Central Coast Bears NRL Bid.

[mongoose]

Manly have a proud history, I think they have still won more grand finals than any other club since 1970. They still manage to produce some great local juniors. Yes they need to work harder off the field to attract new fans and revenue opportunities but its rubbish saying they add no value to the comp.

 

[reanimate]

The problem isnt just the name, it is also the location. But you cant really do the sensible relocation (to North Sydney oval) without also changing the name.

Those examples you give probably have every other thing going for them. Sea Eagles have almost nothing going for them.

The least problematic thing about Manly is their location. They're the only top flight club in Northern Sydney, they have room to grow with the North Shore and both areas should be, if the NRL had any business sense, areas of great importance due to the wealth and population size of the combined area.

The Sea Eagles will never relocate to North Sydney Oval, it's a terrible stadium for RL due to being an oval and it will never be redeveloped due to the heritage status of the grandstands there. Besides, even if Manly did play out of somewhere like North Sydney Oval, a renaming/rebranding would not be necessary- Souths didn't do it to play out of Homebush.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Manly have a proud history, I think they have still won more grand finals than any other club since 1970. They still manage to produce some great local juniors. Yes they need to work harder off the field to attract new fans and revenue opportunities but its rubbish saying they add no value to the comp.

What they need is an upgraded stadium and to play sunday afternoon

 

[LeagueXIII]

whilst that might be true it is now over two decades ago. How long are we going to blame our current procrastination and continuing falling behind the afl on SL?

The war may have happened 20 Years ago but the after effects also lasted 2 Decades....remember that stooge Gallop....constant selling of TV rights at under value prices....media bashing the games image etc etc

 

[LeagueXIII]

there’s nine clubs in the ns district, how many were there in 2000?

How many have an open age team?

Likewise how many AFL teams were there in 2000 compared to today?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

And as @LeagueXIII pointed out, the various London top tier soccer clubs have maintained their regional identities and history, rather than adopting more generic South London, West London etc style names. Other AFL clubs have retained their original names and have become extremely successful with large reaches without having to rebrand.

So why is there so much hate on here for names like Redcliffe, Logan and Ipswich?

Please be consistent. There's one rule for Sydney and another for Brisbane.

If you're going to say Brisbane 2 needs to appeal to as many people as possible then the same argument applies to the Manly Sea Eagles. You cannot say that Manly appeals to a large swathe or people from North Sydney to Gosford as their crowds and television audiences are small.

It shows that the problem isn’t the name. If it was evident that renaming clubs to carry more broad, generic names led to even bigger crowds, even more fans and even more sponsorship dollars, those soccer clubs would have done it a long time ago. Same goes for AFL clubs like Collingwood- how’s the Collingwood name working out for them vs the far more generically named North Melbourne or Melbourne?

Wests Tigers are drawing more than the Balmain Tigers.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The problem isnt just the name, it is also the location. But you cant really do the sensible relocation (to North Sydney oval) without also changing the name.

Those examples you give probably have every other thing going for them. Sea Eagles have almost nothing going for them.

That's right. Manly are in a shit location and have an elitist minded fanbase who think their location makes them special. It's great for a team in a local competition, but not a national one.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Manly have a proud history, I think they have still won more grand finals than any other club since 1970. They still manage to produce some great local juniors. Yes they need to work harder off the field to attract new fans and revenue opportunities but its rubbish saying they add no value to the comp.

They are never going to be one of the strongest brands. When they were winning GFs a decade ago they were drawing some of the lowest attendances in the league. They've never gotten the spoon either, but it hasn't culminated into a large fanbase.

When you have 9 teams in one city and just 2 expansion spots available with at least 4 or 5 spots needed to make the game truly national then you have to cut the dead weight.

 

[reanimate]

So why is there so much hate on here for names like Redcliffe, Logan and Ipswich?

Please be consistent. There's one rule for Sydney and another for Brisbane.

