Expansion, Manly and the Coasts

[Quidgybo]

Are you really argueing that people who live miles from anywhere deserve to have a team closer to home?

I'm talking about places like Perth and Wellington, not Mt Isa.

Leigh.

 

[age.s]

I have lived in Sydney. For about three years. Long, long ago.


Call it 150km if you'd like. Again, you're getting caught up on a small detail and missing the point. There are plenty of fans who'd kill to have a team within 500km, let alone have nine of them within such close proximity.

The distance isn't just a small detail though. There's a point at which distance becomes something you're not willing to overcome to go watch the footy, and it's measured in time travelled not just pure kms. I would say that one and a quarter hours each way is well past that point for most people. Past that point one hour or 10 is definitely irrelevant, you're just a fan who's not going to the game due to how far away it is. If there is a fan who would kill to have a team 450kms away from him he probably doesn't live in an area populated well enough to support a team.

Whether there is 9 clubs or 1 is also irrelevant. A fan from the CC watching the Roosters (or Panthers, or Eagles, or Eels or Dogs) is worth the same to the NRL as a fan from Ipswich going to watch the Broncos. If clubs over an hour away from the CC should be good enough then why are the Broncos not good enough for communities half as far away? The Broncos get very good crowds, but Suncorp still has plenty of empty seats at almost all games.

What is most certainly important is an emotional attachment to a team. That attachment comes from a team representing the community you call home. In that regard the teams in Sydney might as well be a million miles away, because the Roosters, Dogs, Sea Eagles, Eels, Rabbits and Panthers represent the Central Coast as much as the Storm do.

 

[Loudstrat]

When you learn to post without the personal bullshit I'll take the time to read more than a couple of words of it.

Leigh.

You claim the CC should not have teams because of the flight patters of crows in texas. And that does not cause derision?

Still, I guess it's an easy cop out - stick your head in the sand rather than debate reality.

I'm talking about places like Perth and Wellington, not Mt Isa.

Leigh.

Perth had a team. Perth has a bid

So f*cking what?

If you want to rob the code of an extra 1 million people of market for such a stupid reason that you cannot even explain, you are nuttier than your stupid avatar even suggests!

Let me tell you that there is a bloke on a mountain in Kenya that would love a RL side. That means there can never be another NL side ever.

Leigh, you have the brains of a crumpet.

 

[docbrown]

I don't think people of the Central Coast necessarily associate themselves as Sydneysiders. Just like they don't view themselves as Novocastrians.

They're their own region. The advantage of the Bears though over a newly fabricated Central Coast team is that they can reconnect with existing Bears fans on the North side and can attract away support to matches at Brookvale, SFS, Parramatta and Homebush.

The north side of Sydney has been kind of neglected.

 

[rednblack]

I don't think people of the Central Coast necessarily associate themselves as Sydneysiders. Just like they don't view themselves as Novocastrians.

They're their own region. The advantage of the Bears though over a newly fabricated Central Coast team is that they can reconnect with existing Bears fans on the North side and can attract away support to matches at Brookvale, SFS, Parramatta and Homebush.

The north side of Sydney has been kind of neglected.

Nail.
Head.

Got it in one.

 

[Beowulf]

To change tack slightly, was reading a post on another site today from a Sharks fan. He believes that if the development falls through (decision in March) the Sharks will relocate. He disagree's with my belief that it would be Perth - he's adamant it will be QLD - either SEQ or Rockhampton.

The logic being I presume that no bid is gaining community traction in SEQ, so the NRL would help them move to get a decent outcome at Suncorp ASAP. Sharks will get as much initial QLD support as Jets or Bombers would have (ie not much to start with), but the massive added bonus of a Sydney market that would be interested in watching a QLD side on TV and a Sydney base for them - best of both worlds for the NRL and TV ratings.

This would allow the two bids with established branding, Bears and Reds, to enter.

Rocky would be more open to a relocation I'm guessing and would welcome a Sydney fan base to complement a limited home base. This would allow the NRL to get a QLD team plus the WA and CC teams in, and give time for them to develop a bid themselves for either a Brisbane2 or western corridor for 6 or 7 years time, when they could come in with another NZ side for example.

Either way, there's less down side on either of these options than any other re expansion. No well established bid misses out and the Sharks brand is retained. The Reds have probably created more of a brand awareness in their community than Jets or Bombers have in theirs, hence there is some merit in the proposal to head north, not west.

