Daily Telegraph Article Today - Gallop For Expansion

[Quidgybo]

Central Coast and Qld being the two "safe" options, I think CC is more likely in 2013 as it has the stadium, sponsors et cetera ready to go, and the NRL is a bit cash strapped right now and will probably be looking for an easy option.

The game earns the vast majority of its income from television so if it is about being cash strapped then the "safe" options are the two locations that add the most value to our television contract (over and above just the value of one extra match per round). New Zealand is the game's third biggest market and already provides 1/6th of the game's television revenue even though it only hosts 1/16th of the team. For that support we currently provide NZ television one game involving a local team every week and only one game in New Zealand primetime every fortnight (if that). How much more would this television market pay if we could provide two matches every weekend involving local teams, one of those guaranteed to be in local primetime, and two blockbuster local derbys each season? If it's significantly more than what television would pay for an 11th team between Newcastle and Wollongong then that's the "safe" option, not the Central Coast.

Perth and Wellington being the "risky" options, Perth offers more in terms of advertising and pay TV value within Australia as it is "virgin" land for an NRL side, and has most of the structure already in place, especially with ME Stadium upgrade for the Glory and Force due to be finished by 2013...

If a southern New Zealand team based in Wellington, playing 8 home games there and 4 in Christchurch, were brought in then it'd have a catchment of nearly 1 million people. And in terms of infrastructure it'd have not one, but two home stadiums with capacity over 30,000 all seated. I'm not suggesting another NZ team at Perth's expense but just pointing out that New Zealand isn't exactly struggling in terms of "rugby" infrastructure and advertising value for television.

Leigh.

 

[jargan83]

especially with ME Stadium upgrade for the Glory and Force due to be finished by 2013...

If the WA State Government and Town of Vincent pull their heads out of their arses

The new $82.5 million eastern stand at Perth's rectangular stadium may be built without corporate boxes, limiting the capacity of the cash-strapped Western Force rugby team to maximise revenue.
The State Government is mired in protracted negotiations with the Town of Vincent over a long-term lease for nib Stadium in East Perth, with price and management structure the sticking points.
It is understood the council is seeking at least $200,000 from the Government in return for handing over control of the venue.
Negotiations have been complicated by Vincent having contracted the day-to-day management of nib Stadium to Nick Tana's company, Allia Venue Management. That deal has 13 years to run. The West Australian understands the Department of Sport and Recreation would prefer the venue to come under the umbrella of VenuesWest, which manages State sporting facilities, including Kwinana Motorplex, Challenge Stadium and the new athletics and basketball stadiums in Mt Claremont.
The Government included $82.5 million in the May Budget to build the eastern stand but it wants to control the process, including the design.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/7566718/stadium-impasse-may-risk-revenue/

 

[Goddo]

The game earns the vast majority of its income from television so if it is about being cash strapped then the "safe" options are the two locations that add the most value to our television contract (over and above just the value of one extra match per round).

No sh!t sherlock... I think QLD, Perth and NZ longer term (10+ years) offer far greater riches, but short term (<10 years) CC and QLD4 would. I know you really don't want another NSW team, but its going to happen because short term its needed. The price of this will probably be the relocation/folding of Cronulla and Manly, or maybe some other Sydney side (probably to Qld or Adelaide) in the next 15 years (when the game will probably be healthier fiancially).

Is this a smart way to do business? No, not really. But we don't have an established Independent Commission, we don't have a reserve of money, or wealthy benefactors lining up. We may like to have Perth and Wellington as they are the better prospects, but it isn't workable to do both in 2013.

New Zealand is the game's third biggest market and already provides 1/6th of the game's television revenue even though it only hosts 1/16th of the team. For that support we currently provide NZ television one game involving a local team every week and only one game in New Zealand primetime every fortnight (if that). How much more would this television market pay if we could provide two matches every weekend involving local teams, one of those guaranteed to be in local primetime, and two blockbuster local derbys each season? If it's significantly more than what television would pay for an 11th team between Newcastle and Wollongong then that's the "safe" option, not the Central Coast.

I disagree. New Zealand can and should support another side but in terms of TV revenue it would be pretty much 1/6 revenue with 2/18 teams if we expand there. You over estimate the tv value of a second kiwi side. People who like league are already watching. A second side is as much consolidation as it is slower long term growth chipping away at Union.

