Central Coast Bears - Stand Aside

[BunniesMan]

First, Burleigh Bears? The team from the GOLD COAST ???
Second, I wouldn't be too surprised at Sydney Sutherland Sharks. Roll out the barrel, Roosters. They could afford then to utilise the land under the park in a money earning fashion, and put another block of flats/shops/offices in. More return there than a footy ground.



You actually gave one strong reason yourself.

Why the "sutherland", Roosters already pissed on their Easts history by becoming "Sydney City" and the equally ill considered "Sydney". Might as well drop the "sutherland" because sutherland's in Sydney too. Call them the Sydney Sharks. More reason to hate them.

 

[TheDalek079]

2018 - Merger of two Sydney teams (Sharks and Roosters?).

You're joking, aren't you?














There's no way the Sharks will survive until 2018



(in truth though, i have a soft spot for the sharkies, and hope they survive. as long as they don't merge with us though)

 

[dgsfan]

So a Cc Bears team won't work but an Ipswich? one would?, why on earth would we be a mouth to fed?

We have 4000 plus members, millions of dollars of confirmed backing, a 20,000 seat stadium we got built more than a decade ago, a catchment area of more than 750,000, and more than a century of rugby league culture [history/branding/marketing] already done.

Show me a better bid, of more value to the code.

A SEQLD bid, because as well as having all of that they will actually help increase the tv deal, thus the overall value of the game.

 

[BunniesMan]

A SEQLD bid, because as well as having all of that they will actually help increase the tv deal, thus the overall value of the game.

Any 2 new teams would increase the value of the tv deal, as long as we add 2 and not just 1. And A "SEQLD" bid does not have many of the things he listed.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

And A "SEQLD" bid does not have many of the things he listed.

Yet.

Although most supporters of the game want some form of expansion, at the moment it is still pie in the sky - there has been no concrete assertion from anyone that the competition will expand - be it by 1, 2, 4 or 37 new teams - any time in the future.
The Bears are assuming and hoping that expansion will happen and their method of ensuring that expansion is a possibility is by keeping it in the news and trying to build up a groundswell of community support so that the NRL sees expansion in the CC as absolutely inevitable. However, despite the numbers of members and the pledged, but not guaranteed, finance they boast, the support and case for the CC bears entry into the comp is hardly irresistible.

Once or if the NRL decides to expand I'm sure that ample time will be available for other bids to put their cases forward for inclusion into a future expanded competition.

At the end of the day areas for expansion should be those that offer the best available opportunity for the NRL, not those who put the most work in. This is business, not everyone gets a prize day.

 

[Quidgybo]

Any 2 new teams would increase the value of the tv deal, as long as we add 2 and not just 1.

True. A ninth game is more content per week justifying an increase in price. But it is also True that the location of the two teams will affect the size of that increase.

Some locations are metropolitan frontier areas, opening up large new markets but with low existing market following. These areas will justify big increases in the long term but low ratings in the short term will impact additional value.

Some locations are semi regional heartland locations with strong existing support fragmented across many existing teams based in relative close proximity. Ratings are unlikely to jump greatly due to relatively small market with strong existing viewership and competition for exposure from existing teams in surrounding markets.

Some locations are large heartland markets with limited numbers of existing teams in close proximity. Opportunities for showcasing matches involving local teams and local derbys are limited by their number, leaving room to greatly increase ratings in timeslots that can't currently by filled with local interest matches.

We can argue about my assessment of the relative merits of each location. But the point I want to make is that while any two teams will increase our television income, not all bids are equal. Ultimately those which deliver the greatest ratings boost overall, will deliver the greatest boost in the value of our riights.

Leigh

 

[chefman21]

First, Burleigh Bears? The team from the GOLD COAST ???
Second, I wouldn't be too surprised at Sydney Sutherland Sharks. Roll out the barrel, Roosters. They could afford then to utilise the land under the park in a money earning fashion, and put another block of flats/shops/offices in. More return there than a footy ground.

Okay it's a bad choice. I concede. The point still stands. Queensland needs more teams and they need them soon. Very soon.

You're joking, aren't you?

There's no way the Sharks will survive until 2018


(in truth though, i have a soft spot for the sharkies, and hope they survive. as long as they don't merge with us though)

LOL!

But honestly the worst possible result for the long term future of the NRL is for teams to fold. The Sharks have stuff we could use - and a lot desperately. Like members and juniors. Add that to the land we get and we are set. Land is like gold in Sydney at the moment. Develop it well and it's a huge money spinner that could really benefit long term. I'm pretty open minded, and a merger between the two of us could really benefit in my opinion.