Are the 'QLD' Sharks are a better brand than Jets or Bombers or whatever Rockhampton come up with? The major issue I suppose is - would SEQ accept a relocated Sharks side over the Jets or Bombers model, knowing if they say no they'll go to Rocky and SEQ will wait another 6-7 years.....are they prepared to do that or would they want a side now?

No doubt some major research on this will be undertaken ASAP if the development fails as the IC will only have a few months grace before deciding on expansion. Food for thought - and don't shoot the messenger, please!

 

[Goddo]

To change tack slightly, was reading a post on another site today from a Sharks fan. He believes that if the development falls through (decision in March) the Sharks will relocate. He disagree's with my belief that it would be Perth - he's adamant it will be QLD - either SEQ or Rockhampton.

The logic being I presume that no bid is gaining community traction in SEQ, so the NRL would help them move to get a decent outcome at Suncorp ASAP. Sharks will get as much initial QLD support as Jets or Bombers would have (ie not much to start with), but the massive added bonus of a Sydney market that would be interested in watching a QLD side on TV and a Sydney base for them - best of both worlds for the NRL and TV ratings.

This would allow the two bids with established branding, Bears and Reds, to enter.

Rocky would be more open to a relocation I'm guessing and would welcome a Sydney fan base to complement a limited home base. This would allow the NRL to get a QLD team plus the WA and CC teams in, and give time for them to develop a bid themselves for either a Brisbane2 or western corridor for 6 or 7 years time, when they could come in with another NZ side for example.

Either way, there's less down side on either of these options than any other re expansion. No well established bid misses out and the Sharks brand is retained. The Reds have probably created more of a brand awareness in their community than Jets or Bombers have in theirs, hence there is some merit in the proposal to head north, not west.

Are the 'QLD' Sharks are a better brand than Jets or Bombers or whatever Rockhampton come up with? The major issue I suppose is - would SEQ accept a relocated Sharks side over the Jets or Bombers model, knowing if they say no they'll go to Rocky and SEQ will wait another 6-7 years.....are they prepared to do that or would they want a side now?

No doubt some major research on this will be undertaken ASAP if the development fails as the IC will only have a few months grace before deciding on expansion. Food for thought - and don't shoot the messenger, please!

That would be a fantastic outcome.

I was going to reply to docbrown and point out that while the CC could support a team, Cronulla, Manly and Penrith continue basically on the breadline, especially Cronulla.

The game needs something like the Bears, but it will probably have to come at the expense of a club like Cronulla. Which I'd have no problem with.

"new" licenses need to be in new locations. I've said it before, the CC is a distribution problem, not an expansion problem.

 

[docbrown]

Well to address those points -

* To me the sharks best option is to merge with Easts and remain in Sydney in order to keep a base in the shire and for both to become a club that can compete with the Big 5 - but looking at that option -
* That said moving to Brisbane is better for them than any other relocation option
* Moving to Brisbane would allow them the opportunity to become bigger than if they remained in Sydney as is
* I see value in attaching the Sharks brand - ocean life - to QLD's beach culture. South Queensland Sharks or just Brisbane Sharks. You might recall that the Bombers original name list include a few of these - but none anywhere as strong as Sharks except for perhaps Dolphins. And no Queensland team has capitalised on this angle so far.
* And yes solves the issues for the other expansion areas whilst creating a decent Brisbane bid

However it's the backlash in the Shire that I would be wondering about. Do Sharks fans travel to other grounds in Sydney for away games? In very small numbers. If their home ground is taken away and given to another region, will they go see Sharks away games in Sydney?

That's the question that needs to be answered. At least with a merger they've got 6 games a season at home.

 

[docbrown]

That would be a fantastic outcome.

I was going to reply to docbrown and point out that while the CC could support a team, Cronulla, Manly and Penrith continue basically on the breadline, especially Cronulla.

I actually think having the Bears back helps Manly. It makes that rivalry the main sporting talk of the northern shore bringing the focus back onto rugby league. At the moment Manly haven't had anyone to keep them in check and spur them into broadening their appeal. Having the Bears in direct competition will get them off their arses.

I also suggested a 3 way cup between Bears, Knights & Sea Eagles to build the rivalry as a marketing angle. 6 games a year. No other sport could do that except for A League but the rivalry just isn't the same.

I think Penrith have just been poorly promoted and developed as a brand. Out of the 4 they have the most potential remaining in Sydney.

 

[smithie]

I just do not see a Queensland audience adopting a defunct NSW team. Most QLD league fans have a hard time separating NRL from Origin. The Broncos are basically an extension of the Maroons which is why the Broncos have such widespread support throughout much of QLD. A second Brisbane side must be a new entity with no baggage.