Compare that to the prospect of a Perth side in "virgin" land. I also think the NRL would like to establish a team in an AFL state to fight back a bit at AFL/Union/Soccer expansion, so Perth is more a priority than NZ.

If a southern New Zealand team based in Wellington, playing 8 home games there and 4 in Christchurch, were brought in then it'd have a catchment of nearly 1 million people. And in terms of infrastructure it'd have not one, but two home stadiums with capacity over 30,000 all seated. I'm not suggesting another NZ team at Perth's expense but just pointing out that New Zealand isn't exactly struggling in terms of "rugby" infrastructure and advertising value for television.

How many people live in North Sydney - Central Coast regions? well over 1.2m... How many in Perth? SE QLD? My point is they are all equally valid on the "population" argument.

Look at population growth in NZ and its a different story... Auckland is tipped to make up around 65% of NZ's pop by 2050. Makes as much sense bringing in a North Harbour side as Wellington...

The NRL like the organic bids, they don't have to do anything or spend any money and the risk is already reduced. The way I see it panning out:

2013 - CC and Perth admitted
2018 TV deal - probable relocation of a Sydney side to NZ, Qld or SA.
2023 TV deal - Wellington and a SE Qld side admitted

 

[Quidgybo]

No sh!t sherlock... I think QLD, Perth and NZ longer term (10+ years) offer far greater riches, but short term (<10 years) CC and QLD4 would.

Sorry, I think I missed the explanation. I still don't understand your logic that the CC, in a Rugby League aware region already surrounded by 10 existing teams, increases our TV deal by more than a team in a Rugby League aware region that hasn't got any existing side based within 600km of it - short term or any other term.

Is this a smart way to do business? No, not really. But we don't have an established Independent Commission, we don't have a reserve of money, or wealthy benefactors lining up. We may like to have Perth and Wellington as they are the better prospects, but it isn't workable to do both in 2013.

If television pays more for that combination of new teams than any other, why wouldn't it be workable? Surely the most workable or "safe" options are the teams, regardless of location, that provide the greatest financial cushion against something going wrong.

People who like league are already watching A second side is as much consolidation as it is slower long term growth chipping away at Union.

Ummm, that argument applies more to the Central Coast than any other area we're talking about here. If I'm a League aware potential viewer on the CC I already have a choice of 10 teams based within 130km which I could follow. If I'm a League aware potential viewer in NZ, I have one choice within my entire country. If I don't like them or they're not playing well (as usual), then I'm a lost viewer. Adding more sides is a decreasing return as the number of available existing options increases. If a 2nd NZ side is consolidation then what does that make an 11th side in a 200km corridor that already has 10 sides?

Compare that to the prospect of a Perth side in "virgin" land. I also think the NRL would like to establish a team in an AFL state to fight back a bit at AFL/Union/Soccer expansion, so Perth is more a priority than NZ.

I'm not arguing Perth vs NZ. I'm arguing Perth, 2nd NZ and 4th Queensland over an 11th team between Newcastle and Wollongong. I think any combination of those three would provide an immediate increase to the value of television contract significantly in excess of anything that an 11th NSW team would provide. In terms of monetary returns the "safe" options in my book are 4th Qld and 2nd NZ because those are the two big under served Rugby League aware television markets. Perth is the more long term visionary option. It'll pay less than Qld and NZ in the short term because it's an AFL following frontier market but it'll more than pay for itself in the long term because it signifcantly spreads the game's reach. Central Coast needs a team and deserves a team but it doesn't offer enough boost to the game in its own right either financially or in expanding the games reach to justify burning an expansion license. It should be served through relocation from the existing pool of NSW licenses.

Leigh.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Yes and look what happened 2 years later

The war was going to happen reguardless of the expansion, not because of it.

If the war didnt happen, its very possible that all 4 of those clubs could have survived because the ARL would have the money to fund them. Instead, they had to upgrade player contracts to keep them in the game.

 

[dimitri]

The war was going to happen reguardless of the expansion, not because of it.

If the war didnt happen, its very possible that all 4 of those clubs could have survived because the ARL would have the money to fund them. Instead, they had to upgrade player contracts to keep them in the game.

true!

it was a crazy crazy time.

At one stage it looked like there were going to be 2 Melbourne teams in 1997, because the VRL was signing with ARL but SL desperately wanted to sign with them and set up a team there.

Once VRL signed with ARL, the process slowed, SARL signed with SL which fast-tracked adelaide..


Crazy times, where decisions werent really thought through.