 

[dgsfan]

Ultimately those which deliver the greatest ratings boost overall, will deliver the greatest boost in the value of our riights.

Leigh

And it's hard to argue that will not be a SEQLD and a Perth bid.

 

[BunniesMan]

And it's hard to argue that will not be a SEQLD and a Perth bid.

A SEQLD team won't add any more than the Bears, as for Perth, the Storm have been around for more than a decade and still can't get decent ratings or even a decent timeslot, and that's especially depressing considering all the success they've had (until recently). A Perth team is unlikely to have that kind of success, and it'll have a smaller population base so what are the chances they get better ratings than the Bears.

IMO it shouldn't be a NSW and QLD team, it should be one of them and Perth. And it should be the Bears before the QLD team. We can bring 1 (or even 2) QLD teams in the next round of expansion.

 

[adamkungl]

Okay it's a bad choice. I concede. The point still stands. Queensland needs more teams and they need them soon. Very soon.



LOL!

But honestly the worst possible result for the long term future of the NRL is for teams to fold. The Sharks have stuff we could use - and a lot desperately. Like members and juniors. Add that to the land we get and we are set. Land is like gold in Sydney at the moment. Develop it well and it's a huge money spinner that could really benefit long term. I'm pretty open minded, and a merger between the two of us could really benefit in my opinion.

Madness. Juniors is the only thing they have that we could use, and merging to get them is not remotely worth it. Juniors are overrated anyway. We don't need them to be successful. If we want juniors, we should fight for what is rightfully ours and get them back from Souffs.

They don't even have as many members as we do. A couple of years of success and our numbers will boost.

 

[Billythekid]

A SEQLD team won't add any more than the Bears, as for Perth, the Storm have been around for more than a decade and still can't get decent ratings or even a decent timeslot, and that's especially depressing considering all the success they've had (until recently). A Perth team is unlikely to have that kind of success, and it'll have a smaller population base so what are the chances they get better ratings than the Bears.

The storm were a completely new frontier. League basically didn't exist in Victoria and we had to start from scratch.

There are already league fans/teams in perth and there is a lot more league history there (including a former professional team).

Also you mention a smaller population base but that is misleading. Yes it is smaller than Melbourne but it is still a massive market (the biggest left for league to move into) and it is far less saturated then Melbourne is.

Also there are reasons the storm have struggled for ratings. They have been given terrible timeslots for years. Despite this Melbourne has still had some decent ratings for SOO, GF's and internationals.

Hopefully with some more competent people involved in the game going forward this is a problem that will be lessened.

 

[Perth Red]

Aren;t the Storm one of the best viewed teams on Pay TV? Any coincidence they don't get on FTA? What were the viewing figures from Vic for the GF involving the Storm? Yep your right the Storm have no TV viewing audience!

 

[Goddo]

Yet.

Although most supporters of the game want some form of expansion, at the moment it is still pie in the sky - there has been no concrete assertion from anyone that the competition will expand - be it by 1, 2, 4 or 37 new teams - any time in the future.
The Bears are assuming and hoping that expansion will happen and their method of ensuring that expansion is a possibility is by keeping it in the news and trying to build up a groundswell of community support so that the NRL sees expansion in the CC as absolutely inevitable. However, despite the numbers of members and the pledged, but not guaranteed, finance they boast, the support and case for the CC bears entry into the comp is hardly irresistible.

Once or if the NRL decides to expand I'm sure that ample time will be available for other bids to put their cases forward for inclusion into a future expanded competition.

At the end of the day areas for expansion should be those that offer the best available opportunity for the NRL, not those who put the most work in. This is business, not everyone gets a prize day.

Spot on. And the NRL will look at the Bears and think "how will this team improve the TV rights in the 5 capital cities compared to a 3rd SE Qld side or Perth?"

and "how will the Bears affect the overall Sydney/NSW market of 7m people already spread across 11 teams (with Canberra not far away)? How does this compare to Perth (3.5m) having 1 team or SE Qld (4.5m) having a third team?"

I am all for the Bears, as a Central Coast/North Sydney team would better represent the population distribution in NSW, but not while there are bigger willing markets available to us and an over saturation in Sydney. I am yet to hear a rational response to this arguement from a Bears fan that doesn't whine and point at "members" and "pledged financial support". Those things are nice, but the big money is TV, and NSW is already stretched with clubs, and so too is the potential TV revenue in NSW.

 

[Goddo]

True. A ninth game is more content per week justifying an increase in price. But it is also True that the location of the two teams will affect the size of that increase.

