The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[Colk]

But they won’t lose it mate, they now just have to outbid the other states. They won’t mind spending 8 million or more when considering they now don’t have to spend 300 million on stadium renos

Exactly. Instead of being on the hook for $800 million over a short time medium term they just have to spend $8 million (hypothetically let’s say) per year.

 

[Colk]

The biggest thing that to me intimated that he is a little out of touch was a combination of the every Sydney club should have a Commbank stadium (a. that is not likely and b. why is it only Sydney clubs in this conversation - shows how Sydney centric the game’s administration is) and the whinging about SFS being also used by soccer and union.

The second part is a little alarming to me. Does he not see how joining up with other sports on the negotiating may actually help his argument? I can’t think of any other sport that can hope to lobby (successfully) over the long term for individual stadiums and infrastructure. You can talk about community infrastructure as much as you want but if it is going to be used for half a year how do they expect to win this argument?

 

[Maximus]

Nine News Sydney - NSW ministers lobbying to scrap Penrith and CoE funding for Eels, Dogs and Dragons on the back of the lack of commitment from the NRL and GF beyond this year.

Greatest politician ever!!!!!

 

[Colk]

Greatest politician ever!!!!!

Who?

 

[10$ Ferret]

I support the action of cutting the funding. V'landys needs to be put back in his place and the NRL needs to stop this entitled BS.
The people in Lismore etc need to be sorted before any sporting group

 

[Maximus]

Who?

the best politician in Australia has done it again.

 

[Wb1234]

I support the action of cutting the funding. V'landys needs to be put back in his place and the NRL needs to stop this entitled BS.
The people in Lismore etc need to be sorted before any sporting group

 

[Wb1234]

But they won’t lose it mate, they now just have to outbid the other states. They won’t mind spending 8 million or more when considering they now don’t have to spend 300 million on stadium renos

A minimum of 160 million vs 300 million on assets they own and get revenue from

nsw govt are stupid af

 

[Colk]

A minimum of 160 million vs 300 million on assets they own and get revenue from

nsw govt are stupid af

Are they getting a ROI from it though if only one tenant is using it?

 

[Wb1234]

Are they getting a ROI from it though if only one tenant is using it?

Better roi than paying 160 million go the nrl that’s for sure

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

A minimum of 160 million vs 300 million on assets they own and get revenue from

nsw govt are stupid af

The stadium debate has been hijacked, it’s political poison with an election around the corner

 

[Captain Apollo]

The biggest thing that to me intimated that he is a little out of touch was a combination of the every Sydney club should have a Commbank stadium (a. that is not likely and b. why is it only Sydney clubs in this conversation - shows how Sydney centric the game’s administration is) and the whinging about SFS being also used by soccer and union.

The second part is a little alarming to me. Does he not see how joining up with other sports on the negotiating may actually help his argument? I can’t think of any other sport that can hope to lobby (successfully) over the long term for individual stadiums and infrastructure. You can talk about community infrastructure as much as you want but if it is going to be used for half a year how do they expect to win this argument?

In relation to your first point, it is because:

(1) Most stadiums used in Syudney are amongst the worst amenity wise;
(2) Newcastle had a motza spent on it around 10 years ago. Wollongong though could do with more;
(3) The NSW Government won't pay money for stadiums in other states or territories. I mean no one in their right mind would think that would even be possible; and
(4) Stadiums in Qld and Victoria currently used by NRL clubs are relatively new or far better than those in Sydney.

As such I'd suggest you do a little research before using a spend money on Sydney stadiums as meaning the NRL are being Sydney centric.

 

[Iamback]

Nine News Sydney - NSW ministers lobbying to scrap Penrith and CoE funding for Eels, Dogs and Dragons on the back of the lack of commitment from the NRL and GF beyond this year.

It was always going to happen

 

[Iamback]

I imagine Greenberg would’ve dithered during the pandemic and would’ve been bullied by the Nine/News execs. The game would’ve been in massive trouble and for that I’m grateful for PVL getting the game through that crisis. But this fiasco is proof he only has one tactic which may work in boardrooms but pollies are a far more dangerous and smarter animal. They’re now free to dump Penrith’s stadium reno and CoEs of three clubs, save a ton of money and merely have to out bid the other states to get the GF and look good in the process.

He had a solid hand when dealing with News and Nine because he knew they needed the game due to ratings/subscriptions etc. Here he attempted to blackmail the government while also giving them the bidding option. Lunacy! This is so rugby league.

Outsmarted, outplayed. Massive fail for me

Nailed it

 

[Colk]

In relation to your first point, it is because:

(1) Most stadiums used in Syudney are amongst the worst amenity wise;
(2) Newcastle had a motza spent on it around 10 years ago. Wollongong though could do with more;
(3) The NSW Government won't pay money for stadiums in other states or territories. I mean no one in their right mind would think that would even be possible; and
(4) Stadiums in Qld and Victoria currently used by NRL clubs are relatively new or far better than those in Sydney.

As such I'd suggest you do a little research before using a spend money on Sydney stadiums as meaning the NRL are being Sydney centric.

Firstly, I wasn’t looking at simply as an issue of Sydney based funding for stadiums, I was looking at it from a competition wide stadium funding issue.

Canberra arguably for example is probably the stadium that needs the most funding outside of perhaps Cronulla and that debate has been going on for a lot longer (and I mean a lot longer) than any of this Sydney stadium debate. The club has essentially been fobbed off by the ACT government for 20 odd years. Wollongong is another that needs funding as well. I haven’t been to any stadiums in NZ but they have complained about the stadium situation in Auckland. Newcastle was also given a minuscule amount, particularly when compared to some of the money being thrown around (or proposed) on Sydney stadiums.

