What evidence do you have that Adelaide and Perth are both viable?
You made the claim, now prove it.
Over the years this subject has been discussed ad nauseam, so I'm going to be super brief-
WA and SA are the last major markets in Australia where the NRL has basically zero presence and there's heaps of room to grow, and even a small presence would instantly increase sponsorship and corporate values for the whole league, increase the value of advertising on NRL products as an extension of that increase broadcast rights values (which BTW seems to be why Nine is against it, but that is a completely different discussion), simply because you are growing the potential audience by so much.
On top of that every major and secondary sport in the country except RU and RL has built a presence in both cities. If the NBL, A-league, Super Netball, AIHL, ABL, and many other minor sports can support teams in Perth and Adelaide in their national competitions then the NRL can do it as well.
Finally both markets have also shown lots of promise in the past, and though they might be relatively small bases, there are bases in both that could be built on.
The ARLC has stated it will cost $200 million to fund a team in Perth. The same amount would be needed for Adelaide. We know this because the Storm required $101,500,000 in funds from News Ltd and ARLC over 20 years to prevent them from going under. News Ltd is no longer running the game and are in debt, so you can rule them out as a financier. ARLC just took out a loan to stay in operation.
Inflation and the ever increasing costs of running a football club in 2020, compared to 1998, means a club in Adelaide or Perth would need twice as much as the Storm to stay afloat. Say, $200 million?
Firstly where did the ARLC say that, and secondly, if they did in fact say it the way you are describing it it's a totally meaningless thing to say!
Saying simply that it'll cost $200mil but not showing how they formulate that cost and over how long a period that money would be invested is a totally valueless statement.
Does he mean that money would be spent specifically on the club it's self or would that money be spent on other things as well. Is he talking only about money the NRL would have to put up or money from investors, broadcasters, and government grants as well, and is he including the clubs yearly grant. Over what period would he expect that money to be invested in, because $200mil sounds like a lot of money, but if it's $200mil over 20+ year period that's nothing, I mean unless the NRL clubs grants get cut they'll get at least $260mil each over that period.
You also make out that $101mil to the Storm is a lot of money, but you leave out that only a fraction of that money came from the NRL it's self, and you also leave out the return that the NRL got for their investment. There's no chance in hell that the NRL gets billion dollar broadcasting contracts without a solid presence in Melbourne, and the Storm have
easily made more than $101mil for the NRL over those years, so even with that investment the Storm have been a net positive to the NRL.
Cameron Smith said the teams would need to win constantly. How do you plan on making a Perth and Adelaide team successful when they won't have the advantages that boosted the Storm?
You keep bringing up these people, but all you are doing is appealing to their authority. You're not actually looking at their claims in any detail, you're not thinking about what they have to say for yourself, you're just saying "name in the paper says this thing that re-enforces my point of view, therefore it must be right because they'd know better", when frankly, they often don't know any better and all of them a have an agenda.
You also only cherry pick opinions that suit your argument and never give quotes so people can address what has actually been said, but whatever.
I agree with you. I am just pointing out that the only television market in the country that will add money to the game is the under served Brisbane metro area. Colin Smith said Ch9 and Foxtel want another team in Brisbane.
I mean that's just BS on the face of it. Anything that adds unique viewers (i.e. new sets of eyeballs) in reasonable numbers adds value to broadcasting contracts, and not only Brisbane does that. In fact if anything you're targeting the same market of people in Brisbane and hoping that they'll watch in the same numbers twice a week instead of once, but I digress.
You're also only thinking short term. You're thinking if we add another Brisbane club you'll add another match that rates like the Broncos each week (which is an assumption that might not turn out to be true BTW), where I, and anybody else that's looking at real long term growth, is looking at Perth and Adelaide and thinking we can add clubs there and initially it's ratings and fan base won't be huge, but after a generation or two it'll grow into a big strong club that rates well and we'll add thousands of new fans.
I don't know how much they charged for 2017 World Cup tickets in Port Moresby.
Neither do I, but that was a one off event not 12 regular season games a year, so it's not really reflective of what you could expect on a regular basis in PNG.
