Easts Tigers Enter Expansion Race

[The Great Dane]

Stop blaming super league. Teams came out of the other side of that.

Firstly, to suggest that SL wasn't a major factor in the Crushers struggles is just plain stupid.

Secondly, not all the clubs that survived SL necessarily deserved too. The Chargers and Rams are the best examples, as both had money in bank when they were forced to fold, while other clubs that survived had huge debts yet were pushed through because of politics...

f**k Dolphins saw it's entire competition disintegrate & now it's more profitable than most NRL clubs.

The Dolphins aren't more profitable now because the BRL folded though are they.

They're more profitable now than they were then because they are legally allowed to enter the gaming industry now, through leagues clubs, where as they weren't during the BRL times until it was far to late to save the BRL.

Branding is super important. Have a stupid mascot or name & it hurts marketing opportunities. Magpies control wests but know value of tiger brand. Gold Coast wanted to be dolphins but fortunately the court told them to keep their hands off. Fact you have no value for this shows how little idea you have.

I understand branding perfectly fine.

What is or isn't a good brand is highly subjective, especially when it comes to a product like a sports team where customers create very strong emotional connections (often to the point of irrationality) to the brand.
Just take your example of magpies vs tigers; you say you prefer tigers, yet Collingwood are one of the largest football clubs in the country, so obviously magpies isn't that bad a brand and it can be more successful than tigers depending on the context.

All brands are also multifaceted, i.e. there's more to a brand and a company's, or in this case team's, image, than just the name and logo. So saying 'tigers' is a good brand is too simplistic on the face of it, because depending on the context, how the brand is formed and presented, and the audience they are targeting, anything can be successful or unsuccessful.

You also make the mistake that a lot of people make, particularly when it comes to sport, of assuming that because a brand, or a facet of said brand, is old that it is therefore successful or can't be improved on. Which isn't necessarily the case, especially when you are jury rigging it to fit a purpose it wasn't initially designed to achieve.

All of this is a massive red herring that I probably shouldn't have humoured though, and has absolutely nothing to do with your falsehoods about the Crushers and what they have to tell us about the Brisbane market.
I would however like to point out again that the Crushers brand was initially well received, and that attitudes to their branding only started to change after it became directly associated with the ARL (in a place and a time where that was a bad thing) and failure, and that similar shifts in attitude can happen to any brand, especially in the sport's industry where success is often driven by on field success.

 

[Pippen94]

Firstly, to suggest that SL wasn't a major factor in the Crushers struggles is just plain stupid.

Secondly, not all the clubs that survived SL necessarily deserved too. The Chargers and Rams are the best examples, as both had money in bank when they were forced to fold, while other clubs that survived had huge debts yet were pushed through because of politics...

The Dolphins aren't more profitable now because the BRL folded though are they.

They're more profitable now than they were then because they are legally allowed to enter the gaming industry now, through leagues clubs, where as they weren't during the BRL times until it was far to late to save the BRL.

I understand branding perfectly fine.

What is or isn't a good brand is highly subjective, especially when it comes to a product like a sports team where customers create very strong emotional connections (often to the point of irrationality) to the brand.
Just take your example of magpies vs tigers; you say you prefer tigers, yet Collingwood are one of the largest football clubs in the country, so obviously magpies isn't that bad a brand and it can be more successful than tigers depending on the context.

All brands are also multifaceted, i.e. there's more to a brand and a company's, or in this case team's, image, than just the name and logo. So saying 'tigers' is a good brand is too simplistic on the face of it, because depending on the context, how the brand is formed and presented, and the audience they are targeting, anything can be successful or unsuccessful.

You also make the mistake that a lot of people make, particularly when it comes to sport, of assuming that because a brand, or a facet of said brand, is old that it is therefore successful or can't be improved on. Which isn't necessarily the case, especially when you are jury rigging it to fit a purpose it wasn't initially designed to achieve.

