortunate to be formed out of the carcasses of 3 clubs, allowing them to be competitive from day 1.

The benefit of relocating a Sydney club to Perth, even if it's a partial relocation for first few years, is the club will have the infrastructure in place to compete from day 1.

I know you disagree, but I think Southern Sydney would be better served having just 1 club representing it. There's not even a million people living in Sutherland and the St George district.

it will be interesting to see if the new brisbane club, if it happens, has as many problems as the Titans have had. As you say Storm benefitted from a gut of good players and coaches coming on the market, any new club won’t have that advantage. Afl aren’t stupid and stack the chances of new clubs having some success so they dont end up basket cases in their first few years. Be interesting to see how Brisbane2 go in this regard.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

it will be interesting to see if the new brisbane club, if it happens, has as many problems as the Titans have had. As you say Storm benefitted from a gut of good players and coaches coming on the market, any new club won’t have that advantage. Afl aren’t stupid and stack the chances of new clubs having some success so they dont end up basket cases in their first few years. Be interesting to see how Brisbane2 go in this regard.

It's a good thing the Broncos suck. A poor performing Broncos will make life easier for Brisbane 2.

 

[Perth Red]

It's a good thing the Broncos suck. A poor performing Broncos will make life easier for Brisbane 2.

yes it will but that is also suggesting that brisbane 2 will take away from the broncos which is something we dont want. The idea is to grow not cannibalise what exists.

 

[MugaB]

yes it will but that is also suggesting that brisbane 2 will take away from the broncos which is something we dont want. The idea is to grow not cannibalise what exists.

This is why either jets or dolphins (or both) might get the nod

 

[taipan]

The Storm were a liability for about 20 years. They were fortunate to be formed out of the carcasses of 3 clubs, allowing them to be competitive from day 1.

The benefit of relocating a Sydney club to Perth, even if it's a partial relocation for first few years, is the club will have the infrastructure in place to compete from day 1.

I know you disagree, but I think Southern Sydney would be better served having just 1 club representing it. There's not even a million people living in Sutherland and the St George district.

Southern Sydney is Georges River Council, Bayside Council and Sutherland.

View attachment 46883
Georges River Council
146,841
Bayside Council
156,058
Sutherland
218,464

Total
523,363

Logan has 326k thousand people and it has far more RL players and fans than Southern Sydney.

Mate you are telling me nothing new. What you forget is the overlap of supporters from surrounding areas.
And all those areas are growing .The Sutherland shire has a requirement by the State govt around a couple of years back, to have 10,000 dwellings (meaning units, townhouses,multi villas etc.Plus a hotel for accomodation as part of the retail development.

I don't agree with you ,because the Sharks,are competive,fully sponsored , are a debt free club with assets, cash in the bank, plus in the last few years 2000-2500 new people residing next door to the club in the residential development.An they contribute greatly to Sydney TV ratings and have a bandwagon following who attended the GF 2016 of 65K at least, plus some wealthy sponsors and followers.

You can throw up areas population wise, but you need to have commercial backing, private backing plus a ground either ready or being developed.
The ACT has what ,450K and their crowds don't; average 20k,but they do have commercial backing and profitable leagues clubs.

All I have seen are assumptions on the benefit of relocating a team to Perth.Sorry mate I need cold hard evidence .Because I have seen the effect of a club removal with a moderate base and its effect in the area.Let alone the impact of joint ventures to juniors, and hardly huge jumps in averages.I certioanly have;t seen big TV ratings for clubs in non heartland areas for the NRL for starters.

I'm darn sure Perth would rather have its own home grown team, just like the Storm.

 

[taipan]

that’s hardly surprising, if your in the market where the talk of rationalising might mean your club merging or relocating of course your going to be against it lol. You could argue people with no particular barrel to push other than the desire to see the game grow are less biased in their views.

be interesting to see data on how many people watching a game on tv are neutrals and how many only tune in to that game because their team is playing. Given the consistency of audiences for time slots it might suggest that the vast majority are neutrals.

no team is getting cut, the onlyreason you would is if you wanted to change the footprint of the nrl without adding extra clubs due to cost, inability to sell extra games or dilution of talent. I think melbourne have shown that investment in growth areas is worthwhile for the game.

