Gold Coast Bears/Nth Sydney/Gosford

[Stallion]

I agree.Bears lost fans , sure some followed other clubs but a lot didn't .Joint ventures p*ssed off quite a few Wests/Tigers/Dragons/Illawarra supporters some lost to the game ,and sure some remained loyal.
The point is who benefited the most, certainly not rugby league.They had less teams, the AFL benefitted from the SL war dividing fans and clubs being rissoles.The Union mob to a lesser extent/.Others I have no doubt just gave up siupporting attending the NRL.
The effect of tossing the Reds was obvious less juniors ATT and then union came in.

Is our NRL admin also to take some of the blame?I have no doubt they are clueless at marketing.I also know bending over to Rupert and ch9 and their control of scheduling rogered the ability to attract crowds.

Sydney has close to 5m people,and the NRL has 8 1/2 teams(the half being Dragons) repping this city.That's about 1 club for every 500,000. GC population about that figure.Townsville less,Canberra less.

If the NRL had any marketing ability, decent stadiums and aggressive promotions,they should be able to average minimum 18,-20,000 for each club.Making all clubs viable.

TBH I can't see P&R working in city like Sydney.Not when you have 4 codes competing for th fans' dollars.UK his different soccer first daylight second, and much bigger populations.

Totally agree with all you have stated and im so glad you have mathematically done the sums. Great thinking. The destructionists stance have not mathematically or geographically looked at this properly. I have included the promotion and relegation conference to placate the wolves. However the idea would be to give clubs like the Bears some hope. I think the game is good enough to do this in a densely populated city like Sydney. Keeping in mind that the stronger 2nd tier club may not aspire to join the top.flight. The stars would have to allign for this to happen.For instance if a top flight Sydney club falters for a few seasons then an invitation may be given to a successful 2nd tier club (say North Sydney Bears) This invite may or may not be taken up by the televant club. So aspiring clubs will.need to have their act together and be ready if an opportunity arises. Otherwise they keep playing to suit where the club wants to be. This is more of a fallback position as many on this site have their knives out for the vitally important and significant core of this competition that resides in the Sydney metropolitan area.

 

[The Great Dane]

I agree.Bears lost fans , sure some followed other clubs but a lot didn't .Joint ventures p*ssed off quite a few Wests/Tigers/Dragons/Illawarra supporters some lost to the game ,and sure some remained loyal.
The point is who benefited the most, certainly not rugby league.They had less teams, the AFL benefitted from the SL war dividing fans and clubs being rissoles.The Union mob to a lesser extent/.Others I have no doubt just gave up siupporting attending the NRL.
The effect of tossing the Reds was obvious less juniors ATT and then union came in.

Nobody has ever been able to prove a significant increase of fans for the AFL or RU from people that were not already interested in the AFL and/ or RU caused by the loss of the Bears and the mergers, you've got correlation yes, but not causation.

To come to the conclusion that the major reason or the only reason for the growth in support of the AFL and RU was because there was a massive drift of fans from the Bears and the mergers (that had no prior interest in the AFL or RU before hand) jumped on to them you have to ignore a ton of other factors, such as the Swans success in that period, RU going professional and creating a team that represented the city (state in fact) instead of having all it's support split between 20-30 smaller suburban and representative clubs, the AFL increasing spending on the grass roots expediently at the time, it being announced that the RWC was going to be held in Australia and all the excitement that went along with that, the RWC it's self, SOOs continuous growth and the effects it's had on the NRL,etc, etc.

Did the Bears dropping down and the mergers have any effect on the growth of RU and AFL in Sydney at the time? Almost certainly yes, how much of an impact nobody knows, but considering all the other factors of the time I think it's very unlikely that the Bears and the Mergers had much of an impact and certainly were not even close to the main reason for the AFLs and RUs growth during that period.

Either way it's been shown time and time again how to mitigate the loss of fans caused be rationalisation in other competitions, there're endless amounts of examples and stratgies that have worked.