Has no bearing on current situation.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I agree that we will probably see QLD4, CC, Perth and Wellington over the next 15 years in the NRL, and a PNG side in the QLD Cup. My money is on the NRL going one "risky" option in 2013 and another "safe" option to mitigate the risk, then expect a second expansion 2 tv deals later (2024 ish?).

Central Coast and Qld being the two "safe" options, I think CC is more likely in 2013 as it has the stadium, sponsors et cetera ready to go, and the NRL is a bit cash strapped right now and will probably be looking for an easy option. It is also an oportunity to put some of the ghosts of Super League to bed, and it consolidates a huge region with a lot of people and businesses.

Only problem is that it does nothing to help with the over crowded situation in Sydney. I get the feeling the NRL wants the Titans to get a little more settled too before going into QLD again. Also, it gives some regional centers in QLD that are growing very fast a bit more time to increase their population. I have no doubt Sunshine Coast or Logan will have the population in 10 years time, just need a stadium from the state government.

Perth and Wellington being the "risky" options, Perth offers more in terms of advertising and pay TV value within Australia as it is "virgin" land for an NRL side, and has most of the structure already in place, especially with ME Stadium upgrade for the Glory and Force due to be finished by 2013...

Why is Sydney overcrowded? The average crowd in Sydney is basically the same as the out of Sydney average which is bumped up by the Broncos. Sydney is the foundation the game is built on, we attempted to mess with this once before and look what happened.

Sydney average - 15,809

Out of Sydney - 16,406

Out of Sydney (minus Broncos home games) - 14,218

 

[winnyason]

Well if the get the tv money which i say they will given that the nrl, SOO and four nations will be sold seperately with 9 and 7 may share rights, than 2 sides will go in.
A 2nd kiwi team would be a shoe in IF someone could get an investor, but with the kiwi gov about to get into a sh*tload of debt with the union world cup along with giving soccer a sh*t load of cash much like Soccer here got when they had the honeymoon over the world cup. So in realty unless a private money man comes along a 2nd kiwi side won't happen, hell png has gov backing but the wellington bid does seem dead in the water.

So given gallop statements it seems a shoe in that given they would want a extra game than the Central Coast and Perth would be given entry.
Perth has alot going for it massive enconomy with mining and place is full of expat nsw and qlders.

But it has to be said just say we expand to CC, Perth and Gold coast is it expansion or simply fixing the stuff up wow what is next a South east qld team just like the crushers so it won't be until the 2nd kiwi team until real expansion is reached again, to me superleague has taken 20 years to repair.

 

[sharko]

New Zealand cannot add a second rugby league team, there is not the fan support, the corporate support or the administration to run it properly.
Adding a second team would offer no extra money for the tv deal, it would offer no extra viewers as they are currently watching the game as it is.

The north of Sydney and the Central Coast are deprived of rugby league, Manly are in the peninsula area and offer nothing the north of Sydney or the Centra Coast.

The only thing that will keep a team out of the Central Coast will be politics, the other clubs will put themselves above the good of the game.

 

[Smiley]

Ipswich 'vital to NRL future'

AN NRL team must be placed in the Ipswich corridor to help secure the future of rugby league, NRL chief executive David Gallop has claimed.

Gallop told The Queensland Times that the thriving region west of Brisbane was ripe for a team when the game next expanded, likely to be in 2013.

“For the strength of the game we need a team in that Ipswich area west of Brisbane,” Gallop said.

“The corridor around Ipswich is the fastest growing region in Australia and we need to be a part of it. We need two teams in Brisbane and having a presence in the Ipswich region is a must for our game’s future.”

Ipswich’s population is 170,000 but government forecasts state it will explode to more than 400,000 in the next two decades, providing a huge potential pool of footy-loving families.

Gallop said he had visited Ipswich twice in the past two years to explore its potential as an expansion site.

“I’ve spoken to Mayor Paul Pisasale a few times about the prospect of a team and I’ve met with Ipswich Jets officials as well,” Gallop said.

Adding weight to Gallop’s claims is the explosion in Ipswich’s junior league numbers.

The region eclipsed 2500 registered juniors this year.

In 12 months’ time NRL officials will formally decide on whether a new team should be introduced in time for the new 2013 television rights deal.

Those rights are expected to be worth more than $1 billion, providing the game’s hierarchy with cash to assist expansion.