All of this is a massive red herring that I probably shouldn't have humoured though, and has absolutely nothing to do with your falsehoods about the Crushers and what they have to tell us about the Brisbane market.
I would however like to point out again that the Crushers brand was initially well received, and that attitudes to their branding only started to change after it became directly associated with the ARL (in a place and a time where that was a bad thing) and failure, and that similar shifts in attitude can happen to any brand, especially in the sport's industry where success is often driven by on field success.

Firstly, to suggest that SL wasn't a major factor in the Crushers struggles is just plain stupid.

Secondly, not all the clubs that survived SL necessarily deserved too. The Chargers and Rams are the best examples, as both had money in bank when they were forced to fold, while other clubs that survived had huge debts yet were pushed through because of politics...

The Dolphins aren't more profitable now because the BRL folded though are they.

They're more profitable now than they were then because they are legally allowed to enter the gaming industry now, through leagues clubs, where as they weren't during the BRL times until it was far to late to save the BRL.

I understand branding perfectly fine.

What is or isn't a good brand is highly subjective, especially when it comes to a product like a sports team where customers create very strong emotional connections (often to the point of irrationality) to the brand.
Just take your example of magpies vs tigers; you say you prefer tigers, yet Collingwood are one of the largest football clubs in the country, so obviously magpies isn't that bad a brand and it can be more successful than tigers depending on the context.

All brands are also multifaceted, i.e. there's more to a brand and a company's, or in this case team's, image, than just the name and logo. So saying 'tigers' is a good brand is too simplistic on the face of it, because depending on the context, how the brand is formed and presented, and the audience they are targeting, anything can be successful or unsuccessful.

You also make the mistake that a lot of people make, particularly when it comes to sport, of assuming that because a brand, or a facet of said brand, is old that it is therefore successful or can't be improved on. Which isn't necessarily the case, especially when you are jury rigging it to fit a purpose it wasn't initially designed to achieve.

All of this is a massive red herring that I probably shouldn't have humoured though, and has absolutely nothing to do with your falsehoods about the Crushers and what they have to tell us about the Brisbane market.
I would however like to point out again that the Crushers brand was initially well received, and that attitudes to their branding only started to change after it became directly associated with the ARL (in a place and a time where that was a bad thing) and failure, and that similar shifts in attitude can happen to any brand, especially in the sport's industry where success is often driven by on field success.

In that wall of text you start by saying you appreciate branding, then you go on about how it's not important. I know you have a shallow view of american sporting leagues you propose, but all those names in the NFL etc have a meaning & connection to cities.
Wtf is a Firehawk & how does it relate to greater Brisbane & I guess now Rockhampton?! Just a manufactured entity typical of a plastic bid

 

[Perth Red]

In that wall of text you start by saying you appreciate branding, then you go on about how it's not important. I know you have a shallow view of american sporting leagues you propose, but all those names in the NFL etc have a meaning & connection to cities.
Wtf is a Firehawk & how does it relate to greater Brisbane & I guess now Rockhampton?! Just a manufactured entity typical of a plastic bid

not really, Carolina was called the panthers because the owners liked them and thought them sleek and powerful lol
the jets were called titans and changed names when they were bought out and chose jets merely because they played near the airport, titans named as the owners thought it sounded heroic, and so it goes on. At least firehawks are a native collection of raptors and have a long aboriginal connection which is a positive touch. They've been sung about for tens of thousands of years, surprised you haven't heard of them

 

[Pippen94]

not really, Carolina was called the panthers because the owners liked them and thought them sleek and powerful lol
the jets were called titans and changed names when they were bought out and chose jets merely because they played near the airport, titans named as the owners thought it sounded heroic, and so it goes on. At least firehawks are a native collection of raptors and have a long aboriginal connection which is a positive touch. They've been sung about for tens of thousands of years, surprised you haven't heard of them

Never heard of a Firehawk & imaginr most Brisbane ppl dont associate term with city. Panthers & Jets are infinitely better sporting team names

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Only this will do…

 

[The Great Dane]

In that wall of text you start by saying you appreciate branding, then you go on about how it's not important.

I said nothing of the sort.

Put very simply I said that branding is way more complex then you seem to think it is. But what would I know, I only worked in marketing for decades...

