The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Sydney and Brisbane are big TV markets, therefore proving my point.

Metropolitan Area	Population
Melbourne	5,235,000​
Sydney	5,121,000​
Brisbane	2,505,000​
Perth	2,118,000​
Adelaide	1,367,000​

Except it really f**king doesn't because Perth is almost as big as Brisbane. Combine Adelaide and Perth and you've got more people than Brisbane.

I have never stated, even once, that I supported teams being expelled when it happened 25 years ago.

The Sydney clubs and their supporters orchestrated the removal of non-Sydney clubs to save spots for themselves. There are people on this forum who are against expanding into Adelaide and Perth. I've seen people on here and other forums oppose a second Brisbane team because they reckon it should go to the Bears.

The problem with inventing some criteria to remove clubs with (as you have) is that it will inevitably mean club I support will have to be culled, as all clubs go through fallow years.

What makes you think the Cowboys will ever experience poor returns from sponsorship and corporate hospitality?

When the NRL was rationalised down to 14 teams the Cowboys passed the criteria because they generated more revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality than everyone except the Broncos and Knights in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999. That was when the club struggled on the field. If the Cowboys were ahead of the Sydney clubs in 2000 -- after three disastrous seasons on the field and the Super League War -- then there's little chance of them ever slipping below them now that they're well established. The fact they're entering the 20th year of their partnership with Toyota Dealerships shows they're a stable and well run club.

Here's a breakdown of what happened in 2000, provided by NRL.COM:

Admission criteria

All clubs had to meet a Basic Criteria based on playing facilities, administration, solvency and development.

To determine which teams survived, clubs were ranked for the 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 seasons on:

• Home crowds (1. Broncos, 2. Knights, 3. Eels);
• Away crowds (1. Broncos, 2. Eels. 3. Roosters);
• Competition points (1. Storm, 2. Broncos, 3. Bulldogs);
• Gate receipts (1. Broncos, 2. Storm, 3. Knights);
• Profitability (1. Bulldogs, 2. Panthers, 3. Sharks), and;
• Sponsorship (1. Knights, 2. Broncos, 3. Cowboys).

Clubs were also required to have a minimum revenue of $8 million per season, including gate receipts of $1.25m and net sponsorship of $2.5m.

While the three Sydney clubs who had aligned with Super League – Canterbury, Penrith and Cronulla – were considered the most profitable, every non-Sydney club produced larger gate receipts than their Sydney rivals.

The final rankings were:

1 Brisbane, 2 Newcastle, 3 Melbourne, 4 Canterbury, 5 Cronulla, 6 Sydney Roosters, 7 Parramatta, 8 North Queensland, 9 Warriors, 10 Canberra, 11 Manly, 12 Penrith, 13 Balmain, 14 North Sydney 15 Western Suburbs, 16 South Sydney.

St George Illawarra were not included as they had merged at the end of the 1998 season – meaning Norths, Wests and Souths were excluded from the 2000 premiership.

Mergers and financial incentives

With the NRL offering $8 million to encourage mergers, Balmain and Wests also formed a joint venture, as did Manly and Norths (Northern Eagles), while the Rabbitohs took legal action which led to them being restored to the competition in 2002.

However, the outcome of an appeal against Souths' win in court gives the NRL the right to exclude clubs in the future and the game may need to go through a similar process if it is decided to keep the number of teams at 16 but revamp the competition from 2023.

What will it take for a Sydney club to consider relocation?

If a team from England is brave enough to relocate to Canada, what will it take for a Sydney club to secure their future by moving to Brisbane or Perth?

www.nrl.com

Once again it's your subjective opinion about the "quality" of player maker's, and particularly the one about kids getting "bashed", compare RL in 2023 with what was allowed in 1993 and its a world of difference.

It's an opinion shared by people who've played and coached the game at the highest level.

 

[Canard]

Metropolitan Area	Population
Melbourne	5,235,000​
Sydney	5,121,000​
Brisbane	2,505,000​
Perth	2,118,000​
Adelaide	1,367,000​

Except it really f**king doesn't because Perth is almost as big as Brisbane. Combine Adelaide and Perth and you've got more people than Brisbane.