Again you have NF. (too much Pommy warm beer), because I have stated in the past if the Sharks were no hope of continuing in Sydney as they were financially unable to do so,I would have to accept they go elsewhere.
I have also stated I would hate it, and I could not follow them losing that tribal feel.I could only watch SOO and Grand Finals.And I can tell you the reasonably strong junior base would be hit, and your mob the bumblers would jump in.
Barrel to push LOL.You're pushing a flipping brewery truck full.Your'e as biased as Jeff Kennett .Everyone who follows their team are biased, it's called tribalism
.Something Perth as far as NRL is concerned doesn't fully understand,, yes they do for the AFL teams.

NB Why should I agree to have my team relocated to Perth ,because they have got their sh*t together, are fully sponsored, competitive,own their own ground ,haver will soon have two revenue producing assets, plus cash in the Bank ,plus a solid base, decent junior numbers and provide decent TV viewing numbers,just for you to get your rocks off to get a side.

When I have stated all along I am for expansion to 18 teams -Brisbane and Perth.
If that doesn't sink in,I'll get a pile driver to perform the task.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Mate you are telling me nothing new. What you forget is the overlap of supporters from surrounding areas.

How many of them are club members who attend matches?

And all those areas are growing.

They might be growing, but so is every other metropolitan area in Australia.

Do you have any hard evidence that the population growth will lead to more fans for the Sharks and Dragons?

The Sutherland shire has a requirement by the State govt around a couple of years back, to have 10,000 dwellings (meaning units, townhouses,multi villas etc.Plus a hotel for accomodation as part of the retail development.

Yeah, and?

I fail to see how this means the Sharks should be in Cronulla instead of Perth.

I don't agree with you ,because the Sharks,are competive,fully sponsored , are a debt free club with assets, cash in the bank, plus in the last few years 2000-2500 new people residing next door to the club in the residential development.An they contribute greatly to Sydney TV ratings and have a bandwagon following who attended the GF 2016 of 65K at least, plus some wealthy sponsors and followers.

This isn't true and is a blatant lie. The data from Pythagonrl shows Cronulla are one of the least watched clubs on TV. I've shown you the graph a few times now, so you cannot say you're unaware of this evidence. I'll show it again to prove my point, since you want hard evidence and not assumptions.



This information, which is hard evidence, shows Tigers and Bulldogs are limiting one another's growth and Dragons and Sharks are doing the same to each other. Having just 1 of Tigers or Bulldogs and 1 of Dragons or Sharks in Sydney, with the other 2 going to Adelaide and Perth, will lead to an increase in viewers for all 4 clubs.

You can throw up areas population wise, but you need to have commercial backing, private backing plus a ground either ready or being developed.
The ACT has what ,450K and their crowds don't; average 20k,but they do have commercial backing and profitable leagues clubs.

Cronulla and St George have struggled in these areas for years.

All I have seen are assumptions on the benefit of relocating a team to Perth.Sorry mate I need cold hard evidence .Because I have seen the effect of a club removal with a moderate base and its effect in the area.Let alone the impact of joint ventures to juniors, and hardly huge jumps in averages.I certioanly have;t seen big TV ratings for clubs in non heartland areas for the NRL for starters.

I'm darn sure Perth would rather have its own home grown team, just like the Storm.

You've been shown evidence that the Wests Tigers and St George Illawarra Dragons are far more sustainable than Balmain, Wests, St George and Illawarra were as standalone clubs. Attendances have improved significantly, especially in Illawarra.

Participation is down all over Sydney, despite it having 9 NRL clubs. The decline is due to stigma and safety issues. A parent who does not want their son to play a game because they think it's dangerous and low brow isn't going to be swayed into letting him play just because there are 9 unsustainable NRL clubs in the area, most of whom are reliant on a $13m grant just to survive. Dropping that number down to 7 or 6 clubs will have zero influence on what sport they let their son play.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Again you have NF. (too much Pommy warm beer), because I have stated in the past if the Sharks were no hope of continuing in Sydney as they were financially unable to do so,I would have to accept they go elsewhere.
I have also stated I would hate it, and I could not follow them losing that tribal feel.I could only watch SOO and Grand Finals.And I can tell you the reasonably strong junior base would be hit, and your mob the bumblers would jump in.
Barrel to push LOL.You're pushing a flipping brewery truck full.Your'e as biased as Jeff Kennett .Everyone who follows their team are biased, it's called tribalism
.Something Perth as far as NRL is concerned doesn't fully understand,, yes they do for the AFL teams.