I know you have a shallow view of american sporting leagues you propose, but all those names in the NFL etc have a meaning & connection to cities.
Wtf is a Firehawk & how does it relate to greater Brisbane & I guess now Rockhampton?! Just a manufactured entity typical of a plastic bid

Just because you are ignorant of your own cultural and environmental history doesn't mean that the name doesn't have meaning.

Firehawks are a collection of native raptors, all of which are found in Brisbane, whom have only been confirmed to display firehawk behaviour (picking up burning debris and using it to spread fire fronts to flush out prey) across the northern parts of Australia.

I think that is significantly more relevant to Brisbane than Titans are to Tennessee, or Raiders to Oakland/LA/Las Vegas, Giants to New York, Lions to Detroit, etc, all of which were effectively pulled out of a hat because they sound cool... Not that there's anything wrong with picking a random, dare I say 'plastic', name just because it sounds cool BTW.

I also don't have a shallow view of American sporting leagues or their branding, a lot of it is utterly ingenious (the Baltimore Ravens' brand for example is genius on another level, there's really no equivalent in Australian sport), but why attack the argument when you can attack the man right.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I said nothing of the sort.

Put very simply I said that branding is way more complex then you seem to think it is. But what would I know, I only worked in marketing for decades...

Just because you are ignorant of your own cultural and environmental history doesn't mean that the name doesn't have meaning.

Firehawks are a collection of native raptors, all of which are found in Brisbane, whom have only been confirmed to display firehawk behaviour (picking up burning debris and using it to spread fire fronts to flush out prey) across the northern parts of Australia.

I think that is significantly more relevant to Brisbane than Titans are to Tennessee, or Raiders to Oakland/LA/Las Vegas, Giants to New York, Lions to Detroit, etc, all of which were effectively pulled out of a hat because they sound cool... Not that there's anything wrong with picking a random, dare I say 'plastic', name just because it sounds cool BTW.

I also don't have a shallow view of American sporting leagues or their branding, a lot of it is utterly ingenious (the Baltimore Ravens' brand for example is genius on another level, there's really no equivalent in Australian sport), but why attack the argument when you can attack the man right.

@I Bleed Maroon should like a team that's nicknamed after a bird that causes destruction in North Queensland. His club has been destroyed by North Queensland in finals games for years.

 

[Pippen94]

I said nothing of the sort.

Put very simply I said that branding is way more complex then you seem to think it is. But what would I know, I only worked in marketing for decades...

Just because you are ignorant of your own cultural and environmental history doesn't mean that the name doesn't have meaning.

Firehawks are a collection of native raptors, all of which are found in Brisbane, whom have only been confirmed to display firehawk behaviour (picking up burning debris and using it to spread fire fronts to flush out prey) across the northern parts of Australia.

I think that is significantly more relevant to Brisbane than Titans are to Tennessee, or Raiders to Oakland/LA/Las Vegas, Giants to New York, Lions to Detroit, etc, all of which were effectively pulled out of a hat because they sound cool... Not that there's anything wrong with picking a random, dare I say 'plastic', name just because it sounds cool BTW.

I also don't have a shallow view of American sporting leagues or their branding, a lot of it is utterly ingenious (the Baltimore Ravens' brand for example is genius on another level, there's really no equivalent in Australian sport), but why attack the argument when you can attack the man right.

So synonymous with Brisbane locals thought name was lifted from some north american ice hockey team. Smacks of something corporate types would choose which is point anyway. Plastic club.
I remember you advocating for team name "The Smith's". Maybe you worked too long or too long ago in marketing

 

[Vee]

At least firehawks are a native collection of raptors and have a long aboriginal connection which is a positive touch. They've been sung about for tens of thousands of years, surprised you haven't heard of them

I don't think anyone had heard of them before the announcement.

 

[MugaB]

I don't think anyone had heard of them before the announcement.

Yes its like, not only do you get to hear of a new team bid, you get a history lesson too

Its a bird that starts bushfires, and that's very aboriginal coz its been doing it here for a long time....
Please....fk off with your lesson

 

[Perth Red]

It’s unique, it’s got a local relevance and it’s native. Not sure what more you want from a logo? It’s better than bombers that’s for sure lol. End of day clubs dont rise and fall on their logo, they do so on the field and in the boardroom.