The Sydney clubs and their supporters orchestrated the removal of non-Sydney clubs to save spots for themselves. There are people on this forum who are against expanding into Adelaide and Perth. I've seen people on here and other forums oppose a second Brisbane team because they reckon it should go to the Bears.



What makes you think the Cowboys will ever experience poor returns from sponsorship and corporate hospitality?

When the NRL was formed in 1998 the Cowboys passed the criteria because they generated more revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality than everyone except the Broncos and one other team. That was when the club struggled on the field. If the Cowboys were ahead of the Sydney clubs in 1998 -- after three disastrous seasons on the field and the Super League War -- then there's little chance of them ever slipping below them now that they're well established. The fact they're entering the 20th year of their partnership with Toyota Dealerships shows they're a stable and well run club.



It's an opinion shared by people who've played and coached the game at the highest level.

You said Sydney and Brisbane. Which combined are more then double the population of Adelaide and Perth, and are growing far at a far more rapid rate.

Adelaide and Perth are not 40% of the Australian TV market, not even close.

For mine, the "not enough talent" is horseshit peddled by anti-expansionists.

Which like it or not, you are. As your position is that expansion isn't possible without it removing teams.

As for an example of how selective criteria at a snapshot in time is flawed, I note that Canterbury were 4th on the criteria for the NRL 'merger', the team that you want to remove today as they are "unviable".

 

[Pneuma]

Metropolitan Area	Population
Melbourne	5,235,000​
Sydney	5,121,000​
Brisbane	2,505,000​
Perth	2,118,000​
Adelaide	1,367,000​

Except it really f**king doesn't because Perth is almost as big as Brisbane. Combine Adelaide and Perth and you've got more people than Brisbane.



The Sydney clubs and their supporters orchestrated the removal of non-Sydney clubs to save spots for themselves. There are people on this forum who are against expanding into Adelaide and Perth. I've seen people on here and other forums oppose a second Brisbane team because they reckon it should go to the Bears.



What makes you think the Cowboys will ever experience poor returns from sponsorship and corporate hospitality?

When the NRL was rationalised down to 14 teams the Cowboys passed the criteria because they generated more revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality than everyone except the Broncos and Knights in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999. That was when the club struggled on the field. If the Cowboys were ahead of the Sydney clubs in 2000 -- after three disastrous seasons on the field and the Super League War -- then there's little chance of them ever slipping below them now that they're well established. The fact they're entering the 20th year of their partnership with Toyota Dealerships shows they're a stable and well run club.

Admission criteria​

​

All clubs had to meet a Basic Criteria based on playing facilities, administration, solvency and development.​

​

To determine which teams survived, clubs were ranked for the 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 seasons on:​

​

• Home crowds (1. Broncos, 2. Knights, 3. Eels);
• Away crowds (1. Broncos, 2. Eels. 3. Roosters);
• Competition points (1. Storm, 2. Broncos, 3. Bulldogs);
• Gate receipts (1. Broncos, 2. Storm, 3. Knights);
• Profitability (1. Bulldogs, 2. Panthers, 3. Sharks), and;
• Sponsorship (1. Knights, 2. Broncos, 3. Cowboys).

​

Clubs were also required to have a minimum revenue of $8 million per season, including gate receipts of $1.25m and net sponsorship of $2.5m.​

​

While the three Sydney clubs who had aligned with Super League – Canterbury, Penrith and Cronulla – were considered the most profitable, every non-Sydney club produced larger gate receipts than their Sydney rivals.​

​

The final rankings were:​

​

1 Brisbane, 2 Newcastle, 3 Melbourne, 4 Canterbury, 5 Cronulla, 6 Sydney Roosters, 7 Parramatta, 8 North Queensland, 9 Warriors, 10 Canberra, 11 Manly, 12 Penrith, 13 Balmain, 14 North Sydney 15 Western Suburbs, 16 South Sydney.​

