Expansion, Manly and the Coasts

[Miller was a legend]

We have money. We have fans. We're not going anywhere. Same with the Dogs/Eels/Tigers.

Geography doesn't matter. Spots on the map don't matter. Money and fans matter. The 4 biggest teams in Sydney (not counting the Dragons who are half outside of Sydney) have the two things that matter. They're not going anywhere.

While Nick is still going strong the Roosters won't leave Bondi. While bogan f**kwits out west keep pouring their lifesavings into pokies the Panthers aren't going anywhere.

That leaves Manly and Cronulla. I personally don't want any team to leave Sydney, local rivalries are what makes the game great. But if a team leaves it'll be one of those two. Depending on how (or if) the developments of Brookvale and Shark park go.

Adelaide Sharks. Sunshine Coast Sea Eagles. Perth Reds. Central Coast Bears. Brisbane Bombers. Wellington PurplemonkeyDishwashers. Bobs your uncle.

Well when both Manly and Cronulla are secure that leaves 5ouff$ for mine.
5ouff Oz bunnies has a ring to it, don't you think?

 

[Miller was a legend]

Geez all this back n forth about the Bears versus a Qld team.

Seal the deal, Ipswich Bears. That should solve it.

 

[flippikat]

Geez all this back n forth about the Bears versus a Qld team.

Seal the deal, Ipswich Bears. That should solve it.

Yep. Or West-Brisbane Bears, or South-Brisbane Bears, or South-east Qld Bears.

 

[Quidgybo]

Geez all this back n forth about the Bears versus a Qld team.

Seal the deal, Ipswich Bears. That should solve it.

Well given North Sydney Leagues joined with Seagulls Leagues back in the late 90s, I would have thought the obvious path to resurrect the Bears would have been to link up with the then fledgling Gold Coast NRL bid. Of course we all know that particular bid went on to get the nod for 2007 over the Bear aligned Central Coast bid. It would be a radically different situation today if we had five seasons of a reborn Gold Coast Bears with a couple finals appearances under their belts.

Leigh.

 

[Loudstrat]

The point is a QLD bid is a certainty for expansion.

Yeah? Which bid? The one with a stadium but no fans (Bombers), The one with no stadium and a handful of fans (CQ), or the one with no stadium, and no fans (Logswich)?

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

go the bombers

 

[dangerousdave]

Well given North Sydney Leagues joined with Seagulls Leagues back in the late 90s, I would have thought the obvious path to resurrect the Bears would have been to link up with the then fledgling Gold Coast NRL bid.

This would have been ideal

 

[woodyk2]

Cronulla moves first. No reason for Manly to go anywhere except possibly the central coast which i hope never happens.

 

[Perth Red]

Cronulla moves first. No reason for Manly to go anywhere except possibly the central coast which i hope never happens.

how do you see them becoming financially sustainable in the long term or do you think their private owners are going to be happy continuing to cover their losses?

 

[Stormarekings]

Yep. Or West-Brisbane Bears, or South-Brisbane Bears, or South-east Qld Bears.

Brisbane bears sounds familiar:?

 

[Quidgybo]

how do you see them becoming financially sustainable in the long term or do you think their private owners are going to be happy continuing to cover their losses?

I've made the point in a previous thread that a private owner is the most likely to move a club to a new market if he can get a better deal. There's a long history of this in American sport (the most famous probably being the Brooklyn Dodgers). A community or members owned club is hard to move because the members don't want to move it and will resist change even if it means the club dies in place. But if a rich owner (who probably got rich being ruthless in business) can't screw a new stadium out of the local government or finds the market too crowded/unprofitable, and he gets a better deal to move his franchise to somewhere else, then he'll take it.

If the Bears come in on the Central Coast and start squeezing Manly from both sides as the Dragons are doing to Cronulla, then don't be surprised if the private owners of that NRL franchise start thinking the Sunshine Coast or another location looks mighty attractive. Especially if the Commission pulls an AFL and convinces the Queensland government to offer them a shiny new Skilled Park style stadium to weigh up against the aging and long neglected Brookvale Oval. Money talks and business men, even in the business of football, don't like losing money when there's an opportunity to play the game while either losing a lot less or profiting a lot more.

Which brings us back to the question I started the thread with, what would it take to convince Manly to move?

Leigh

 

[Gmac]

I think there is going to be a lot of disapointed bears supporters in a few years..
There will be no Central coast bears.
Why expand into an area that is practically sydney when there are other areas that have NO team.
I hope to see a PNG team one day in the future. ( Thats a long way off though)
Im not so sure about QLD. How much does the NRL want to canabalise the Broncos brand? Brisbanbe Broncs are a gold mine for the NRL why would they want to ruin that?