 

[Perth Red]

Brisbane Firehawks heavy hitter Shane Richardson has explained in depth how he helped sell the franchise to the NRL in their bid to become the competition’s 17th team.

The Firehawks, Redcliffe Dolphins, and Brisbane Jets all made presentations to NRL and Australian Rugby League Commission heavies on Monday, as the governing bodies mull who to hand a licence to.

If all goes to plan, the 17th team will begin competing in the NRL in season 2023 or 2024.

Richardson fronted NRL 360 on Monday night and was positive about his pitch to win the licence.
Here’s what he said about the franchise’s financial situation, the coaches they want to sign, and how he plans to build the NRL-ready roster.
When the NRL does hand a licence to a 17th team, the management will need to assemble a playing squad capable of competing in the world’s premier rugby league competition.

A number of top-tier NRL players have already been floated as potential targets.

But Richardson isn’t interested in splashing cash on established stars until he has laid the foundations of the roster.

“I’ve taken over clubs from the bottom of the ladder, from the top of the ladder, all my life, so it’s not unusual for me to come in,” he said.

“It’s unusual for me to come in when the finances behind it are as such with Brisbane (Firehawks), which are we’ve got $80 million in assets, $25 million in cash in the bank... so I’ve never been involved in a club like that.

“My way of putting a roster together (is) you don’t start at the top and work down, because then you get caught up and ripped off by different agents, to players and everything, because you go out there and put a pumpkin on the head of what’s required.

“Every team I’ve ever been involved with we’ve built from the ground up. All the sides that have played in grand finals, from Cronulla to Penrith and on to South, all played with a large amount of their juniors.

“We’ve got 20,000 participants in this area. If we’re not able to put together 75 per cent of this team by drawing on the current pathways... we are kidding ourselves.
Richardson says, quite simply, the NRL must expand into southern Queensland in order to stop the AFL encroaching on their territory.

“If we surrender to the AFL in the west and south of Queensland we are kidding ourselves,” he said.

“They are spending $60 million in the west of Ipswich, they’re setting up an amazing system, they are already in the schools out there... now is the time, if we don’t bite now and get involved heavily in this participation role, get into schools and get involved, we are going to miss the boat.”

Richardson was asked how the Firehawks stack up financially compared to other teams - existing and otherwise.

Financial stability and viability is said to be the biggest consideration for the NRL and ARLC in deciding which bid wins the licence.

“If you look at the current situation with the Broncos, we’ve got $25 million in the bank, they’ve got $16 million,” he said.
“They’ve got $64 million worth of unencumbered assets, we’ve got $80 million worth of unencumbered assets. We don’t have any debt, there’s no debt.

“So there’s no doubt we’ve got the financial backing... we’ve got a better financial backing than 90 per cent of the clubs in the competition.

“The point about financial backing is this - if you start off believing you’re going to organise yourself around the backing of a leagues club, you’re going to put a terrible plan together.

“What we’re trying to do is stand on our own two feet with a 20 to $30 million turnover, with new sponsors, new membership, and a new way of doing business.

“It’s nice knowing you’ve got the cushion there, but we’re not going in with that cushion.”

Revealed: The blueprint to build a $105m NRL giant... and the move that could bring it to its knees

The blueprint to build a $105m NRL giant... and the move that could bring it to its knees

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Pippen94]

It’s unique, it’s got a local relevance and it’s native. Not sure what more you want from a logo? It’s better than bombers that’s for sure lol. End of day clubs dont rise and fall on their logo, they do so on the field and in the boardroom.

Doesn't help with perception club is plastic entity

 

[The Great Dane]

So synonymous with Brisbane locals thought name was lifted from some north american ice hockey team. Smacks of something corporate types would choose which is point anyway. Plastic club.

So what! It doesn't change the fact that Firehawks are relevant to Brisbane, and Australia more generally.

People being ignorant of things is inevitable. Inform them then move the f**k on.

