Central Coast Bears - Stand Aside

[dgsfan]

What a crock and you know it. Of course a team from QLD is going to benefit the game more than a team from cc. You just have to look at FNF ratings...

Week 1 live syd 526,000 (st merge vs parra) Bris 358,000 (bronx vs cows)
delayed syd 317,000 (40% drop) QLD 136,000 (62% drop)
Week 2 live syd 432,000 (st merge vs dogs) bris 269,000 (tits vs rabbits)
delayed syd 266,000 (40% drop) bris 135,000 (50% drop)
Week 3 live syd 399,000 (tigpies vs parra) bris 254,000 (st merge vs cows)
delayed syd 313,000 (20% drop) bris 140,000 (45% drop)
Week 5 live syd 422,000 (st merge vs bronx) bris 281,000 (st merge vs bronx)
delayed syd 247,000 (40% drop) (tits vs storm) bris 170,000 (40% drop) (tits vs storm)
Week 6 live syd 408,000 (tigpies vs dogs) bris 261,000 (tits vs st merge)
delayed syd 282,000 (30% drop) bris 130,000 (50% drop)

So as you can see adding another NSW team won't have any effect on the tv ratings. NSW is spoiled for choice. Up until week 6 brisbane's smallest drop in audience from the first game to the second was when the delayed game featured a QLD team.

What effect will the cc bears have on the ratings?

 

[flippikat]

From a biased Roosters supporter I can see far more benefits than disadvantages. The way of the future is strong clubs with a strong member base and a good junior base. And the way of the future in my opinion is less clubs in Sydney covering wider areas with stronger member bases.

I've just got to say that this is a refreshing post to see.. I've got a feeling that the Tigers especially have shown how a joint venture can enhance both partners' standing in the competition.

 

[bobmar28]

it means the population isn't spread out. The main hubs of Brisbane, gold coast are saturated and have teams. Ipswich and swqld has a small population with a lack of infrastructure. This bid is Ipswich not se or swqld so immediately they are concentrating on their hub. Therefore counting Logan, toowoomba etc means squat. Like I said if the bid was for se or sw qld then they'd be good eventually. But it's not it's Ipswich for Ipswich by Ipswich.

Anyone that's lived in Ipswich will tell you what a nightmare it can be travelling into Brisbane and vise verser. This bid is good in 15 years.

The cc and ns have the population now that Ipswich is projected to get. We have the resources now and te funds now. Our bid goes in next year and that's always been the case. For every moment that passes other bids strengthen their bid but it's foolish to assume we aren't also. We have a huge head start and plan on keeping that lead until the end. All these reason why we shouldn't have a team is good. It makes us see what else we need to do to make out bid water tight, rock solid. I should actually thank you bobmar because you are helping us without realizing it.

Ipswich is SW QLD? Based on that logic Campbelltown is in western NSW.

If my comments help the Bears then so be it. Wiser heads than mine will decide where the new teams go. i just think it has to be WA and QLD.

 

[bobmar28]

My bold, i asked the age question because you must have been out of the country otherwise, not to know.

But it was never going too!, it was cobbled together literally in weeks by Judas few, 'leading' a team shown the door but who had done the hard yards re expansion and a team that had just made the so called criteria and who needed the JV cash to survive short term and who never had any intention of sticking with the JV when they got more financial.

The rivalry between the NS and MW is the most intense in the game precisely because we sucked and they didn't, because some of our players saw greener fields, because arko had rep honours to hand out, because they won stuff and we didn't. Did they 'JV' Wests with Canterbury, Penrith with Parra [because both of those two teams share a geography? and nothing else]. You seem to have no idea of the viseral loathing Norths fans have for the [more sucessful] neighbour that we supported braking away from our area in 1946. That the JV was pushed by that maggot Beattie was an affront to 50 plus years of angst and fundamentally misunderstood a culture that he should of known as a given.

I'm looking at your situation from Liverpool. I don't think there will be room for both the Bears and Sea Eagles in the northern suburbs in the future. It just isn't rugby league heartland.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

What a crock and you know it. Of course a team from QLD is going to benefit the game more than a team from cc. You just have to look at FNF ratings...