If you're going to say Brisbane 2 needs to appeal to as many people as possible then the same argument applies to the Manly Sea Eagles. You cannot say that Manly appeals to a large swathe or people from North Sydney to Gosford as their crowds and television audiences are small.



Wests Tigers are drawing more than the Balmain Tigers.

The difference is clubs like Tottenham, Arsenal etc in soccer and clubs like Collingwood in AFL were established long ago and have a long history in the top flight of their sport under those names. It's their brand, their history and they're well known for it. They aren't new expansion clubs. If the AFL was centred in Adelaide and later expanded into Melbourne with a couple of teams, they would likely have never named clubs 'Collingwood' or 'Richmond' etc. Same goes for the new Brisbane team, old BRL fans may be aware of the history of the clubs in Redcliffe, Logan etc but basically no one else is, that's why they're likely going to adopt Brisbane as their name when entering the NRL.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The difference is clubs like Tottenham, Arsenal etc in soccer and clubs like Collingwood in AFL were established long ago and have a long history in the top flight of their sport under those names. It's their brand, their history and they're well known for it. They aren't new expansion clubs. If the AFL was centred in Adelaide and later expanded into Melbourne with a couple of teams, they would likely have never named clubs 'Collingwood' or 'Richmond' etc. Same goes for the new Brisbane team, old BRL fans may be aware of the history of the clubs in Redcliffe, Logan etc but basically no one else is, that's why they're likely going to adopt Brisbane as their name when entering the NRL.

Redcliffe Dolphins have been around 70 years and played in the top flight of Queensland RL all of that time, so what you're saying makes no sense. Everyone in SEQ knows who the Dolphins are and what they stand for. Plenty of the game's best players have been linked to this great club, like Beetson.

When I was a kid I knew nothing about Manly, Balmain, Newtown, Penrith, Redfern or Cronulla. I've seen them on a map, but other than that, these areas mean less to me than a suburb in western Ipswich because I am not from Sydney and couldn't give a stuff about it.

 

[mongoose]

Redcliffe Dolphins have been around 70 years and played in the top flight of Queensland RL all of that time, so what you're saying makes no sense. Everyone in SEQ knows who the Dolphins are and what they stand for. Plenty of the game's best players have been linked to this great club, like Beetson.

When I was a kid I knew nothing about Manly, Balmain, Newtown, Penrith, Redfern or Cronulla. I've seen them on a map, but other than that, these areas mean less to me than a suburb in western Ipswich because I am not from Sydney and couldn't give a stuff about it.

The NRL grew from the NSWRL, that's just how it is. I think the opportunity to bring in BRL teams has passed. It needed to be done in 1988 but they invented the Broncos instead who are a mega club.

I am fine with Dolphins or Jets or Firehawks but I think they should be Brisbane or East Coast or something like that. I don't necessarily agree with Great Dane's opinion that using an existing brand will turn people off as I think the new team should be marketed towards new fans to the game, not just people who follow the QLD cup. Although it would be good to attract them too.

 

[reanimate]

Redcliffe Dolphins have been around 70 years and played in the top flight of Queensland RL all of that time, so what you're saying makes no sense. Everyone in SEQ knows who the Dolphins are and what they stand for. Plenty of the game's best players have been linked to this great club, like Beetson.

When I was a kid I knew nothing about Manly, Balmain, Newtown, Penrith, Redfern or Cronulla. I've seen them on a map, but other than that, these areas mean less to me than a suburb in western Ipswich because I am not from Sydney and couldn't give a stuff about it.

They might have played in the top flight of QRL, but not the top flight of ARL/NRL, they aren't an established brand at that level. Same goes for SANFL clubs like Norwood, they might be powerhouses at SANFL level, but basically no one knows who they are in the RL states, do they?

Manly, Penrith, St George etc are established NRL brands. If you were expanding into Sydney now, you would likely never call new teams anything like St George, Penrith etc, they'd get names like Western Sydney, Sydney etc, but that's how the brands have been established and are known at the top level as. I don't have any connection with Melbourne, but I'm aware of and familiar with brands like Collingwood, Richmond etc as they've been top level AFL clubs for my entire life.