Is our NRL admin also to take some of the blame?I have no doubt they are clueless at marketing.I also know bending over to Rupert and ch9 and their control of scheduling rogered the ability to attract crowds.

Well to be fair News and the broadcasters had the NRL over a barrel for a while, however yes the NRL has been terrible at dealing with them, and as soon as we got somebody that was willing to put them in their place he was chased off.

Sydney has close to 5m people,and the NRL has 8 1/2 teams(the half being Dragons) repping this city.That's about 1 club for every 500,000. GC population about that figure.Townsville less,Canberra less.

It's not population that is the problem in Sydney, it's competition for corporate and government money, and sponsorship between the clubs that is the problem.

And that is something that can't be fixed by anything except rationalisation, unless we're willing to wait for things to develop that take an extremely long time (like 50-100 years plus long), which the NRL simply don't have the time to wait for.

If the NRL had any marketing ability, decent stadiums and aggressive promotions,they should be able to average minimum 18,-20,000 for each club.Making all clubs viable.

TBH I can't see P&R working in city like Sydney.Not when you have 4 codes competing for th fans' dollars.UK his different soccer first daylight second, and much bigger populations.

It's true that the NRLs marketing (and advertising, and merchandising) is abysmal, but the clubs themselves have to take some of the blame for that too (considering that on the whole they are even worse at it then the NRL is they have to take a big chunk of the blame in this regard).

Also attendance doesn't make a club viable, the money made from ticket sales usually helps, but it doesn't in of it's self make a club viable (if you need anymore evidence of that look at the AFL clubs in Melbourne, most of them aren't viable long term, or Japanese Rugby clubs, most of them are despite relatively small crowds), and frankly unless the clubs were averaging over 50k a week it wouldn't make a significant difference to their log term viability anyway, unless they want to raise ticket prices a lot that is.

 

[Stallion]

Nobody has ever been able to prove a significant increase of fans for the AFL or RU from people that were not already interested in the AFL and/ or RU caused by the loss of the Bears and the mergers, you've got correlation yes, but not causation.

To come to the conclusion that the major reason or the only reason for the growth in support of the AFL and RU was because there was a massive drift of fans from the Bears and the mergers (that had no prior interest in the AFL or RU before hand) jumped on to them you have to ignore a ton of other factors, such as the Swans success in that period, RU going professional and creating a team that represented the city (state in fact) instead of having all it's support split between 20-30 smaller suburban and representative clubs, the AFL increasing spending on the grass roots expediently at the time, it being announced that the RWC was going to be held in Australia and all the excitement that went along with that, the RWC it's self, SOOs continuous growth and the effects it's had on the NRL,etc, etc.

Did the Bears dropping down and the mergers have any effect on the growth of RU and AFL in Sydney at the time? Almost certainly yes, how much of an impact nobody knows, but considering all the other factors of the time I think it's very unlikely that the Bears and the Mergers had much of an impact and certainly were not even close to the main reason for the AFLs and RUs growth during that period.

Either way it's been shown time and time again how to mitigate the loss of fans caused be rationalisation in other competitions, there're endless amounts of examples and stratgies that have worked.



Well to be fair News and the broadcasters had the NRL over a barrel for a while, however yes the NRL has been terrible at dealing with them, and as soon as we got somebody that was willing to put them in their place he was chased off.



It's not population that is the problem in Sydney, it's competition for corporate and government money, and sponsorship between the clubs that is the problem.

And that is something that can't be fixed by anything except rationalisation, unless we're willing to wait for things to develop that take an extremely long time (like 50-100 years plus long), which the NRL simply don't have the time to wait for.



It's true that the NRLs marketing (and advertising, and merchandising) is abysmal, but the clubs themselves have to take some of the blame for that too (considering that on the whole they are even worse at it then the NRL is they have to take a big chunk of the blame in this regard).