Week 1 live syd 526,000 (st merge vs parra) Bris 358,000 (bronx vs cows)
delayed syd 317,000 (40% drop) QLD 136,000 (62% drop)
Week 2 live syd 432,000 (st merge vs dogs) bris 269,000 (tits vs rabbits)
delayed syd 266,000 (40% drop) bris 135,000 (50% drop)
Week 3 live syd 399,000 (tigpies vs parra) bris 254,000 (st merge vs cows)
delayed syd 313,000 (20% drop) bris 140,000 (45% drop)
Week 5 live syd 422,000 (st merge vs bronx) bris 281,000 (st merge vs bronx)
delayed syd 247,000 (40% drop) (tits vs storm) bris 170,000 (40% drop) (tits vs storm)
Week 6 live syd 408,000 (tigpies vs dogs) bris 261,000 (tits vs st merge)
delayed syd 282,000 (30% drop) bris 130,000 (50% drop)

So as you can see adding another NSW team won't have any effect on the tv ratings. NSW is spoiled for choice. Up until week 6 brisbane's smallest drop in audience from the first game to the second was when the delayed game featured a QLD team.

What effect will the cc bears have on the ratings?

So you use these numbers but they clearly indicate Brisbane gets less viewers for the live game and a bigger drop off than Sydney for the delayed game... Plus as good as these numbers are do they represent country or regional areas like the CC?

Ipswich is SW QLD? Based on that logic Campbelltown is in western NSW.

If my comments help the Bears then so be it. Wiser heads than mine will decide where the new teams go. i just think it has to be WA and QLD.

I never said Ipswich was SW QLD.. I said the team represents Ipswich and not SE QLD or SW QLD.. which clearly breaks away any potential fan base that could be in the SE or SW corridors because they are Ipswich alone. Therefore counting Brisbane populations means squat because they aren't here to represent Brisbane or SE or SW QLD.. they are here to represent the smallish population of Ipswich and Ipswich alone. Re-read it mate.

 

[Quidgybo]

So you use these numbers but they clearly indicate Brisbane gets less viewers for the live game and a bigger drop off than Sydney for the delayed game...

Perhaps they have a bigger drop off because the second match in Queensland is less likely to involve a Queensland team than the second match in NSW is likely to involve a NSW team.

After all, NSW has more than half the teams in the comp (10 out of 16 teams). So even if the first game involves two NSW teams, it's still more likely that one of the teams in the second match will also be from NSW (8 out of the other 14 teams) than not from NSW.

Queensland teams make up less than one fifth of the teams in the comp (3 out of 16 teams). If the first game involves one Queensland team, it's only a one in seven chance that the second match will also involve a Queensland team (2 out of the other 14 teams). That'd work out to about three or four weeks per season.

One way to raise the ratings for the second match in Queensland would be to bring in another Queensland based team. This would increase the chances that the second match will also involve a Queensland team.

Leigh

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Perhaps they have a bigger drop off because the second match in Queensland is less likely to involve a Queensland team than the second match in NSW is likely to involve a NSW team.

After all, NSW has more than half the teams in the comp (10 out of 16 teams). So even if the first game involves two NSW teams, it's still more likely that one of the teams in the second match will also be from NSW (8 out of the other 14 teams) than not from NSW.

Queensland teams make up less than one fifth of the teams in the comp (3 out of 16 teams). If the first game involves one Queensland team, it's only a one in seven chance that the second match will also involve a Queensland team (2 out of the other 14 teams). That'd work out to about three or four weeks per season.

One way to raise the ratings for the second match in Queensland would be to bring in another Queensland based team. This would increase the chances that the second match will also involve a Queensland team.

Leigh

That's just bullocks because every team has its fair share of support in QLD. Next time when the Broncos play, look at the crowd and you will see that almost half the fans are from the away team

Adding a QLD team might get more viewers in the short term but in the long run, due to CC's superior population you will find the numbers are similar if not better on the CC than Ipswich.

If the bid was SE or SW qld i'd say they would have a great shot.But they're not, they've isolated themselves to Ipswich and whats funny is even the locals of Ipswich aren't confident in a team and most could care less. It's only outsiders that believe they know whats best for them. I suggest these people go live in Ipswich for 3 months then come back to reality.