Gallop said Ipswich, Perth and the NSW Central Coast were the three top contenders to house the next team, but stressed that Ipswich would eventually be home to its own club.

The Brisbane Broncos’ outgoing CEO, Bruno Cullen, said if there was to be a third NRL team in south-east Queensland, it should be in Ipswich.

Cullen said an Ipswich team would need its own stadium as Suncorp Stadium was already close to booked out during winter.

“There were more than 40 games of football in different codes played at Suncorp last year and getting an extra 12 games in would be difficult,” he said.

“Personally I would favour having a team in Perth, but as far as south-east Queensland goes the western corridor would work.

“It would not be easy to set a team up there but it I think it would work.”

Mayor Pisasale said he believed the team should be named the Western Jets.

Cr Pisasale said a stadium did not need to be built immediately to cater for the team.

“The team could play out of Suncorp Stadium. In Sydney many teams play out of Homebush and their fans travel from their home suburbs for it,” Pisasale said.

“With all the population coming to Springfield and the new rail line coming in it would not be difficult for fans to get to Suncorp.”

The NRL would want any Ipswich team to draw strong support from Springfield and the growing suburb of Richlands.

Mayor Pisasale added: “I have a lot of respect for David Gallop, he’s a smart man. He knows you have to go where the fish are to get a bite and the fish are in the western corridor.”

http://www.qt.com.au/story/2010/07/14/ipswich-vital-to-nrl-future/

So Suncorp is full from 12 Broncos games and 6-7 Reds games?

Once the Springfield rail line is complete, I see no reason why they couldn't play their games at Suncorp and get good crowds.

Although I'd still like it to be an Logan/Ipswich.

 

[winnyason]

New Zealand cannot add a second rugby league team, there is not the fan support, the corporate support or the administration to run it properly.
Adding a second team would offer no extra money for the tv deal, it would offer no extra viewers as they are currently watching the game as it is.

The north of Sydney and the Central Coast are deprived of rugby league, Manly are in the peninsula area and offer nothing the north of Sydney or the Centra Coast.

The only thing that will keep a team out of the Central Coast will be politics, the other clubs will put themselves above the good of the game

You are serious really do you pay attention to nrl games, 20000 people in christchurch in 2 degree freezing watched the roosters v warriors every time wellington gets a game 20 thousand turn up waikato got 17 thousand when the warriors played there last year.
The warriors sky tv deal generates about 100 million dollars you fool a 2nd team would do the same, really look at the woeful crowds at bluetongue of late, or let's blow in our pants over 2 decent crowds at perth when the other kiwi cities outside auclkand have been doing it for a long time. Please do you have any idea.

 

[sharko]

There are not sufficient quality league players in NZ for a second team, if the Warriors crowds are not adequate in Auckland, and the Warriors fans are fair weather supporters then relocate them down south to Wellington or Christchurch...the Warriors need a multi millionaire to keep them afloat, you will not find a second one in NZ to prop up a second Kiwi team, they have all gone bust!

 

[babyg]

You are serious really do you pay attention to nrl games, 20000 people in christchurch in 2 degree freezing watched the roosters v warriors every time wellington gets a game 20 thousand turn up waikato got 17 thousand when the warriors played there last year.
The warriors sky tv deal generates about 100 million dollars you fool a 2nd team would do the same, really look at the woeful crowds at bluetongue of late, or let's blow in our pants over 2 decent crowds at perth when the other kiwi cities outside auclkand have been doing it for a long time. Please do you have any idea.

I agree with you, though I think Perth is also important to grow the market, an important long term market. A second NZ would would tick more boxes at present, particular when it comes to player pathways.

 

[Te Kaha]

You are serious really do you pay attention to nrl games, 20000 people in christchurch in 2 degree freezing watched the roosters v warriors every time wellington gets a game 20 thousand turn up waikato got 17 thousand when the warriors played there last year.
The warriors sky tv deal generates about 100 million dollars you fool a 2nd team would do the same, really look at the woeful crowds at bluetongue of late, or let's blow in our pants over 2 decent crowds at perth when the other kiwi cities outside auclkand have been doing it for a long time. Please do you have any idea.

Did you pull that 100 million figure out of your arse? last deal had SKY TV paying 12 mill a year... that wont increase by much, if at all with the inclusion of a 2nd team... SKY doesnt have ANY real competition for sports rights as, outside rugby, there isnt a sure ratings winner... with SKYs penetration being over 50% in NZ homes now a second team is very unlikely to increase subscriptions by much and you have to remember... sky doesnt have to pay double for a second team... it only has to beat its nearest competitor.