Also attendance doesn't make a club viable, the money made from ticket sales usually helps, but it doesn't in of it's self make a club viable (if you need anymore evidence of that look at the AFL clubs in Melbourne, most of them aren't viable long term, or Japanese Rugby clubs, most of them are despite relatively small crowds), and frankly unless the clubs were averaging over 50k a week it wouldn't make a significant difference to their log term viability anyway, unless they want to raise ticket prices a lot that is.

Absolutely on a different planet you are! Are you aware that employees were sacked from a Japanese business for playing an amateur game of rugby league on a given weekend during the offseason in Japan? I dont think u understand the magnitude of damage u are advocating to this treasured (in my eyes and plenty of others ) competition.
Before my very eyes I am seeing women and children supporting AFL in the primary schools of Newcastle. This was never the case when I was at school! You have proven to be a destructionist,ignoramus and disrespectful all at once!

 

[taipan]

Nobody has ever been able to prove a significant increase of fans for the AFL or RU from people that were not already interested in the AFL and/ or RU caused by the loss of the Bears and the mergers, you've got correlation yes, but not causation.

To come to the conclusion that the major reason or the only reason for the growth in support of the AFL and RU was because there was a massive drift of fans from the Bears and the mergers (that had no prior interest in the AFL or RU before hand) jumped on to them you have to ignore a ton of other factors, such as the Swans success in that period, RU going professional and creating a team that represented the city (state in fact) instead of having all it's support split between 20-30 smaller suburban and representative clubs, the AFL increasing spending on the grass roots expediently at the time, it being announced that the RWC was going to be held in Australia and all the excitement that went along with that, the RWC it's self, SOOs continuous growth and the effects it's had on the NRL,etc, etc.

Did the Bears dropping down and the mergers have any effect on the growth of RU and AFL in Sydney at the time? Almost certainly yes, how much of an impact nobody knows, but considering all the other factors of the time I think it's very unlikely that the Bears and the Mergers had much of an impact and certainly were not even close to the main reason for the AFLs and RUs growth during that period.

Either way it's been shown time and time again how to mitigate the loss of fans caused be rationalisation in other competitions, there're endless amounts of examples and stratgies that have worked.



Well to be fair News and the broadcasters had the NRL over a barrel for a while, however yes the NRL has been terrible at dealing with them, and as soon as we got somebody that was willing to put them in their place he was chased off.



It's not population that is the problem in Sydney, it's competition for corporate and government money, and sponsorship between the clubs that is the problem.

And that is something that can't be fixed by anything except rationalisation, unless we're willing to wait for things to develop that take an extremely long time (like 50-100 years plus long), which the NRL simply don't have the time to wait for.



It's true that the NRLs marketing (and advertising, and merchandising) is abysmal, but the clubs themselves have to take some of the blame for that too (considering that on the whole they are even worse at it then the NRL is they have to take a big chunk of the blame in this regard).

Also attendance doesn't make a club viable, the money made from ticket sales usually helps, but it doesn't in of it's self make a club viable (if you need anymore evidence of that look at the AFL clubs in Melbourne, most of them aren't viable long term, or Japanese Rugby clubs, most of them are despite relatively small crowds), and frankly unless the clubs were averaging over 50k a week it wouldn't make a significant difference to their log term viability anyway, unless they want to raise ticket prices a lot that is.

1) I didn't state it was the major reason.In fact it was one of a few.The SL war for one, poor administration,the Swans getting into a G/F and the Sydney media fawning all over the,doisenchanted rl fans who lost a club or lost the identity of one.
Have a look at the situation in the North Sydney are now,and prior when they had a club.Not even worth discussing further on that one.The cod is struggling there, especially with no team to sell.The RWC 2003 assisted union ,the they stuffed up since losing all the ,money they had in the kitty.Union went pro in 1995 when SL reared its ugly head,andother boost for union.


Of course they had the NRL over a barrel.Owning half and selling it to yourself does that.Let's see what 2018-2023 brings with better scheduling.

The biggest problem the NRL has is not selling the game to the Sydney corporates.I wasn't a great Smith fan, but that was one of his aims.Plus idols off the field don't inspire the corporate side.
It hasn't stopped the Sharks securing a full list of sponsors.


