Expansion, Manly and the Coasts

[seaeagle sam]

Thats a nieve point of view. The sport is still great, but the way its played and where its played has to evolve with the times. It needs to grow, or otherwise it becomes stagnant.

Hell, thats why they adopted league over union in 1908 - it was "new" rugby. Better. Its why the game has expanded from the original 9 clubs. And Rugby League today is stronger than ever. The game was at its strongest in the early 90s, because it persued national expansion and growth as a core value. It was the game of choice for sponsors and TV.

You can't have it both ways - it can't be a big growing, improving national sport raking in big money which is spent on the game AND be a local Sydney competition.

Goddo, I agree totally with what you are saying but the death-riding of teams by some leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I love Manly, league and the NRL competition . I love the tribalism and history between teams. Of course I want to see expansion and growth in the game and I see it with all Sydney teams involved.

 

[Goddo]

Goddo, I agree totally with what you are saying but the death-riding of teams by some leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I love Manly, league and the NRL competition . I love the tribalism and history between teams. Of course I want to see expansion and growth in the game and I see it with all Sydney teams involved.

And that is why the future of the game demands that expansion be beyond NSW. The only way to keep the current NSW teams viable is to improve the market reach and value of the game.

Expansion in NSW is a bad idea. It doesn't matter how good the Bears bid is it doesn't change the position the game as a whole finds itself in. For those small earthers out there, look at where the game has expanded in the past and then justify the Bears in that context (ignoring SL expansion):

1947 - Manly and Parramatta - Manly split from the Bears with an old strong RU club already on the Northern Beaches. Parramatta was a sort of rebirth of Cumberland.

1967 - Cronulla and Penrith - NSWRL wanted a south side to break up St George a bit, with a Wollongong side the preference. CRL blocked it, Cronulla was a fall back solution. Penrith beat Wentworthville for other licence. No suburbs left to branch out into in Sydney.

1982 - Canberra and Illawarra - the game starts to look further afield for new sponsors players and money.

1988 - Gold Coast, Brisbane and Newcastle - with the return of a Newcastle side NSW now saturated. New market for TV opened in Queensland.

1995 - North Queensland, Auckland, South Queensland and Perth - huge growth in game but done when the game itself is very fractured internally.

1998 - Melbourne

2007 - Gold Coast

2015 - Ipswich-Logan or Brisbane and Perth

The Central Coast doesn't have a hope in hell. Another Brisbane side and reviving Perth are the obvious logical choice for the game.

EDIT: There is a kind of Symetry with expansion in Perth and South Queensland 20 years after the first attempt at doing so was destroyed by Super League, caused by an organisation that is only now exiting the game.

 

[seaeagle sam]

And that is why the future of the game demands that expansion be beyond NSW. The only way to keep the current NSW teams viable is to improve the market reach and value of the game.

Expansion in NSW is a bad idea. It doesn't matter how good the Bears bid is it doesn't change the position the game as a whole finds itself in. For those small earthers out there, look at where the game has expanded in the past and then justify the Bears in that context (ignoring SL expansion):

1947 - Manly and Parramatta - Manly split from the Bears with an old strong RU club already on the Northern Beaches. Parramatta was a sort of rebirth of Cumberland.

1967 - Cronulla and Penrith - NSWRL wanted a south side to break up St George a bit, with a Wollongong side the preference. CRL blocked it, Cronulla was a fall back solution. Penrith beat Wentworthville for other licence. No suburbs left to branch out into in Sydney.

1982 - Canberra and Illawarra - the game starts to look further afield for new sponsors players and money.

1988 - Gold Coast, Brisbane and Newcastle - with the return of a Newcastle side NSW now saturated. New market for TV opened in Queensland.

1995 - North Queensland, Auckland, South Queensland and Perth - huge growth in game but done when the game itself is very fractured internally.

1998 - Melbourne

2007 - Gold Coast

2015 - Ipswich-Logan or Brisbane and Perth

The Central Coast doesn't have a hope in hell. Another Brisbane side and reviving Perth are the obvious logical choice for the game.

EDIT: There is a kind of Symetry with expansion in Perth and South Queensland 20 years after the first attempt at doing so was destroyed by Super League, caused by an organisation that is only now exiting the game.

Agree again on all points. Just don't want to lose the market and tribalism of Sydney. CCB is a backward step but being a Manly boy, apparently I'm not allowed to say this for obvious and historical reasons

 

[Quidgybo]

Goddo, I agree totally with what you are saying but the death-riding of teams by some leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Talking about relocation is not death riding anyone. Neither is speculating on which teams are likely candidates for relocation, why them and not others, or what it would take for them to choose to move (which incidentally was the only question I asked at the start of this thread).