 

[firechild]

Which brings us back to the question I started the thread with, what would it take to convince Manly to move?

The club's consitution does not allow the private owners to simply relocate the club. The ground, colours, etc are under the control of the football club which is controlled by the voting members. The football club and leagues club still hold numbers (3 between them) on the 7 person club board. I'm not sure how the systems work with regard to private ownership with Newcatle or Souths but perhaps Rusty or Tinkler have the power to relocate their clubs (not that they will) but that is not the case with Manly.

 

[Goddo]

I've made the point in a previous thread that a private owner is the most likely to move a club to a new market if he can get a better deal. There's a long history of this in American sport (the most famous probably being the Brooklyn Dodgers). A community or members owned club is hard to move because the members don't want to move it and will resist change even if it means the club dies in place. But if a rich owner (who probably got rich being ruthless in business) can't screw a new stadium out of the local government or finds the market too crowded/unprofitable, and he gets a better deal to move his franchise to somewhere else, then he'll take it.

If the Bears come in on the Central Coast and start squeezing Manly from both sides as the Dragons are doing to Cronulla, then don't be surprised if the private owners of that NRL franchise start thinking the Sunshine Coast or another location looks mighty attractive. Especially if the Commission pulls an AFL and convinces the Queensland government to offer them a shiny new Skilled Park style stadium to weigh up against the aging and long neglected Brookvale Oval. Money talks and business men, even in the business of football, don't like losing money when there's an opportunity to play the game while either losing a lot less or profiting a lot more.

Which brings us back to the question I started the thread with, what would it take to convince Manly to move?

Leigh

You seem to think the NRL needs to move Manly to Queensland accomodate the Bears.

This suggests you believe that Sydney can't sustain further clubs. It also suggests you understand that the Bears bid taking in a whole swath of Sydney from the North Shore to Gosford will marginalise Manly. You also understand that in terms of revenue for the game another NSW club would be a poor option.

Do you seriously think that an NRL independent commission, whos job is to promote and grow the game of Rugby League AND foster a strong stable national league would persue either pushing Manly out or add another Sydney club?

The simplest solution is usually the best. Expand in Queensland where the game needs another team, and leave NSW as is for the time being. If Cronulla were to run into trouble then you might look at Gosford. But there is no pressing need for another NSW licence.

Best chance at getting the Bears brand back into the game is if they team up with a bid interstate. I think if the Bears came to some sort of agreement with one of the South Queensland bids they would be certainties. As is they will be the bridesmaids again.

 

[Quidgybo]

The club's consitution does not allow the private owners to simply relocate the club. The ground, colours, etc are under the control of the football club which is controlled by the voting members. The football club and leagues club still hold numbers (3 between them) on the 7 person club board.

Well I did say in my opening post that I didn't think it could happen without a change of ownership. That seemed pretty unlikely but then less than a fortnight later this happened...

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...es-boardroom-war/story-fn2mcuj6-1226218735351

Things change. Who knows where the balance of power will be in another year if the Leagues club doesn't get its act together? At the end of the day what will ultimately matter is who ends up controlling the NRL license. If keeping the colours and name alive is made too hard for a private owner then they may be expendable for the right deal. That's not necessarily good for the game or the fans but it's part and parcel of private ownership. Again, American professional sport is replete with examples that illustrate this.

You seem to think the NRL needs to move Manly to Queensland accomodate the Bears.

This suggests you believe that Sydney can't sustain further clubs. It also suggests you understand that the Bears bid taking in a whole swath of Sydney from the North Shore to Gosford will marginalise Manly. You also understand that in terms of revenue for the game another NSW club would be a poor option.

Do you seriously think that an NRL independent commission, whos job is to promote and grow the game of Rugby League AND foster a strong stable national league would persue either pushing Manly out or add another Sydney club?

What I believe and what ideas I'm willing to entertain are two different things. And what I believe is certainly not a fixed dogma, it evolves and changes as I consider new events, new situations and new points of view. But let me say what I currently believe in regards to this whole situation.

I believe that re-admitting the Bears would be good for the game. I believe allowing any existing club to die or be relegated would be bad for the game. I believe that the competition can not keep adding additional franchises ad infinitum with a support base of under 30 million people and that we should seriously question the wisdom of "ever" expanding to 20 teams within the confines of that relatively small base. I believe that the game should not issue an 11th franchise in the corridor between Newcastle and Wollongong while other areas (Perth, Queensland and New Zealand) go without unless there is a guarantee one of those franchises will move.

I believe long term, as the cost of competing keeps increasing and the availability of franchises becomes a premium, that the area between the Harbour Bridge and Newcastle can only support and justify one franchise (not including Newcastle itself). I believe that in the absence of political considerations (such as marginal seats) no sane government minister or civil servant will accept that a major stadium should be developed in a location as inaccessible as Brookvale, especially after the last stadium the government built for us in this region was left without a team and remains under utilised.