And I'm a proud Ipswich Jets Q-Cup member and occasionally still visit the club house for a lunch when I'm in the area. Truth is CQLD has more of a chance then Ipswich and even then they seriously lack infrastructure and resources (and i'm sure the almost broke QLD Labor Gov will help them out.... not).

 

[Quidgybo]

Adding a QLD team might get more viewers in the short term but in the long run, due to CC's superior population you will find the numbers are similar if not better on the CC than Ipswich.

I didn't say anything about Ipswich, I said another Queensland team. The powers that be can place it wherever in Queensland it will do better for support and ratings than the CC in the long term.

Leigh.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

I didn't say anything about Ipswich, I said another Queensland team. The powers that be can place it wherever in Queensland it will do better for support and ratings than the CC in the long term.

Leigh.

I know you didn't that's why I mentioned Central QLD. Mate I'd honestly love to see Ipswich, Central Qld and Sunnyshine Coast all have an NRL team one day. But these areas are struggling to cope with the basic necessities of infrastructure and their bids lack a sound business plan.

While one is predominately backed by the Mining Sector, the other lacks any corporate support thus far. They have to make sure their financial sustainability isn't just based on a one dimensional financial model. There needs to be more community involvement a'la Gold Coast Titans. The NRL have pushed for this and a range of revenue streams both for themselves and the NRL.

Everyone provides TV money because of the extra game but then do you go for a team which might bring you slightly more TV revenue but it'll cost alot more to start up? I think the CCBears is a win win. It'll bring in more viewers on the back of the CC & Bears brand and it'll require no costs to the NRL to start up.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

The next Central Coast Bears membership drives are @
BEST & LESS MEMBERSHIP DRIVE
WHEN:Thursday 9th December, 5pm-8pm
WHERE: Best & Less, Erina Fair Shopping Centre
PRIZE: Go in the draw to win an XBOX 360

WESTFIELD TUGGERAH - MEMBERSHIP DRIVE
WHEN: Saturday 11th December, 9am - 5pm
WHERE: Rebel Sport, Westfield Tuggerah
DEAL: 10% off all Rebel sport merchandise for members

CENTRAL COAST ZONE ATHLETICS
WHEN: Saturday 11th December, 9am - 5pm
WHERE: Mingara, Tumbi Umbi

 

[Quidgybo]

As I've said all along, I've got nothing against the Bears. I just don't think we should be introducing an 11th side in the corridor between Newcastle and Wollongong instead of one of the Reds, a fourth Queensland side, or a second New Zealand side. Rugby League needs those areas more than it needs another in NSW in my opinion.

Now at the moment it looks like the Bears are the most likely to get an expansion license. Good luck to them, it'll be good to have the Bears back and the Central Coast need a team. But my honest opinion is that team should come from the re-distribution of one of the 10 existing NSW licenses.

How that redistribution is achieved doesn't really matter to me. It could be from a relocation of an existing team instead of the Bears. It could be from the Bears buying an existing license, relocating it and renaming it. It could be from an existing team going bust and freeing a license. Or it could be from two teams merging and freeing up a license. As far I'm concerned, how the redistribution is achieved is for the powers that be in NSW to decide.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

As I've said all along, I've got nothing against the Bears. I just don't think we should be introducing an 11th side in the corridor between Newcastle and Wollongong instead of one of the Reds, a fourth Queensland side, or a second New Zealand side. Rugby League needs those areas more than it needs another in NSW in my opinion.

Now at the moment it looks like the Bears are the most likely to get an expansion license. Good luck to them, it'll be good to have the Bears back and the Central Coast need a team. But my honest opinion is that team should come from the re-distribution of one of the 10 existing NSW licenses.

How that redistribution is achieved doesn't really matter to me. It could be from a relocation of an existing team instead of the Bears. It could be from the Bears buying an existing license, relocating it and renaming it. It could be from an existing team going bust and freeing a license. Or it could be from two teams merging and freeing up a license. As far I'm concerned, how the redistribution is achieved is for the powers that be in NSW to decide.

Leigh

Spot on Quidgybo. And this is the only issue holding back the Bears, but it is a HUGE one, which is why they shouldn't be granted a licence until such time as:

1. A NSW NRL licence becomes available due to a current Sydney club folding or merging

2. A NSW NRL club relocating interstate (which should be the only option provided for relocation by the NRL, leaving the CC permanently locked in for the Bears)

In all other circumstances, bringing in the Bears would be jumping the gun.