I love Manly, league and the NRL competition . I love the tribalism and history between teams. Of course I want to see expansion and growth in the game and I see it with all Sydney teams involved.

So do I... just not with the Sydney teams all necessarily remaining based in Sydney. The tribalism and history between teams is a massive part of the NRL competition's heart and it should be greatly valued. It should certainly be preserved through relocation ahead of death and replacement by plastic franchises in expansion areas.

Asking if offering Manly a future outside of Sydney would make it easier to bring back the Bears is not an attack on tribalism or history. It could be argued as a means to actually enable an increase in the number of traditional Sydney teams in the comp. And perhaps it's a way to preserve the long tradition between these two Sydney clubs and make it an integral part of the competition's future.

Leigh.

 

[Loudstrat]

But Quidgey you forget that there is nowhere more lucrative for Manly to go than where they already are! Your original post about what it would take to take Manly moving proved how unrealistic it was!

Rugby league is the greatest game of all and there is no other code I would rather watch. So imo anyone who refuses to watch league and turned to AFL instead were never a fan in the first place. Even though several teams have failed or merged there are more league fans today than ever before.

Did you cut and paste that? You posted that days ago - people have stomped all over it, and you simply repeat yourself. More proof that the "kill Sydney clubs" brigade are sadly lacking in brain cells!

 

[Red&BlackBear]

The Central Coast doesn't have a hope in hell. Another Brisbane side and reviving Perth are the obvious logical choice for the game.

And yet the no hopers have shored and secured everything, have attracted the most sponsors and keep growing their profile. To me it seems that the corporate world doesn't share your views, to me it seems that they obviously see great potential in the Central Coast Bears, otherwise there wouldn't be all this support in place.

 

[Beowulf]

And yet the no hopers have shored and secured everything, have attracted the most sponsors and keep growing their profile. To me it seems that the corporate world doesn't share your views, to me it seems that they obviously see great potential in the Central Coast Bears, otherwise there wouldn't be all this support in place.

Exactly - and the Bears knockers still can't grasp that if the Bears can convince the IC they will HELP Manly and to an extent other Sydney teams, they're CERTAINTIES.

Amazing how Goddo, as self-appointed head of the IC, declares the Bears have no chance yet ignores the continued series of meetings between Greg Florimo and David Gallop!

 

[Goddo]

Exactly - and the Bears knockers still can't grasp that if the Bears can convince the IC they will HELP Manly and to an extent other Sydney teams, they're CERTAINTIES.

Amazing how Goddo, as self-appointed head of the IC, declares the Bears have no chance yet ignores the continued series of meetings between Greg Florimo and David Gallop!

FFS pick up a newspaper. Just about every article for the last 9 months has said as much.

I am yet to hear a valid logical argument from the Bears fans that explains how they will bring more to the game than $20 memberships that aren't renewed.

Its all in the bid hey?

:sarcasm:

 

[Red&BlackBear]

FFS pick up a newspaper. Just about every article for the last 9 months has said as much.

I am yet to hear a valid logical argument from the Bears fans that explains how they will bring more to the game than $20 memberships that aren't renewed.

Its all in the bid hey?

:sarcasm:

A newspaper? Didn't you make a thread about 2 months ago saying how too many people believe the crap posted in the newspapers?

Here it is http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=394396

Geez mate, your argument seems to be falling apart now. It was always going to be an uphill battle for you to keep it up for this long, especially as the bid keeps growing.

And no it's not only in the bid, it's also there for everyone who wishes to see it to see.

 

[Goddo]

A newspaper? Didn't you make a thread about 2 months ago saying how too many people believe the crap posted in the newspapers?

Here it is http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=394396

Geez mate, your argument seems to be falling apart now. It was always going to be an uphill battle for you to keep it up for this long, especially as the bid keeps growing.

And no it's not only in the bid, it's also there for everyone who wishes to see it to see.

More crap from you. Not surprising really.

Answer me this, yes or no. Will the Bears bid offer the game more improvement in TV rights than a Brisbane bid?

Remember, its yes or no, not "its in the bid" or "good news Bears fans".

As to the thread on News ltd bullsh!t, I was talking about the 24 hr news cycle where they make statements and then retract them without interviewing anyone.