I'm fully aware of revenue details.What makes a club viable is a combo of attendances,sponsorship,membership and merchandising.
The point the Chairman of the Storm made, with the new grant from 2018 his club should be break even.

The very reason the new grant comes into being in 2018 is to ensure or at least provide the clubs with a platform to be self sustainable.if they can;t do it, then relocete them.

 

[Perth Red]

Penny still hasn't dropped has it? Your reckless regard for the Sydney clubs reflects a poor understanding of longevity and generational market share. Taking any club away weakens the code in Sydney. I think its pretty simple . Expand the game exponentially with additional clubs. This creates both a solid foundation and more opportunity for players and a resultant allround increased interest in the game. It is then seen as a sport on the rise instead of inflicting damage to itself. Your tact is disastrous but sadly you know that.

And you still ignore the fact that the nrl for the Last 10 years has consistently said no expansion as current clubs are unsustainable and not enough players. You can say you think we should keep all Sydney clubs and expand to 20 teams but the nrl is very clear that will never happen. So what option do we have?

 

[Stallion]

And you still ignore the fact that the nrl for the Last 10 years has consistently said no expansion as current clubs are unsustainable and not enough players. You can say you think we should keep all Sydney clubs and expand to 20 teams but the nrl is very clear that will never happen. So what option do we have?

Their are enough players so dont go down that track! Being an ex trialist im aware of the talent that misses out. Its mind blowing!
I dont think the NRL is clear on that outcome. In fact I have a gut feel their will be an additional two clubs announced in their future plans come February. Just a hunch. And without the carving up of the very popular and well established Sydney clubs. That's what people call a win/win instead of the absolute mess you have been advocating.

 

[Stallion]

1) I didn't state it was the major reason.In fact it was one of a few.The SL war for one, poor administration,the Swans getting into a G/F and the Sydney media fawning all over the,doisenchanted rl fans who lost a club or lost the identity of one.
Have a look at the situation in the North Sydney are now,and prior when they had a club.Not even worth discussing further on that one.The cod is struggling there, especially with no team to sell.The RWC 2003 assisted union ,the they stuffed up since losing all the ,money they had in the kitty.Union went pro in 1995 when SL reared its ugly head,andother boost for union.


Of course they had the NRL over a barrel.Owning half and selling it to yourself does that.Let's see what 2018-2023 brings with better scheduling.

The biggest problem the NRL has is not selling the game to the Sydney corporates.I wasn't a great Smith fan, but that was one of his aims.Plus idols off the field don't inspire the corporate side.
It hasn't stopped the Sharks securing a full list of sponsors.


I'm fully aware of revenue details.What makes a club viable is a combo of attendances,sponsorship,membership and merchandising.
The point the Chairman of the Storm made, with the new grant from 2018 his club should be break even.

The very reason the new grant comes into being in 2018 is to ensure or at least provide the clubs with a platform to be self sustainable.if they can;t do it, then relocete them.

Agree with all that you state except for the last paragraph. Dont let these 'destructionists' impair your thoughts. The game has suffered immensely from the farcical mergers and omissions that have occured. SYDNEY clubs are invaluable for the NRL. Additional clubs will fuel greater participant interest and genuine expansion not regression as proposed by the "destructionists"

 

[The Great Dane]

Absolutely on a different planet you are! Are you aware that employees were sacked from a Japanese business for playing an amateur game of rugby league on a given weekend during the offseason in Japan? I dont think u understand the magnitude of damage u are advocating to this treasured (in my eyes and plenty of others ) competition.
Before my very eyes I am seeing women and children supporting AFL in the primary schools of Newcastle. This was never the case when I was at school! You have proven to be a destructionist,ignoramus and disrespectful all at once!

What does any of that have to do with anything I said?

 

[Stallion]

What does any of that have to do with anything I said?