I believe that the game needs additional Queensland content for television and that we need to provide that within the life of the next television deal. I believe that the obvious locations to base teams in Queensland with a view to long term growth and sustainability are north and west of Brisbane. And I believe that if the AFL Commission can convince governments to develop stadiums for a "foreign" sport on the Gold Coast and in west Sydney, then Rugby League's own Commission can do the same in a heartland state for a region without an existing facility.

Now consider what I've just written. I haven't said I want the Bears re-admitted as a Central Coast team and I haven't said I want Manly to move to Queensland. I'm happy for teams to determine their own destiny but I'm also happy for the Commission to work to influence those decisions by offering favourable terms and negotiating stadium deals that make relocation an attractive option.

If the current Bears bid is accepted then it'll be great for the old fans of the Bears and it'll be great for fans on the Central Coast. But I have no doubt that it will set off a chain of consequences that will lead to the death or relocation of one or more Sydney teams, and that Manly, surrounded in their northern beaches enclave, will be one of the most affected.

This whole thread has been about considering one possible way this situation could be molded by the Commission such that we end up with both the Bears and the Sea Eagles having long healthy futures as an integral part of the competition. There are other more likely scenarios for sure, but the most likely of those are either that the Bears are brought in and end up causing mortal damage to Manly like St George-Illawarra are doing to Cronulla, or that the Bears are left on the outside. I think either of those outcomes would actually be worse for the game in the long term than an outcome that guarantees the survival of both.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that the futures of Manly, the Bears and a team based on the Central Coast are inexorably intertwined.

Leigh.

 

[Easts R #1]

Manly and the bears are in talks about a merge and heading to the central coast, it didn't work last time and I think their barking mad. The Cental Coast Beagles will become the next club in the nrl!

 

[Loudstrat]

Having the Bears on the central Coast will not affect any other club.

Queensland just doesnt have it's sh*t together to get another club up and running. No one knows where to put one that will have a fan base AND a home ground. There is only one suitable stadium in Brisbane - a disgrace when you look at the array of grounds available in Sydney. As good as Lang Park is, the second option is a sadly lacking white elephant (QEII) and whatever is third is way below the worst of the worst in the NRL.

There will not be another stadium built anywhere in Australia in the next decade due to the global financial crisis.

And I believe a new club ANYWHERE will have the same impact on TV - it will bring revenue simply because there is another game if there is two of them. The Bears bid is so strong that it dwarfs anything else in comparison. It is ridiculous to ignore 1 million people just because it is near other clubs. There is, and neverwill be, another area with 1 million people, a first class stadium, and a team bankrolled by 2 leagues clubs and a solid corporate corridor that is looking to field an NRL side. Never.

 

[Quidgybo]

There will not be another stadium built anywhere in Australia in the next decade due to the global financial crisis.

That's a silly statement to make. Heard of Adelaide Oval? There's another $400m or so (at least 2 to 3 times what we'd need) due to be spent on a stadium in Australia by 2014 and another example of the AFL Commission bashing political heads together to get a good deal for its clubs. An even more expensive new stadium in Perth is still a possibility within your decade too.

And I believe a new club ANYWHERE will have the same impact on TV - it will bring revenue simply because there is another game if there is two of them.

Of course any two new clubs and thus a ninth game each week will bring more money in. But the exact combination of two clubs will determine how much more money it brings. The difference between giving the networks clubs in the areas they prefer versus elsewhere will be significant.

Leigh.

 

[Goddo]

Manly won't be moving. At least not in the next few years (when its relevant to this discussion). They will persist with Brookvale. Which leaves no space for the Bears.

The NRL will probably expand in Queensland and Perth.

Maybe Cronulla will fold. Big maybe. Bigger club grants from next year will help out the likes of Cronulla, Manly and Penrith. The situation in NSW is very unlikely to change.

But if it did the Bears would be an important consideration.

As to the following expansion - if it happens it will be +10 years away. And the same pressure for improving market presence will be at play. Places like 5th Queensland, Adelaide and Wellington would be front runners.

 

[Perth Red]

) and whatever is third is way below the worst of the worst in the NRL.

There will not be another stadium built anywhere in Australia in the next decade due to the global financial crisis.

.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...rebuild-released/story-e6frea83-1225881078206

http://www.perthstadium.com.au/index.php?id=113

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/9968689/7m-more-for-nib-stadium-redevelopment/

There's $1.5billion of stadium development announced so far for the next decade and that's without even mentioning the C'Wealth games developments. You seem to be mistaking the skintar5e state of NSW with the rest of the country!