My comment on expansion was about the consistent chatter from various sources, radio, newspaper, RL people that the NRL will bring in Perth and Brisbane. As usual you ignore the point and play the man. Good job genius.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

More crap from you. Not surprising really.

Answer me this, yes or no. Will the Bears bid offer the game more improvement in TV rights than a Brisbane bid?

Remember, its yes or no, not "its in the bid" or "good news Bears fans".

As to the thread on News ltd bullsh!t, I was talking about the 24 hr news cycle where they make statements and then retract them without interviewing anyone.

My comment on expansion was about the consistent chatter from various sources, radio, newspaper, RL people that the NRL will bring in Perth and Brisbane. As usual you ignore the point and play the man. Good job genius.

Yes, we will bring an even amount of TV value to the game as any current Brisbane based bid. I can say this without hesitation, I believe the team will be strong enough with a national profile to achieve as much. Quite simply you fail to understand the value of the brand itself. It's that brand which keeps bringing corporate partners, sponsors and capital into the game. It's the brand which keeps growing financially and it's the brand where the strongest points lay. Geographically speaking, the Central Coast is regional enough to not bite into Sydney based teams sponsor pot. It's diverse enough to support a team and has the community backing to stay viable for decades to come. The north Sydney part has been heavily attracted to the bid due to the brand, it's a combination of heartland and financial backing with an overall population big enough to maintain strong ratings, support and growth.

Now that you're resorting to name calling its evidence that you're lost in your own argument, you cannot seperate fact from fiction and are generally confused. It's ok though mate, don't have a stroke. The Central Coast Bears will keep doing what we do best, growing that brand which I keep mentioning and with it raising our chances at obtaining a license.

There is information available via. the official web page if you're still unsure. But knowing that your laziness will stop you from actually physically going through with obtaining such information, I pose a simple question . Why keep arguing with me if you know how much time and dedication I've put into the CCBears? Do you think I'll have this epiphany and go "wow, Goddo is right"? Because that isn't going to happen.

 

[Beowulf]

More crap from you. Not surprising really.

Answer me this, yes or no. Will the Bears bid offer the game more improvement in TV rights than a Brisbane bid?


My comment on expansion was about the consistent chatter from various sources, radio, newspaper, RL people that the NRL will bring in Perth and Brisbane. As usual you ignore the point and play the man. Good job genius.

Re first highlighted point. Previously, I have said possibly not (but that the other points in favour of the Bears outweighed the issue). Having now been made aware of market research findings re TV potential, then yes, I believe the Bears will offer the game at least if not more in TV rights than any of the current Brisbane bid models.

Having said that, I think another QLD side entry (and a team in Perth) are good things for the game, just that the Bears are priority#1 because if they aren't included now, the Coast will never get a side.

Because 99% of people out there are not aware of the findings on TV potential (and I'm not going to post them either), any talk about Brisbane and Perth being the next two in are based on ignorance of the Bears bid, so can be ignored. Those that matter are and will be informed. The IC will decide based on facts, not just a warm fuzzy feeling that it would be nice to have another QLD side and a WA side, because thats the extent of thought that many commentators have put into it. For example, I talked to Joel Cain and Andrew Moore last season after a Game Plan screening. They were stunned to hear we had 6500 members at the time. Even Jason Taylor was shocked (and delighted) when I told him we had 6000 members start of last season. Don't worry, there's plenty of journo's, commentators that think the Bears would add value....even some at Ch9 and 2GB!

As for point 2, in two sentences you've proved yourself a hypocrite and thus devalued any of your opinions.

 

[Perth Red]

Obviously the report you are quoting is confidential, though not sure why as I would be shouting it form the rooftops if the results are as you claim!, but what factors make the Bears equal or better than Brisbane from a TV point of view?
My understanding from the viewing stats is that when a Q'land team is on FTA the viewing figures for Q'land increase significantly? The argument against another NSW team is that viewing figures are at peak for NSW and the addition of another club will not make much difference. Not sure how you can prove or disprove this last bit tbh.

 

[Goddo]

Yes, we will bring an even amount of TV value to the game as any current Brisbane based bid. I can say this without hesitation, I believe the team will be strong enough with a national profile to achieve as much.

Well there we have it. You think the Bears are as valuable to TV as another Brisbane bid.

:lol:

 

[Goddo]

My understanding from the viewing stats is that when a Q'land team is on FTA the viewing figures for Q'land increase significantly? The argument against another NSW team is that viewing figures are at peak for NSW and the addition of another club will not make much difference. Not sure how you can prove or disprove this last bit tbh.