NB Why should I agree to have my team relocated to Perth ,because they have got their sh*t together, are fully sponsored, competitive,own their own ground ,haver will soon have two revenue producing assets, plus cash in the Bank ,plus a solid base, decent junior numbers and provide decent TV viewing numbers,just for you to get your rocks off to get a side.

When I have stated all along I am for expansion to 18 teams -Brisbane and Perth.
If that doesn't sink in,I'll get a pile driver to perform the task.

So you want Brisbane to be limited to just 2 clubs so that Sydney can have 9, despite Sydney having 2 people for every person from Brisbane?

The maths doesn't add up.

Having 4.5 times as many clubs in Sydney than Brisbane, despite there being just 2 people in Sydney for evey person in Brisbane, is just plain dumb. It would make far more sense to have 3 in Brisbane and 6 or 7 in Sydney. That way both areas are saturated with RL and will have plenty of local derbies to generate interest. It's about what's best for RL as a whole, not what's best for a few thousand RL fans in Sydney.

 

[flippikat]

Afl aren’t stupid and stack the chances of new clubs having some success so they dont end up basket cases in their first few years. Be interesting to see how Brisbane2 go in this regard.

Definitely- the AFL know full well that expansion teams often struggle in their early years, so they do what they can to give new teams a good chance of *at least* being mid-table.

It helps that their competition set-up allows for a lot of variables to be adjusted club-by-club to give new teams a running start.

 

[flippikat]

So you want Brisbane to be limited to just 2 clubs so that Sydney can have 9, despite Sydney having 2 people for every person from Brisbane?

The maths doesn't add up.

Having 4.5 times as many clubs in Sydney than Brisbane, despite there being just 2 people in Sydney for evey person in Brisbane, is just plain dumb. It would make far more sense to have 3 in Brisbane and 6 or 7 in Sydney. That way both areas are saturated with RL and will have plenty of local derbies to generate interest. It's about what's best for RL as a whole, not what's best for a few thousand RL fans in Sydney.

Spot on.

Long run, we should be looking at 6 teams in Sydney (including St-George-Illawarra) & 3 in Brisbane. Add to that the Raiders, Knights, Warriors, Cowboys, Storm & Titans.. and you have 15 teams.

Then add Perth, Adelaide & NZ2 (either by relocation or new clubs), and you have 18 teams with a footprint that's not just national, but decently trans-Tasman.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Spot on.

Long run, we should be looking at 6 teams in Sydney (including St-George-Illawarra) & 3 in Brisbane. Add to that the Raiders, Knights, Warriors, Cowboys, Storm & Titans.. and you have 15 teams.

Then add Perth, Adelaide & NZ2 (either by relocation or new clubs), and you have 18 teams with a footprint that's not just national, but decently trans-Tasman.

In theory I think that's great.

Carving up Sydney is always going to be the dilemma. How this is done, to stem the blood (not lose fans/players/income from the sport and open up to raiding by competitors) is the million dollar question. No one's got the perfect answer, especially me, on how to do this.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Spot on.

Long run, we should be looking at 6 teams in Sydney (including St-George-Illawarra) & 3 in Brisbane. Add to that the Raiders, Knights, Warriors, Cowboys, Storm & Titans.. and you have 15 teams.

Then add Perth, Adelaide & NZ2 (either by relocation or new clubs), and you have 18 teams with a footprint that's not just national, but decently trans-Tasman.

With that model they could add a 2nd team to Perth and Melbourne.

Sydney x 6
Brisbane x 3
Melbourne x 2
Perth x 2
Adelaide x 1
Canberra x 1
Gold Coast x 1
Newcastle x 1
Townsville x 1
New Zealand x 2