 

[mongoose]

A lot of those Sydney clubs actually have decent support in Brisbane over generations as well. Dragons and Rabbitohs especially. Even Manly get a pretty good turn out at Suncorp.

The teams that get the least are prob Panthers, Knights and Sharks.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The NRL grew from the NSWRL, that's just how it is. I think the opportunity to bring in BRL teams has passed. It needed to be done in 1988 but they invented the Broncos instead who are a mega club.

I am fine with Dolphins or Jets or Firehawks but I think they should be Brisbane or East Coast or something like that. I don't necessarily agree with Great Dane's opinion that using an existing brand will turn people off as I think the new team should be marketed towards new fans to the game, not just people who follow the QLD cup. Although it would be good to attract them too.

I'm not against the idea of them using names like Brisbane, North Brisbane, East Coast, South Brisbane, Moreton Bay or Logan, as they represent a vast area ans tie in with the history or European settlement in SEQ. I think 2 BRL clubs can potentially enter the NRL, but they'll have to adopt a name thst represents a large area.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

They might have played in the top flight of QRL, but not the top flight of ARL/NRL, they aren't an established brand at that level. Same goes for SANFL clubs like Norwood, they might be powerhouses at SANFL level, but basically no one knows who they are in the RL states, do they?

Manly, Penrith, St George etc are established NRL brands. If you were expanding into Sydney now, you would likely never call new teams anything like St George, Penrith etc, they'd get names like Western Sydney, Sydney etc, but that's how the brands have been established and are known at the top level as. I don't have any connection with Melbourne, but I'm aware of and familiar with brands like Collingwood, Richmond etc as they've been top level AFL clubs for my entire life.

Manly and Cronulla aren't successful brands. The TV ratings for these clubs prove they have limited appeal, despite being around for decades. It they're not popular by now then they'll never be up there with the Broncos, Storm and dare I say it, the Cowboys.

 

[reanimate]

Manly and Cronulla aren't successful brands. The TV ratings for these clubs prove they have limited appeal, despite being around for decades. It they're not popular by now then they'll never be up there with the Broncos, Storm and dare I say it, the Cowboys.

Manly was posting very solid TV ratings during our successful run, our clashes with Melbourne when our rivalry was running hot rated especially well on pay TV. We’ve had a lean period in which our ratings have dipped, yet we’re still not the bottom of the pack. The Bulldogs post big ratings when they’re travelling well, but they’re right near the rear of the pack at the moment thanks to their poor form- time for a renaming or relocation?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Manly was posting very solid TV ratings during our successful run, our clashes with Melbourne when our rivalry was running hot rated especially well on pay TV. We’ve had a lean period in which our ratings have dipped, yet we’re still not the bottom of the pack. The Bulldogs post big ratings when they’re travelling well, but they’re right near the rear of the pack at the moment thanks to their poor form- time for a renaming or relocation?

Canterbury could relocate to Christchurch and remain the Canterbury Bulldogs. There's NZ2 sorted, Sydney rationalised and all 9 of its brands retained. Wests Tigers could rebrand as the Western Sydney Tigers and absorb the Bulldogs district, which is wedged between Western Suburbs Magpies and Balmain Tigers territory. Freeing up more territory for the Wests Tigers will help them become a massive club like the Broncos over the next 20 or 30 years. It won't happen overnight, but kids from the Canterbury region who are born after the Bulldogs are relocated to NZ won't have any hatred for the Tigers and will view them as their team.

Tigers already draw strong attendances and healthy ratings, despite not being successful on the field in years, so there's potential tor them to become arguably the biggest and most important club in Sydney.