 

[chefman21]

In my opinion, 2015 we should see two new Queensland clubs then in 2018 two Sydney teams should merge, one relocates to Adelaide and another Queensland club joins. By 2030 I'd like to have seen

• Four Sydney clubs to have merged or relocated interstate. Less clubs who are much stronger is the way to go in my opinion.

• Another three Queensland clubs from the ones we currently have

• PNG and a second NZ team

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Spot on Quidgybo. And this is the only issue holding back the Bears, but it is a HUGE one, which is why they shouldn't be granted a licence until such time as:

1. A NSW NRL licence becomes available due to a current Sydney club folding or merging

2. A NSW NRL club relocating interstate (which should be the only option provided for relocation by the NRL, leaving the CC permanently locked in for the Bears)

In all other circumstances, bringing in the Bears would be jumping the gun.

No.
This debate was run for years and the decision was made in the 90's.
The Bears were "told' to relocate - the stadium was built in Gosford with Bears part funding.

If another club is to fold, then it should find its own plan to survive. asking the Central Coast Bears to wait on the death of another - then take them over - is a joke.

 

[chefman21]

Clubs folding should be avoided at all costs. Merge, relocate, consolidate - whatever you can do to have strong clubs.

 

[Goddo]

No.
This debate was run for years and the decision was made in the 90's.
The Bears were "told' to relocate - the stadium was built in Gosford with Bears part funding.

If another club is to fold, then it should find its own plan to survive. asking the Central Coast Bears to wait on the death of another - then take them over - is a joke.

Your response is "no". Thats weak

Its not a debate: the NRL is a business, not a charity. It has to protect its current business first and foremost, and if the Bears don't help its current value and product, no matter how good the Bears are as a business themselves, they will just have to wait for an oportunity.

You may not like it, but thats the situation. The NRL must make its current clubs and structure work, and make expansion decissions based on improving the NRL as a whole.

It has been going since 1983 when Newtown got the boot: there are too many Sydney clubs for the NRL to continue revenue growth and competition stability. Any changes to the structure of the game in NSW have to be made with this in mind.

 

[Goddo]

Clubs folding should be avoided at all costs. Merge, relocate, consolidate - whatever you can do to have strong clubs.

Exactly, we need to build strong stable secure clubs that will last.
Interstate teams are underpinned by the strength of what they bring to the TV rights as a national competition. This mitigates the any potential costs or risk, especially with the proposed changes to the Anti Siphoning Laws.

The strong Sydney clubs underpin the overall value of the game as the very foundation of the competition. The problem is the shaky Sydney clubs. Adding the Bears may destablise the already over saturated NSW market.

The Bears may be a strong stable club, but the effect of adding them does not reinforce the existing clubs.

 

[chefman21]

If you look at the EPL, there are just 5 clubs representing London. That's in a city bigger than Sydney. And they all have countless members and supporters. The NFL has just one club per city. The NHL is the same as is MLB. You don't need a lot of clubs in one city to have strong, well supported clubs and a strong competition. On field may be a different matter, and there are obvious exceptions to the rule. Less clubs is the way to go. Given the size of our population I think that is even more so.

 

[BunniesMan]

Your response is "no". Thats weak

Its not a debate: the NRL is a business, not a charity. It has to protect its current business first and foremost, and if the Bears don't help its current value and product, no matter how good the Bears are as a business themselves, they will just have to wait for an oportunity.

You may not like it, but thats the situation. The NRL must make its current clubs and structure work, and make expansion decissions based on improving the NRL as a whole.

It has been going since 1983 when Newtown got the boot: there are too many Sydney clubs for the NRL to continue revenue growth and competition stability. Any changes to the structure of the game in NSW have to be made with this in mind.

You kill your own argument here mate. I agree with the point I've highlighted in bold but then you complely f**k up your point with the rest of your argument.

The NRL is a business, not a charity and it should act that way. No business would keep out a strong, stable and healthy club like the Bears just to keep some clubs on life support.

 

[Timmah]

I'm still miffed as to how the Central Coast Bears are a Sydney club, playing 11 home games at Gosford.