The best relocation option for the Sharks is Wellington.
- Great modern stadium with corporate facilities. (Westpac Stadium)
- NZ get their own derby with the Warriors.
- Rugby league's popularity is on the rise in NZ.
- Would give more Kiwi juniors an opportunity to play at home.
- Sures up a new location for the NRL.

 

[rednblack]

That would be a fantastic outcome.

I was going to reply to docbrown and point out that while the CC could support a team, Cronulla, Manly and Penrith continue basically on the breadline, especially Cronulla.

The game needs something like the Bears, but it will probably have to come at the expense of a club like Cronulla. Which I'd have no problem with.

"new" licenses need to be in new locations. I've said it before, the CC is a distribution problem, not an expansion problem.

Explain something for me...
On 10th December (only a month ago) you said in another thread (the CC Bears thread) that "The game has moved on, and Gosford isn't big enough to justify a club".

For all your lip service and attempts at sounding knowledgeable, which do you believe, and which is just you trolling? Is the central coast able to support a team, or is Gosford not big enough?

Does the game need the bears as you outline above or not? Which is it, or are you having an each way bet?

You claim not to be anti-bears, but you're always very quick to dismiss anything that the bid team achieves as irrelevant. You regularly indicate your belief that nothing the bears can do will get us over the line. I can't recall you acknowledging a single positive aspect of the bears bid. I don't expect you to become a fan of our bid, and you can hold whatever opinion you like, but don't come in here demanding that we bears fans concede defeat, while you won't even acknowledge when we do something well. For instance, I believe your condescending response to a post the other day was...
":blahb: Bears :blahb:".
Are you seriously going to claim you're not anti-bears?

And for clarification, exactly what do you mean when you say that the CC is a distribution problem as opposed to an expansion one? What would an expansion problem be?

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Bring back the Reds and Bears, give the Sharks a shitload of $$ to move to SEQ. People have been saying this for a few years now and it really is the best outcome I can think of.

It's positive for everyone except for the dozen or so Sharks fans in the actual Shire, and I'm sure scheduling a certain number of 'away' games in Sydney at Shark Park/offering special Shire memberships/keeping the traditions will help placate them.

 

[bobmar28]

I guess that means you don't think Brisbane needs another team then, since it would be insensible to have more than one...?

Ipswich should have a team.

 

[rednblack]

Ipswich should have a team.

So Ipswich isn't in Brisbane?
Righto...

 

[age.s]

So Ipswich isn't in Brisbane?
Righto...

Central Coast is in Sydney though.:crazy:

 

[Loudstrat]

Bobmar's brain runs on minimal electrical charge. Just ticks over every now and again just to hold off rigor mortis. Not enough to process any thoughts, barely enough to move fingers on the keyboard. Spits out a faint impulse every day or so. A bit like a kids first electronic set.

 

[bobmar28]

Central Coast is in Sydney though.:crazy:

Ipswich is as much Brisbane as Campbelltown is Sydney. The only difference is Brisbane doesn't already have 9 teams.

 

[rednblack]

Ipswich is as much Brisbane as Campbelltown is Sydney. The only difference is Brisbane doesn't already have 9 teams.

But you specifically said that a much larger city with a single team is "sensible".
By extension, you can mean only mean that another Brisbane side would not make any sense.

Just because you think there is a glut of teams in Sydney, why should we make the same "mistake" in Brisbane by introducing teams that don't make sense? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...

 

[age.s]

Ipswich is as much Brisbane as Campbelltown is Sydney. The only difference is Brisbane doesn't already have 9 teams.

Neither does the Central Coast.

 

[docbrown]

I just do not see a Queensland audience adopting a defunct NSW team. Most QLD league fans have a hard time separating NRL from Origin. The Broncos are basically an extension of the Maroons which is why the Broncos have such widespread support throughout much of QLD. A second Brisbane side must be a new entity with no baggage.

The best relocation option for the Sharks is Wellington.
- Great modern stadium with corporate facilities. (Westpac Stadium)
- NZ get their own derby with the Warriors.
- Rugby league's popularity is on the rise in NZ.
- Would give more Kiwi juniors an opportunity to play at home.
- Sures up a new location for the NRL.

Well valid point about Queenslanders acceptance. But I do note that there are large numbers of Dragons & Bulldogs fans in Brisbane so anything is possible.

Wellington would be the 2nd best relocation option IMO simply because it's not as big as Brisbane and League is behind Union there.