​

St George Illawarra were not included as they had merged at the end of the 1998 season – meaning Norths, Wests and Souths were excluded from the 2000 premiership.​

​

Mergers and financial incentives​

​

With the NRL offering $8 million to encourage mergers, Balmain and Wests also formed a joint venture, as did Manly and Norths (Northern Eagles), while the Rabbitohs took legal action which led to them being restored to the competition in 2002.​

​

However, the outcome of an appeal against Souths' win in court gives the NRL the right to exclude clubs in the future and the game may need to go through a similar process if it is decided to keep the number of teams at 16 but revamp the competition from 2023.​

​

What will it take for a Sydney club to consider relocation?

If a team from England is brave enough to relocate to Canada, what will it take for a Sydney club to secure their future by moving to Brisbane or Perth?

www.nrl.com

[/list][/b]​

It's an opinion shared by people who've played and coached the game at the highest level.

This really does deserve a potato

 

[Pneuma]

You said Sydney and Brisbane. Which combined are more then double the population of Adelaide and Perth, and are growing far at a far more rapid rate.

Adelaide and Perth are not 40% of the Australian TV market, not even close.

For mine, the "not enough talent" is horseshit peddled by anti-expansionists.

Which like it or not, you are. As your position is that expansion isn't possible without it removing teams.

He’ll just ignore your point and move on to his next tirade. Adelaide and Perth make up just on 24% of the metro population so he was only out by 16 percentage points

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You said Sydney and Brisbane.

Now you're talking even more incoherently than usual.

I had to go back and look over the conversation to see what you're alluding to.

You were arguing that adding NRL teams to Adelaide and Perth won't increase our broadcast deal by much because a) they're not large markets like SYDNEY and b) they have been fumbleball strongholds for "200+ years". Fumbleball wasn't played in Adelaide and Perth until 1877 and 1881, respectively.

Australian rules football in South Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Australian rules football in Western Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You also said it won't put our game on level with fumbleball due to the stronghold that AwFuL has in those cities. I responded to this gibberish -- the crap about Adelaide and Perth offering little to our game -- by pointing out AwFuL doesn't have a stronghold in Sydney and Brisbane, yet the Swans and Lions are able to generate better sponsorship and corporate hospitality deals than any Sydney NRL club.

This is exactly what I said:

The flaw in your argument is Sydney and Brisbane are not AwFuL strongholds, yet the Lions and Swans have no trouble drawing money from national sponsors and commanding more money from the broadcasters.

Which combined are more then double the population of Adelaide and Perth, and are growing far at a far more rapid rate.

Adelaide and Perth are not 40% of the Australian TV market, not even close.

The point I made -- which has gone right over your head -- is there's five metropolitan markets in Australia that the commercial television networks are based in. We only have a presence in three of them. That means we have no presence in two-fifths of the metropolitan markets

I never said Adelaide and Perth have as many people as Sydney.

This is how you derail threads. Instead of responding to what was actually said you interpret the OP's comment incorrectly and then start arguing against the version you imagined.

For mine, the "not enough talent" is horseshit peddled by anti-expansionists.

Which like it or not, you are. As your position is that expansion isn't possible without it removing teams.

I don't give a f**k what you think. You rarely talk coherently and respond to things that weren't even written.

The NRL.COM article I linked to earlier spoke about the depth of talent pool being a factor influencing expansion:

However, there are concerns about the depth of playing talent if the NRL was to expand the competition to 18 teams and much of the debate so far has focused on the relocation of Sydney clubs.

Former ARL CEO John Quayle told NRL.com last year that the game had been encouraging Sydney clubs to consider relocating to Melbourne as the next step in expansion after the introduction of the Auckland Warriors, North Queensland Cowboys, South Queensland Crushers and Western Reds in 1995.

However, no club had been prepared to make the move and the Super League war put an end to the discussions as the ARL and News Corp needed teams for their rival competitions.

What will it take for a Sydney club to consider relocation?