Some locations are metropolitan frontier areas, opening up large new markets but with low existing market following. These areas will justify big increases in the long term but low ratings in the short term will impact additional value. THIS IS THE PERTH REDS

Some locations are semi regional heartland locations with strong existing support fragmented across many existing teams based in relative close proximity. Ratings are unlikely to jump greatly due to relatively small market with strong existing viewership and competition for exposure from existing teams in surrounding markets. THIS IS THE UNAPEALLING CENTRAL COAST BEARS

Some locations are large heartland markets with limited numbers of existing teams in close proximity. Opportunities for showcasing matches involving local teams and local derbys are limited by their number, leaving room to greatly increase ratings in timeslots that can't currently by filled with local interest matches. AND HERE, IPSWICH JETS

We can argue about my assessment of the relative merits of each location. But the point I want to make is that while any two teams will increase our television income, not all bids are equal. Ultimately those which deliver the greatest ratings boost overall, will deliver the greatest boost in the value of our riights.

Leigh

Good post. doubt the message is sinking in though.

 

[bobmar28]

How about you learn some history. Cronulla's struggles have nothing to do with us. They've been incompetently run for most of their history. They were on the scrap heap before we were even kicked out. You talk about pain the game has gone through, well the only reason Cronulla ever made it through rationalisation in 1999 was because they took superleague blood money, the cause of all that pain. We could have taken superleague money and never been kicked out but we stayed loyal.

Once they burnt through that blood money they've been on the scrapheap ever since, and they'd be in the same position if Souths never came back.

And your logic regarding the Bears is equally stupid. Why should they wait for a team to fold or relocate before they're brought in? How about they get brought in anyway and if another team can't handle it (due to their own incompetence) they'll die (or relocate) quicker.

We shouldn't keep out a team that is well organised and well managed just to support another team on life support. Bring the Bears in and let the fittest survive or adapt (ie, relocation).

Just as long as they don't get a franchise ahead of Perth and Ipswich.

 

[bobmar28]

Although I don't think there is much value in going through alternate history I'll answer anyway. If Crowe and HaC were not involved and Souths was still on life support I would blame it on my own club's mismanagement and I would blame them for not running the club better. I would not expect entire teams to be held out of the comp just so my team can keep going on life support.

I'm genuinely upset by the Sydney team CEO's who have come out against the Bears. Instead of letting another nearby rival in to give them competition and force them to be run better, they want to stonewall the Bears so they can continue in their mediocrity. That isn't in the best interest of the NRL.

The Bears have brought in new sponsors, they haven't stolen anyone else's, they will bring in new fans and old fans who feel apathy for the NRL.

They will bring in new rivalries to the game (regional rivalry with the Knights, regional and recent history rivalry with Manly, foundation club rivalry with Souths and Roosters) which will increase ticket sales and tv numbers for all those games.

The Bears being let into the comp is good for the NRL and it would be a tragedy if such a well managed club with such strong community and sponsor support is kept out just so the weakest clubs can continue in their mediocrity.

You know what is in the best interest of the NRL? Expanding to areas outside NSW.

 

[bobmar28]

Oh Jesus, can i ask how old you are?, and i mean that in the best way because NOTHING went right with the Northern Evils.

No, you can't ask how old I am. If the Northern Eagles venture had worked out the CC would have a team now. The only other way CC will get a team is if a Sydney team merges or fails which will free up a franchise for the Central Coast imo.

 

[bobmar28]

:crazy:

Less teams more people who used to go to the footy not going any more.

wtf Toowoomba?

And why the f**k would we merge with the Sharks?

Because the Roosters are wealthy but have too few supporters and a small geographical area. The Sharks have a vast area to draw on and a great name. Merge = Eastern Sharks.

 

[bobmar28]

A SEQLD team won't add any more than the Bears, as for Perth, the Storm have been around for more than a decade and still can't get decent ratings or even a decent timeslot, and that's especially depressing considering all the success they've had (until recently). A Perth team is unlikely to have that kind of success, and it'll have a smaller population base so what are the chances they get better ratings than the Bears.

IMO it shouldn't be a NSW and QLD team, it should be one of them and Perth. And it should be the Bears before the QLD team. We can bring 1 (or even 2) QLD teams in the next round of expansion.

A fourth QLD team would bring a lot more viewers than an 11th NSW one.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

I don't think it would. Qlds already watch league as does the cc. Both have pay tv and both are heartlands. So now we go to population. Cc + ns =1.5m. Ips = 200k and Cq = 260k. I'd assume that 10 xs outta 10 a population of 1.5m is gonna bring more revenue then ones that don't even break 300k.

It comes down to number of teams per state but nsw still have a bigger population. So you go where the fish are. Next arguement...