 

[Te Kaha]

There are not sufficient quality league players in NZ for a second team, if the Warriors crowds are not adequate in Auckland, and the Warriors fans are fair weather supporters then relocate them down south to Wellington or Christchurch...the Warriors need a multi millionaire to keep them afloat, you will not find a second one in NZ to prop up a second Kiwi team, they have all gone bust!

There are more than enough first grade quality league players for a second team... the crowds MAY be an issue, but league fans are diehard and there are good size pokets of them in both Welly and chch... The lack of money is and always be the big issue, with the Belgium based english billionare pulling out there isnt a viable alternative .. for the moment at least.

 

[Quidgybo]

You don't need a billionaire to prop you up if you run the club at a profit. That's going to become a whole lot easier for everyone, new and existing teams, if we choose expansion locations that maximise the increase in our television contract. A $10m or $15m difference in our television contract, even a billion dollar contract, could be the difference between the competition becoming entirely self sufficient or clubs continuing to rely on the availability of Leagues Club grants, subsides provided by the accounting department of corporate owners, or the whim of rich tycoons and celebrities.

Leigh.

 

[winnyason]

It is perception the Wellington rugby league have put there hand up but don't have money men, and the kiwi government don't have money to support it,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/2328401/Hopes-raised-for-NRL-inclusion

 

[Quidgybo]

Did you pull that 100 million figure out of your arse? last deal had SKY TV paying 12 mill a year...

Australian television is paying $500m over 6 years in the current deal ($83.3m per year). According to Roy Masters, when New Zealand television is included, the NRL currently earns over $100m per year from television rights. That means the NZ rights are currently providing at least $16.6m per year and over the life of the current 6 year contract it is providing almost exactly $100m.

that wont increase by much, if at all with the inclusion of a 2nd team... SKY doesnt have ANY real competition for sports rights as, outside rugby, there isnt a sure ratings winner...

Ratings directly translate to monetary value. Provide matches that rate better and are played in better rating timeslots then the value of the rights inevitably increases. Provide two matches each week that involve New Zealand teams instead of one, provide a guaranteed match in NZ primetime every week that involves a local team instead of only once a fortnight (if that), and provide two blockbuster local derbys each season. All these things will increase ratings significantly in New Zealand, our third biggest Rugby League television market after Qld and NSW. Again, that will directly translate to an increase in the value of the rights.

Leigh.

 

[christopher]

So Suncorp is full from 12 Broncos games and 6-7 Reds games?

Once the Springfield rail line is complete, I see no reason why they couldn't play their games at Suncorp and get good crowds.

Although I'd still like it to be an Logan/Ipswich.

When the man behind the push for Ipswich is revealed things will get really interesting.

union tests, broncs games, reds games (expanded next year), roar games, qcup gf, socceroos games... there are a lot of games played there.

 

[Te Kaha]

It is perception the Wellington rugby league have put there hand up but don't have money men, and the kiwi government don't have money to support it,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/2328401/Hopes-raised-for-NRL-inclusion

Its not a case of DONT have the money to support it, its that they WONT... its not up to central govt to prop up a city team, that would be up to the city council... and they certainly dont have the money to supprt it.

Australian television is paying $500m over 6 years in the current deal ($83.3m per year). According to Roy Masters, when New Zealand television is included, the NRL currently earns over $100m per year from television rights. That means the NZ rights are currently providing at least $16.6m per year and over the life of the current 6 year contract it is providing almost exactly $100m.

then the 100 million is a rounded figure.. from memory sky anounced that they paid 12 million a year... however i cant find the article so i may be wrong.

Ratings directly translate to monetary value. Provide matches that rate better and are played in better rating timeslots then the value of the rights inevitably increases. Provide two matches each week that involve New Zealand teams instead of one, provide a guaranteed match in NZ primetime every week that involves a local team instead of only once a fortnight (if that), and provide two blockbuster local derbys each season. All these things will increase ratings significantly in New Zealand, our third biggest Rugby League television market after Qld and NSW. Again, that will directly translate to an increase in the value of the rights.

Leigh.

Thats simplistic at best... that may be true in Aussie, but there will only ever be one real bidder in NZ... whether its one team or two... no free to air channel will pay more than 12 MIL a year for rights when the warriors are pulling in less than 200K a game.