If a team from England is brave enough to relocate to Canada, what will it take for a Sydney club to secure their future by moving to Brisbane or Perth?

www.nrl.com

 

[Canard]

Now you're talking even more incoherently than usual.

I had to go back and look over the conversation to see what you're alluding to.

You were arguing that adding NRL teams to Adelaide and Perth won't increase our broadcast deal by much because a) they're not large markets like SYDNEY and b) they have been fumbleball strongholds for "200+ years". Fumbleball wasn't played in Adelaide and Perth until 1877 and 1881, respectively.

Australian rules football in South Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Australian rules football in Western Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You also said it won't put our game on level with fumbleball due to the stronghold that AwFuL has in those cities. I responded to this gibberish -- the crap about Adelaide and Perth offering little to our game -- by pointing out AwFuL doesn't have a stronghold in Sydney and Brisbane, yet the Swans and Lions are able to generate better sponsorship and corporate hospitality deals than any Sydney NRL club.

This is exactly what I said:

​

The point I made -- which has gone right over your head -- is there's five metropolitan markets in Australia that the commercial television networks are based in. We only have a presence in three of them. That means we have no presence in two-fifths of the metropolitan markets

I never said Adelaide and Perth have as many people as Sydney.

This is how you derail threads. Instead of responding to what was actually said you interpret the OP's comment incorrectly and then start arguing against the version you imagined.



I don't give a f**k what you think. You rarely talk coherently and respond to things that weren't even written.

The NRL.COM article I linked to earlier spoke about the depth of talent pool being a factor influencing expansion:

However, there are concerns about the depth of playing talent if the NRL was to expand the competition to 18 teams and much of the debate so far has focused on the relocation of Sydney clubs.

Former ARL CEO John Quayle told NRL.com last year that the game had been encouraging Sydney clubs to consider relocating to Melbourne as the next step in expansion after the introduction of the Auckland Warriors, North Queensland Cowboys, South Queensland Crushers and Western Reds in 1995.

However, no club had been prepared to make the move and the Super League war put an end to the discussions as the ARL and News Corp needed teams for their rival competitions.

What will it take for a Sydney club to consider relocation?

If a team from England is brave enough to relocate to Canada, what will it take for a Sydney club to secure their future by moving to Brisbane or Perth?

www.nrl.com

Adelaide and Perth are NOT 40% of the Australian TV market.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Adelaide and Perth are NOT 40% of the Australian TV market.

Just admit you are wrong and give the strawman arguments a rest.

I never said Adelaide and Perth are "40% of the Australian TV market".

There are five metropolitan television markets in Australia. AwFuL has a presencd in five. We only have a presence in three.

AwFuL gets bigger broadcast deals than us and the expansion clubs they have in rugby league states draw more revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality than every Sydney NRL club.

The sponsors of the Lions and Swans want their brand to be noticed in all five metropolitan markets, regardless of their population. If it was all about the size of the market -- as opposed to the totality of markets -- then Sydney's NRL clubs wouldn't be well below the Swans and Lions.

 

[Canard]

Just admit you are wrong and give the strawman arguments a rest.

I never said Adelaide and Perth are "40% of the Australian TV market".

There are five metropolitan television markets in Australia. AwFuL has a presencd in five. We only have a presence in three.

AwFuL gets bigger broadcast deals than us and the expansion clubs they have in rugby league states draw more revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality than every Sydney NRL club.

The sponsors of the Lions and Swans want their brand to be noticed in all five metropolitan markets, regardless of their population. If it was all about the size of the market -- as opposed to the totality of markets -- then Sydney's NRL clubs wouldn't be well below the Swans and Lions.

Of course it all about the size of the market.

Otherwise, why bother dick measuring "game day revenue' or corporate sponsors as you so incessantly do.

You are high on your own supply, if you think Adelaide is just as valuable as Sydney or Brisbane

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Of course it all about the size of the market.

Otherwise, why bother dick measuring "game day revenue' or corporate sponsors as you so incessantly do.

