Expansion won't happen anytime soon

[Perth Red]

A big part of the problem I can see is the clubs insistence on equal grants whilst refusing to take any responsibility for supporting each other if things go pear shaped for one, which they historically always have.

AFL managed to spend massively more on expansion than it would cost the NRL on a lower income than the nRL has now and certainly alot less than it will have in 2018. They did this by club grant equalisation, non playing expenditure cap, ticket tax etc It didnt come at the expense of grassroots funding or ensuring the existing 16 teams were sustained.

Until existing NRL clubs shed their self interest for the greater good it is unlikely the NRL is ever going to have the confidence all 16 clubs are comfortable and never going to need bailing out in the future.

 

[alien]

The financials which everyone is fighting over now( for their slice) are not there, they sure as hell "ain't " there for expansion ATM.

Expansion means more games per week, which means more money from the tv rights deals, and a Perth team means another market, which means even more money.

 

[siv]

Expansion means more games per week, which means more money from the tv rights deals, and a Perth team means another market, which means even more money.

I'm surprised you didn't include the Adelaide Sharks relocation for a nation footprint

 

[Perth Red]

Expansion means more games per week, which means more money from the tv rights deals, and a Perth team means another market, which means even more money.

Well AFL have sold their nine games for $150mill a year more than we sold our eight.

When you consider we have the more watched game and origin it makes you wonder how much of that $150mill value difference is tied up in that extra game?

 

[BuffaloRules]

Their game does go for about twice as long and have a gazillion more ads...

Does that enter the minds of the TV execs?

 

[taipan]

Expansion means more games per week, which means more money from the tv rights deals, and a Perth team means another market, which means even more money.

Yes and no. Whether Gyngell was BS ATT,having another slot would not get an increase.

You have to work on the money available now what it is and whether there is enough.The NRL is due for a loss this year.Not a good look.

 

[taipan]

Their game does go for about twice as long and have a gazillion more ads...

Does that enter the minds of the TV execs?

It obviously doesn't enter the minds of one or two here.

 

[Perth Red]

Their game does go for about twice as long and have a gazillion more ads...

Does that enter the minds of the TV execs?

I'm sure it does but how much of that is counter balanced by origin and overall number one viewing figures? Even taking into account more ad space it is hard to see a $150mil difference.

 

[Perth Red]

Yes and no. Whether Gyngell was BS ATT,having another slot would not get an increase.

You have to work on the money available now what it is and whether there is enough.The NRL is due for a loss this year.Not a good look.

Gygnell was both for and against, and tbh it should be NRL dictating it. Or tv execs who will always prefer the lower risk option. Or do you think the afl asked tv if it wanted GWS and Gold Coast for the next tv deal?

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.a...-cloud-nine-nine-boss-keen-for-expan/1561641/

 

[BuffaloRules]

I'm sure it does but how much of that is counter balanced by origin and overall number one viewing figures? Even taking into account more ad space it is hard to see a $150mil difference.

So your explanation for the $150 Mil difference a year then is having an extra game a week.. going from 8 games a week to 9 for a game that will end up being shown in an unfavourable time slot is going to lift the $360Mil per year to over $500M...

Especially if one of the new teams is from Perth...

Right...

There are several reasons the difference is so great,,, the primary one is that your boy Smith stuffed up the FTA deal with Nine, upset Murdoch which led to Smith's buddy Grant scrambling to take whatever was on the table from Foxtel so he could then make false promises to the clubs to buy himself another 12 months in the job...

 

[taipan]

Gygnell was both for and against, and tbh it should be NRL dictating it. Or tv execs who will always prefer the lower risk option. Or do you think the afl asked tv if it wanted GWS and Gold Coast for the next tv deal?

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.a...-cloud-nine-nine-boss-keen-for-expan/1561641/

Gyngell would have preferred a 2nd Brisbane side he indicated such,but at the same time, not increase the number of teams.IOW either a relocation or 17 teams.
You should well know with the last Tv deal stuff up, firstly going to 9,then having to suck up to Rupert to get the all in one,the NRL once again were caught with their pants down.
Tv execs prefer the financially prudent option.They have to answer to a board and shareholders.

The Tv execs would be fully aware the Sydney economy is very strong ,already with an AFL club with decent numbers.They would also have been aware the GC is full of Mexicans who live or holiday on the strip.
The AFL would be aware because they have teams nearby, thus the travelling costs, would not be as great as having a team thousands of kms away with no other club.The Brisbane/Gc and Sydney markets are bigger than Perth.

Finally the AFL had the money in the Bank,,and the NRL had not yet negotiated any TV deal.

The big downturn in the mining industry and its ancillary companies,would hardly have assisted a Perth NRL cause ATT.Especially in a city where the 2 fumbler clubs are going gangbusters.plus they have an A league and union clubs hardly setting the world on fire.

If as has been stated publicly by so called experts, the NRL dudded itself of $300m over 5 years with the last TV deal, then they screwed themselves of an opportunity to expand.

That's the way I see it.