Also its a problem for the clubs exposure. Only so many timeslots that NSW clubs have each week, reducing the value of their sponsorships. Better national brand penetration into places like Brisbane and Perth improves the value of all clubs sponsorships, and there is a need for more product in SE Queensland, where there is no need for more clubs in NSW as far as sponsorships, tv rights and advertising goes.

And thats what pays the games bills.

 

[rednblack]

Also its a problem for the clubs exposure. Only so many timeslots that NSW clubs have each week, reducing the value of their sponsorships. Better national brand penetration into places like Brisbane and Perth improves the value of all clubs sponsorships, and there is a need for more product in SE Queensland, where there is no need for more clubs in NSW as far as sponsorships, tv rights and advertising goes.

And thats what pays the games bills.

So, if adding another qld based team is to capitalize on the available timeslots (by showing an additional Brisbane game, like you keep claiming), won't that new team be the primary benefactor of that exposure? How does this benefit the value "of all clubs" if only a select few teams are shown anyway?
So long as the timeslots are selected by the broadcasters, not all teams will see any additional value, as you so claim.

 

[Perth Red]

I am guessing he means that the opponents of that team for that game will also get increased exposure into WA and more into Q'land?

 

[Quidgybo]

We've been through the reasoning why the networks want another Queensland team an endless number of times before.

With ten NSW teams it is relatively easy to schedule two or three compelling matches with each involving one or two NSW teams in good form. Even if half the NSW teams are having a bad season it's still not that hard to come up with two or three high rating games involving local teams. Adding an eleventh NSW team is not going to make a significant difference to the networks ability to schedule two or three matches each week that rate well in NSW. In NSW the networks already have more than enough choice to fill the timeslots they want to fill.

In Queensland, with only three teams, it's currently difficult to guarantee more than one compelling match each round involving a Queensland team. Generally at least one of the three teams will be having a bad season (eg. Titans last season, Cowboys before that) which cuts it down to a choice of two games and if the opposition for one of those games is also lowly placed then that cuts it down to a choice of one.

That's why the networks want another Queensland team, for no reason more complicated than to increase their chances of having more than one high rating game to show in Queensland each week. No matter how you twist and turn it, the re-admission of the Bears doesn't address this basic issue. Which is why I'm asking questions about how else we might satisfy the need for Queensland content without using an expansion license, allowing us to still reap the benefits that would flow for the game beyond TV by bringing the Bears back.

Leigh.

 

[Goddo]

We've been through the reasoning why the networks want another Queensland team an endless number of times before.

With ten NSW teams it is relatively easy to schedule two or three compelling matches with each involving one or two NSW teams in good form. Even if half the NSW teams are having a bad season it's still not that hard to come up with two or three high rating games involving local teams. Adding an eleventh NSW team is not going to make a significant difference to the networks ability to schedule two or three matches each week that rate well in NSW. In NSW the networks already have more than enough choice to fill the timeslots they want to fill.

In Queensland, with only three teams, it's currently difficult to guarantee more than one compelling match each round involving a Queensland team. Generally at least one of the three teams will be having a bad season (eg. Titans last season, Cowboys before that) which cuts it down to a choice of two games and if the opposition for one of those games is also lowly placed then that cuts it down to a choice of one.

That's why the networks want another Queensland team, for no reason more complicated than to increase their chances of having more than one high rating game to show in Queensland each week. No matter how you twist and turn it, the re-admission of the Bears doesn't address this basic issue. Which is why I'm asking questions about how else we might satisfy the need for Queensland content without using an expansion license, allowing us to still reap the benefits that would flow for the game beyond TV by bringing the Bears back.

Leigh.

I know Leigh, I just want to hear it from Red&blackbear. He won't make that admission of course, but the Bears bid fails in regards to TV and NRL sponsorship (and the value of other clubs sponsorships).

The ONLY adequate solution to that is the relocation of a Sydney club that is struggling to Queensland.

The club then carves out a new market and grows, while retaining links to its past in Sydney. That would then allow for a new club in NSW, as the "expansion" would be in Queensland. This move would kill off some current supporters, but is worth it if it gains more.

So, again, NSW is a problem of distribution, and doesn't need more licences. Queensland does. Its that simple.

 

[dangerousdave]

Yes, we will bring an even amount of TV value to the game as any current Brisbane based bid. I can say this without hesitation.

I support your bid but please stick to selling your strong points. This is a bit ridiculous