Though anybody who actually thought that it was a ripoff of the Atlanta Thrashers is a moron whom can't be saved.

I remember you advocating for team name "The Smith's". Maybe you worked too long or too long ago in marketing

You've misremembered. The only name for a Brisbane team that I've ever seriously 'advocated' for is Brisbane United.

Though I don't remember the post in question I'd bet you anything that this is you being ignorant of your own culture and history again.

The Bombers logo was Charles Kingsford Smith, who was a famous aviator from Brisbane, and I'd bet that I threw it out there that instead of the name Bombers, which everybody hated because it's the same as Essendon, that they could keep their branding (that's actually pretty cool) by trying something like the Cleveland Browns and name the team the Smiths, or something similar, after Kingsford Smith himself.

 

[The Great Dane]

Doesn't help with perception club is plastic entity

Every brand is 'plastic' until it's been around for a while and got some history behind it!

The whole 'plastic' shit is just stupid gatekeepers trying to prevent any change.

 

[Pippen94]

So what! It doesn't change the fact that Firehawks are relevant to Brisbane, and Australia more generally.

People being ignorant of things is inevitable. Inform them then move the f**k on.

Though anybody who actually thought that it was a ripoff of the Atlanta Thrashers is a moron whom can't be saved.

You've misremembered. The only name for a Brisbane team that I've ever seriously 'advocated' for is Brisbane United.

Though I don't remember the post in question I'd bet you anything that this is you being ignorant of your own culture and history again.

The Bombers logo was Charles Kingsford Smith, who was a famous aviator from Brisbane, and I'd bet that I threw it out there that instead of the name Bombers, which everybody hated because it's the same as Essendon, that they could keep their branding (that's actually pretty cool) by trying something like the Cleveland Browns and name the team the Smiths, or something similar, after Kingsford Smith himself.

Thanks for lecture on MY history & culture. In same vein states Smith's as possible name (again!). You know Australia is one of most diverse countries on earth?! Years in marketing - sure you aren't John Singleton?!

 

[Perth Red]

Doesn't help with perception club is plastic entity

I’d say thats your perception. The club is based on a historic heartland grass roots club, what’s plastic about that?

 

[Pippen94]

Every brand is 'plastic' until it's been around for a while and got some history behind it!

The whole 'plastic' shit is just stupid gatekeepers trying to prevent any change.

OK crushers, which disappeared never to be missed.

 

[Pippen94]

I’d say thats your perception. The club is based on a historic heartland grass roots club, what’s plastic about that?

I feel like I just go in circles with you guys. Dolphins representing area as only pro team there that has ever been is bad, but tigers targeting whole of Brisbane (& Rockhampton for some reason) won't alienate fans of all the other teams within that area?!!

I've stated why big is plastic many times - see old posts

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

“If you look at the current situation with the Broncos, we’ve got $25 million in the bank, they’ve got $16 million,” he said.
“They’ve got $64 million worth of unencumbered assets, we’ve got $80 million worth of unencumbered assets. We don’t have any debt, there’s no debt.

“So there’s no doubt we’ve got the financial backing... we’ve got a better financial backing than 90 per cent of the clubs in the competition." -- Shane Richardson

So the Easts Tigers and Redcliffe Dolphins are bigger and richer than the Broncos?

And the Broncos are bigger and richer than every Sydney club?

Well that settles it!

Bring in Easts Tigers and Redcliffe Dolphins. Piss half of Sydney's broke arse clubs back to the NSW Cup where they can field a team without relying on a grant from the ARLC.

If four Sydney clubs drop back to NSW Cup and Easts Tigers and Redcliffe Dolphins enter the competition, then adding Pirates and NZ 2 brings us to a 16 team competition. From there we can expand to an 18 team competition by adding Adelaide and NZ 3. There's even room to add PNG and Singapore to bring it up to 20. The four Sydney clubs that are relegated could put in a business plan to relocate to Adelaide and New Zealand to become NZ2 and NZ3. That would make the NRL the largest sporting competition in the southern hemisphere and help us create the revenue that's needed to fund junior development across Australia and New Zealand.