You are high on your own supply, if you think Adelaide is just as valuable as Sydney or Brisbane

Townsville has 180k people yet it generates more revenue from sponsorship, corporate hospitality, ticketing and membership than any Sydney club.

Whether you like it or not, sponsorship and gate receipts were important criteria that the clubs were judged on when the NRL decided which teams made the cut in 2000.

Why do you think these two criteria were taken into consideration?

Let's get things straight. My first mention of Australia's five metropolitan markets was in this post:

On the commercial side it has cost us money from advertisers and broadcasters because we have zero presence in forty per cent of the country's metropolitan markets.

The key term being "metropolitan markets". I didn't use the singular term "market".

You then created a strawman by combining them into one "market":

There is no metric that Adelaide and Perth make up 40% of the Australian metro "market".

Then you compared the population of Adelaide and Perth to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. . From that you argued that Adelaide and Perth constitute 20% of the "markets":

Of the 15M or so that live in these cities, only 1.3M are in Adelaide with a further 2M in Perth.

They are at best ~20% of these markets, and likely even less in true financial terms.

There's only five metropolitan markets in the country. Adelaide and Perth are two of them. Two-fifths is 40 per cent.

I never brought population into the conversation. From the start I spoke merely about the amount of metropolitan markets in Australia and focused on their importance to the television networks that service them.

One of the arguments used to justify AwFuL's stronger broadcast deals (in comparison to ours) is their spread of teams in all five metropolitan markets.

Once again you had to start talking about your marijuana fixation. You're boring.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

A few yrs ago the top tv $ markets were IIRC in order ( don’t know about now)
Syd
Melb
Bris
Regional NSW
Regional qld
perth
Adelaide.

this potato is going on raw population numbers .
not on Ad revenue .

Wookie would know far more than me if he can swallow his bile at the thought of posting in this thread again .

 

[beave]

Here's a pic of a stadium.......

 

[Pneuma]

Here's a pic of a stadium.......

View attachment 69748

Thank goodness. That steaming heap of dogs turd from Logan is killing this thread.

 

[Pneuma]

A few yrs ago the top tv $ markets were IIRC in order ( don’t know about now)
Syd
Melb
Bris
Regional NSW
Regional qld
perth
Adelaide.

this potato is going on raw population numbers .
not on Ad revenue .

Wookie would know far more than me if he can swallow his bile at the thought of posting in this thread again .

Good grief a dose of sanity.

 

[AdelaideSharky]

Tbf it won't really matter what the NRL does.

With Australia's demographics changing fast to what they were 20-30 years as much as we may guffaw at it now, it's probably highly likely soccer will take over if Football Australia and its various stakeholders finally get their heads out of their own arses and start working together as one unit.

 

[Pneuma]

Tbf it won't really matter what the NRL does.

With Australia's demographics changing fast to what they were 20-30 years as much as we may guffaw at it now, it's probably highly likely soccer will take over if Football Australia and its various stakeholders finally get their heads out of their own arses and start working together as one unit.

This has been the case for 50 years. Not holding my breath.

 

[AdelaideSharky]

This has been the case for 50 years. Not holding my breath.

While I see your point but look no further than our major cities.

All of them and its various suburbs are fast being taken over by people from Asia and Africa.

I've lived in Adelaide for 8 years now and the suburbs here are vastly different now to when I moved here in 2015.

 

[horrie hastings]

This really does deserve a potato

Considering there is suppose to be a potato shortage there seems to be no shortage here

 

[Steel Saints]

Any news on a new stadium at Penrith?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Any news on a new stadium at Penrith?

Penrith Football Stadium ain't too bad compared to some of the shitholes in Sydney. It just needs a roofed stand at one of its goaline ends and a massive video screen at the other end to be presentable. Maybe fix amenities and improve corporate suites.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Any news on a new stadium at Penrith?

This was released in August.

Out of left field: why Penrith’s $300m stadium upgrade was a surprising choice | New South Wales politics | The Guardian

While upgrades at other Sydney suburban grounds were scrapped, plans for a new Panthers stadium are forging ahead

amp.theguardian.com