Also, I am not implying stupidly that the NSW government would pay for Canberra and NZ, I am just remarking that the NRL are not openly pressuring other governments for these stadium upgrades, which in turn shows their Sydney centric thinking, does it not?

Lastly, I agree with the amenities issue of Sydney stadiums as I have been to many of them. However, does that still mean it is likely that every Sydney club is going to have a Commbank stadium or that it even should be done. We are essentially only talking about 2-3 stadiums as 5 (at least) clubs could play at either Accor, Allianz and Commbank.

 

[MugaB]

He followed up with ''I'm joking. Hi Gil, if you are listening". Really bizarre way to start a much anticipated and important announcement. He must be obsessed with the AFL. As if anyone in the AFL is referencing NRL in their press conferences. I doubt Gil was listening.

He also said similar 2 years ago when covid moved the game, he started with we are taking the game to cairns.... as a dig to AFL too..
He just loves afl bashing, im fine the humour, its all irrelevant both codes are mneant to llay off each other, just like DC and Marvel, or Coke and Pepsi

 

[Captain Apollo]

Firstly, I wasn’t looking at simply as an issue of Sydney based funding for stadiums, I was looking at it from a competition wide stadium funding issue.

Canberra arguably for example is probably the stadium that needs the most funding outside of perhaps Cronulla and that debate has been going on for a lot longer (and I mean a lot longer) than any of this Sydney stadium debate. The club has essentially been fobbed off by the ACT government for 20 odd years. Wollongong is another that needs funding as well. I haven’t been to any stadiums in NZ but they have complained about the stadium situation in Auckland. Newcastle was also given a minuscule amount, particularly when compared to some of the money being thrown around (or proposed) on Sydney stadiums.

Also, I am not implying stupidly that the NSW government would pay for Canberra and NZ, I am just remarking that the NRL are not openly pressuring other governments for these stadium upgrades, which in turn shows their Sydney centric thinking, does it not?

Lastly, I agree with the amenities issue of Sydney stadiums as I have been to many of them. However, does that still mean it is likely that every Sydney club is going to have a Commbank stadium or that it even should be done. We are essentially only talking about 2-3 stadiums as 5 (at least) clubs could play at either Accor, Allianz and Commbank.

The NRL could pressure the ACT Government all it wants but considering they:

(1) Don't have a big revenue base to start with; and
(2) Have a Government lead by a major AFL fan

It is highly unlikely they would get anything. Also what carrot or stick can they use in that situation? Move the Raiders out of the ACT? I'm not trying to be dismissive, just pointing out the problems.

In terms of NZ, you are dealing with a country where Union is the king. So the NRL's pressure tactics would not work.

Whilst I agree with you on Wollongong, part of the problem is the NRL only uses that ground approximately 6 times a year. Hence it can be harder for the NRL alone to convince a Government of any political persuasion on the viability of investing in it.

Further this became Sydney centric when the funding was moved from Accor's refurbishment to building the new SFS and then using the money left over from that budget to be spent on Sydney grounds. It came about because you had a Government that was more sympathetic to rugby league in quite a while. H

 

[Colk]

The NRL could pressure the ACT Government all it wants but considering they:

(1) Don't have a big revenue base to start with; and
(2) Have a Government lead by a major AFL fan

It is highly unlikely they would get anything. Also what carrot or stick can they use in that situation? Move the Raiders out of the ACT? I'm not trying to be dismissive, just pointing out the problems.

In terms of NZ, you are dealing with a country where Union is the king. So the NRL's pressure tactics would not work.

Whilst I agree with you on Wollongong, part of the problem is the NRL only uses that ground approximately 6 times a year. Hence it can be harder for the NRL alone to convince a Government of any political persuasion on the viability of investing in it.

Further this became Sydney centric when the funding was moved from Accor's refurbishment to building the new SFS and then using the money left over from that budget to be spent on Sydney grounds. It came about because you had a Government that was more sympathetic to rugby league in quite a while. H

We can agree on the Canberra situation. I wasn’t sure how well known the Canberra situation is amongst other parts. Perhaps an A-League side might help as that would be three tenants.


I honestly think that the only way you are going to get proper rectangular stadiums in Sydney and elsewhere is either working with other sports or hoping some big external occurrence like Australia winning the soccer World Cup rights happens.

 

[The Great Dane]

It was always going to happen

Yeah, the NRL not accepting an extended GF deal hasn't got anything to do with it.

There was always going to be members that push for further cuts, and they'll continue to do so even if the NRL had given Sydney the GF for the next century.

 

[The Great Dane]

The NRL could pressure the ACT Government all it wants but considering they:

(1) Don't have a big revenue base to start with; and
(2) Have a Government lead by a major AFL fan

It is highly unlikely they would get anything. Also what carrot or stick can they use in that situation? Move the Raiders out of the ACT? I'm not trying to be dismissive, just pointing out the problems.

The NRL putting pressure on the ACT Government would be better than doing nothing, which is pretty much all they've done for the past 15 years... Let's be honest, if the stadium debate that has been happening in Canberra for the last decade was happening in Sydney or Brisbane then the NRL would have gotten actively involved ages ago.

As sad as it is, the bold is where things should be heading frankly, especially in the Brumbies case.

The stadium is going a long way to totally f**king their businesses, and if they were smart they would have demanded movement under threat of "exploring other options" by now. Obviously I'd prefer that the clubs didn't go down that path, but if things keep going the way they're going then it is what it is. If I was them I would have started exploring what other governments would offer to relocate a while ago.

There are however things that the NRL could offer to the ACT government to try and get the stadium over the line as well. Hosting rights to rep games, Nines, etc, agreements to invest in local community sports and infrastructure, etc, etc. The sort of stuff that the AFL promised to get the GWS deals over the line would have an impact on the discussion, but so far the NRL has basically refused to come to the table in any meaningful way.