Im trying to emphasise that rugby league has not got the friends like other codes have. As soon as you mentioned Japan i thought it worth letting you know. This naturally occurring popularity in Sydney is well earnt. The game elsewhete is being held back for reasons like the one I have infomed of in Japan. The Sydney clubs are a very precious and a worthwhile commodity. They are the fabric and foundation of this great competition in Australia. They have not been propagated by artificial means . These clubs are genuinely popular in their own right. This relevance is something that is not easily gained. It reflects credibility through longevity which gives the competition immense status in both respect and history.

 

[The Great Dane]

1) I didn't state it was the major reason.In fact it was one of a few.The SL war for one, poor administration,the Swans getting into a G/F and the Sydney media fawning all over the,doisenchanted rl fans who lost a club or lost the identity of one.
Have a look at the situation in the North Sydney are now,and prior when they had a club.Not even worth discussing further on that one.The cod is struggling there, especially with no team to sell.The RWC 2003 assisted union ,the they stuffed up since losing all the ,money they had in the kitty.Union went pro in 1995 when SL reared its ugly head,andother boost for union.

It was one of more then a few reasons, but that is beside the point.

Anyway if you understand all of this then why are you so scared of rationalisation?
Surely you see that it wasn't the rationalisation in of it's self that caused the things you are scared of, it was merely one factor among dozens, tens of dozens, most of which were more damaging then the rationalisation it's self.
Surely you see that apart from the fact that mergers are inherently a bad idea that's never truly succeeded anywhere, the main reason why the mergers and the Bears being dropped failed was mainly to do with a mixture of bad timing, poor planning, a terrible administration, and self interest.

Almost all of the mitigating factors that caused the peace deals and it's outcomes to be such a cluster f##k are gone, so if we were to attempt rationalisation right now, this very second, it wouldn't have an outcome anywhere near as bad as what happen in the late 90s-early 00s, if we took the time and planned it properly rationalisation would be nothing but positive for the game.

Of course they had the NRL over a barrel.Owning half and selling it to yourself does that.Let's see what 2018-2023 brings with better scheduling.

The biggest problem the NRL has is not selling the game to the Sydney corporates.I wasn't a great Smith fan, but that was one of his aims.Plus idols off the field don't inspire the corporate side.
It hasn't stopped the Sharks securing a full list of sponsors.

You've get no disagreement from me, the only thing I would say is that if there wasn't as much competition for sponsors in Sydney and the game was national the Sharks sponsorship would be worth a shit ton more than it's worth now, also it wasn't that long ago that the Sharks were struggling to do anything well, and if their not careful they'll be back in that position within 15-20 years time.

I'm fully aware of revenue details.What makes a club viable is a combo of attendances,sponsorship,membership and merchandising.
The point the Chairman of the Storm made, with the new grant from 2018 his club should be break even.

That's a massive over simplification, and in todays climate (and it looks like far into the future as well) attendance is one of the least important revenue streams, crowds are more important in the way that they make a club look good and popular more so then the money they bring in.

The very reason the new grant comes into being in 2018 is to ensure or at least provide the clubs with a platform to be self sustainable.if they can;t do it, then relocete them.

Firstly, the clubs shouldn't be relying on the new grant to be sustainable, because it's more then likely that for the foreseeable future our broadcasting rights (and the grants with the rights) will be going down (potentially way down) as TV dies, nobodies really sure how things will work out for sport (especially sports and competitions that don't have a large global audience like RL and the NRL) as the internet and streaming kills TV, it could turn out alright or it could be disastrous.

Secondly, you and I both know that most of the clubs wont spend the extra money wisely, and that many of them will still be begging for more once the grants get increased next year.

 

[The Great Dane]

Im trying to emphasise that rugby league has not got the friends like other codes have. Ss soon as you mentioned Japan i thought it worth letting you know. This naturally occurring popularity in Sydney is well earnt. The game elsewhete is being held back for reasons like the one I have infomed of in Japan. The Sydney clubs are a very precious and a worthwhile commodity. They are the fabric and foundation of this great competition in Australia. They have not been propagated by artificial means . These clubs are genuinely popular in their own right. This week is something that is not easily gained. It reflects credibility through longevity which gives the competition immense status in both respect and history.