Think about what's best for the game in 2040-50. If the NRL had have done that with the Northern Eagles 20 years ago we would have an entire generation of kids on the North Shore and Northern Beaches who would enthusiastically support them because they never had an attachment to North Sydney or Manly. Our game prevented it from happening because it allowed overly emotional and narrow-minded old farts from Sydney to selfishly put their wants ahead of the needs of the game. That's why our game is stagnant and losing touch with the younger generation, who are becoming more interested in fumbleball and soccer because both of those sports have them as their target audience, whereas our game is fixated on appeasing a dwindling population of stubborn old bastards who'll be dead in 20 or 30 years time.

 

[The Great Dane]

I am fine with Dolphins or Jets or Firehawks but I think they should be Brisbane or East Coast or something like that. I don't necessarily agree with Great Dane's opinion that using an existing brand will turn people off as I think the new team should be marketed towards new fans to the game, not just people who follow the QLD cup. Although it would be good to attract them too.

It's simply unavoidable that the core support base of every new team is made up primarily of people that are already fans of the sport, and probably of other clubs already in the league.

In Brisbane's case that means that unless the new club targets Broncos fans (terrible idea), the target audience will be made up mainly of people that support other NRL clubs from outside of Brisbane and/or Brisbane based lower tier clubs, namely Qld Cup clubs.

If you don't keep that reality in mind when setting up the club you run the risk of alienating people and f**king the club for generations, and the last thing the NRL needs is another failure of a club that it has to carry, especially in a place like Brisbane where it should be possible to build a successful club from day one.

The idea that you could support a club off the back of people totally new to the game is just a fantasy. Unless you've got a captive market (we don't, never will, nor should we) that's simply not how market forces work.

 

[The Great Dane]

The difference is clubs like Tottenham, Arsenal etc in soccer and clubs like Collingwood in AFL were established long ago and have a long history in the top flight of their sport under those names. It's their brand, their history and they're well known for it. They aren't new expansion clubs. If the AFL was centred in Adelaide and later expanded into Melbourne with a couple of teams, they would likely have never named clubs 'Collingwood' or 'Richmond' etc. Same goes for the new Brisbane team, old BRL fans may be aware of the history of the clubs in Redcliffe, Logan etc but basically no one else is, that's why they're likely going to adopt Brisbane as their name when entering the NRL.

It's amazing how many people talk about the EPL without knowing anything about it lol.

Prior to News Ltd taking English soccer global with the Premier League in the early 90s, they and their clubs were exactly where the NRL is now. In other words most of their clubs struggled to keep their heads above water and they had stagnated because of a refusal to change in the name of tradition. The only major difference they had was a pro&reg system, which naturally sorted some of the wheat from the chaff.

In other words the difference between their clubs and ours isn't that a bunch of theirs were founded in the 1800s, it's that they have had the capability to get their product under the noises of a global audience of billions of people for 30 years now.

News Ltd tried to partner with the ARL in a similar way to the manner in which they did with the FA, the ARL rejected it and it effectively caused the SL war. But even if they had copied the EPL to the tee, the ARL/NRL still wouldn't have been as big globally, because put simply RL isn't as big globally as soccer is.

So unless you know about a place where billions of fanatical RL fans are hiding, just waiting for ease of access to the NRL, we aren't and never will be the EPL or their clubs.
As such our circumstances necessitate that we do things differently, and the suburban clubs aren't working and haven't for 50 years now.

 

[The Great Dane]

Manly was posting very solid TV ratings during our successful run, our clashes with Melbourne when our rivalry was running hot rated especially well on pay TV. We’ve had a lean period in which our ratings have dipped, yet we’re still not the bottom of the pack. The Bulldogs post big ratings when they’re travelling well, but they’re right near the rear of the pack at the moment thanks to their poor form- time for a renaming or relocation?

Every team posts good ratings when they are successful.

How you go when you are losing, and the changes you make to improve the club during those times, are the real measures of a successful club, not how they go when they are winning premierships.

If Manly want to change their circumstances they'd have to make changes, significant changes, but I doubt they really care because the way the league is run there's no incentive to make those changes and improve. So you've got nothing to worry about, because they and the NRL are content with Manly being a dying suburban club in a stagnate regional competition.