 

[BuffaloRules]

The big downturn in the mining industry and its ancillary companies,would hardly have assisted a Perth NRL cause ATT.Especially in a city where the 2 fumbler clubs are going gangbusters.plus they have an A league and union clubs hardly setting the world on fire.

Another thing that goes against Perth in my opinion is the open hostility their local media has for RL...

Forget about any reporting in the local TV or newspapers of results.

Their local sports talkback wont discuss the game and go out of their way to deride it....

They are worse than the Victorians...

 

[bobmar28]

Another thing that goes against Perth in my opinion is the open hostility their local media has for RL...

Forget about any reporting in the local TV or newspapers of results.

Their local sports talkback wont discuss the game and go out of their way to deride it....

They are worse than the Victorians...

Refusing to go there won't change that.

 

[Perth Red]

Another thing that goes against Perth in my opinion is the open hostility their local media has for RL...

Forget about any reporting in the local TV or newspapers of results.

Their local sports talkback wont discuss the game and go out of their way to deride it....

They are worse than the Victorians...

Perth is very parochial, no team no coverage. Force, wildcats and glory get good coverage so I don't see it as a hostility to NRL but a relevance to Perth issue. When the Reds came in there were two dedicated RL journos employed by the media here.

Re tv deal and the ninth game, so this time it was we upset the tv companies? And last time in 2012 when we also ran well behind the afl deal? Oh yes that was due to first and last rights. And in 2007? Oh yes that was conflict of interest in thengames ownership. Seems every deal we can come up with excuses for being second rate.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Another thing that goes against Perth in my opinion is the open hostility their local media has for RL...

Forget about any reporting in the local TV or newspapers of results.

Their local sports talkback wont discuss the game and go out of their way to deride it....

They are worse than the Victorians...

Not sure there worse than the Victorians but I agree the media does nothing for us outside of Sydney and brisbane and even then it's mostly hate media.

I'd like to see a digital/media person sent to Perth (future expansion) to set up the Nrl digital landscape over there. Schmooze with the media and pump out good RL stories over there and from the Nrl. Change the persona. That's what we need. Do it in Adelaide, NT.

They could liase with the Warl/Perth franchise to create there digital dept and make it into a revenue making powerhouse.

 

[taipan]

Perth is very parochial, no team no coverage. Force, wildcats and glory get good coverage so I don't see it as a hostility to NRL but a relevance to Perth issue. When the Reds came in there were two dedicated RL journos employed by the media here.

Re tv deal and the ninth game, so this time it was we upset the tv companies? And last time in 2012 when we also ran well behind the afl deal? Oh yes that was due to first and last rights. And in 2007? Oh yes that was conflict of interest in thengames ownership. Seems every deal we can come up with excuses for being second rate.

If you followed the dramas involving the negotiations from day one, you might have an idea.
We screwed the Tv deals when half owned by News.
We screwed the last one, because the major money paying Tv player ,got shafted at the start.
Them's the facts, take it or leave it.

AFL have had no media ownership, thus no conflict of interest in negotiations.
When they negotiated they dealt with 7 and News ATT, not casting one aside, with the other having to fight for its share of the action later.

You spell out with all your insider knowledge why we didn't match the fumblers over the years.

 

[Perth Red]

Look forward to the excuses in 2022 or whenever the next deal is arranged.

Back to expansion AFL expanded on less than $300mill revenue a year, NRL doesn't feel it has enough money on a $500mill revenue with cheaper expansion prospects.

Its why AFL will be "Australias Game" and NRL will keep worrying about how to keep two states afloat.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Re tv deal and the ninth game, so this time it was we upset the tv companies? And last time in 2012 when we also ran well behind the afl deal? Oh yes that was due to first and last rights. And in 2007? Oh yes that was conflict of interest in thengames ownership. Seems every deal we can come up with excuses for being second rate.

So whats your reason then for the $150M a year difference?

Go on the record...

 

[BuffaloRules]

Look forward to the excuses in 2022 or whenever the next deal is arranged.

Back to expansion AFL expanded on less than $300mill revenue a year, NRL doesn't feel it has enough money on a $500mill revenue with cheaper expansion prospects.

Its why AFL will be "Australias Game" and NRL will keep worrying about how to keep two states afloat.

Well Grant has already ruled out NRL expansion in 2022, so there is a long road ahead...

 

[BuffaloRules]

Not sure there worse than the Victorians but I agree the media does nothing for us outside of Sydney and brisbane and even then it's mostly hate media.

I'd like to see a digital/media person sent to Perth (future expansion) to set up the Nrl digital landscape over there. Schmooze with the media and pump out good RL stories over there and from the Nrl. Change the persona. That's what we need. Do it in Adelaide, NT.

They could liase with the Warl/Perth franchise to create there digital dept and make it into a revenue making powerhouse.

You have to take my whole arguments in context... not just replying to select posts...

In your opinion, would expansion to say Perth and Brisbane 12 months ago and an extra game a week have made up the $150 Million a year shortfall between the AFL and NRL Deal?