Firstly I don't think that most of the Sydney clubs are half as popular as you think they are.

Secondly bringing up that story about Japanese rugby had nothing at all to do with Japanese rugby in the context that I was talking about them.

 

[Perth Red]

Firstly I don't think that most of the Sydney clubs are half as popular as you think they are.

Secondly bringing up that story about Japanese rugby had nothing at all to do with Japanese rugby in the context that I was talking about them.

We only have three measurements to judge the true fanbase of clubs. Attendance, memberships, tv audiences.

Given most clubs are sub 15k crowds, 20k members and for 5.5million people most games draw sub 500k in Sydney on tv there is no evidence clubs fanbases are anything like claimed by stallion.

 

[Vee]

I dont think the NRL is clear on that outcome. In fact I have a gut feel their will be an additional two clubs announced in their future plans come February. Just a hunch. And without the carving up of the very popular and well established Sydney clubs. That's what people call a win/win instead of the absolute mess you have been advocating.

Gut feel, huh? I'll take your money.

 

[Stallion]

Gut feel, huh? I'll take your money.

Hope I'm right. I did back Makybe Diva for her three Melbourne cup wins! Lol

 

[Stallion]

Firstly I don't think that most of the Sydney clubs are half as popular as you think they are.

Secondly bringing up that story about Japanese rugby had nothing at all to do with Japanese rugby in the context that I was talking about them.

Just thought id throw it in and give you an awareness you dont have as your 'vision' for rugby league is clearly ignorant of its struggles. The fragile nature of this code does not lend itself to dismantling longstanding clubs with established market share. Because the bad guys are out there mate. Whether you choose to like it or not. Their are people seeking to undermine rugby league and your logic is very risky both for the game in Sydney and elsewhere. Given that the NRL clubs are well established the stuff you're proposing is fairytale ignorance at its worst. I think we both like the sport but perhaps an improved appreciation of where its at needs to be understood.

 

[Stallion]

Firstly I don't think that most of the Sydney clubs are half as popular as you think they are.

Secondly bringing up that story about Japanese rugby had nothing at all to do with Japanese rugby in the context that I was talking about them.

The Japanese information is showing you the precarious existence and vulnerability of rugby league. It has a big brother code in rugby union trying to repress and weaken it. Your proposal and disregard for the clubs in Sydney is a clear example of what other codes would like rugby league to do so they can further encroach the established and longstading market share which gives rugby league credibility. The Sydney clubs are more popular than you think. This is your mistake!

 

[taipan]

It was one of more then a few reasons, but that is beside the point.

Anyway if you understand all of this then why are you so scared of rationalisation?
Surely you see that it wasn't the rationalisation in of it's self that caused the things you are scared of, it was merely one factor among dozens, tens of dozens, most of which were more damaging then the rationalisation it's self.
Surely you see that apart from the fact that mergers are inherently a bad idea that's never truly succeeded anywhere, the main reason why the mergers and the Bears being dropped failed was mainly to do with a mixture of bad timing, poor planning, a terrible administration, and self interest.

Almost all of the mitigating factors that caused the peace deals and it's outcomes to be such a cluster f##k are gone, so if we were to attempt rationalisation right now, this very second, it wouldn't have an outcome anywhere near as bad as what happen in the late 90s-early 00s, if we took the time and planned it properly rationalisation would be nothing but positive for the game.



You've get no disagreement from me, the only thing I would say is that if there wasn't as much competition for sponsors in Sydney and the game was national the Sharks sponsorship would be worth a shit ton more than it's worth now, also it wasn't that long ago that the Sharks were struggling to do anything well, and if their not careful they'll be back in that position within 15-20 years time.



That's a massive over simplification, and in todays climate (and it looks like far into the future as well) attendance is one of the least important revenue streams, crowds are more important in the way that they make a club look good and popular more so then the money they bring in.



Firstly, the clubs shouldn't be relying on the new grant to be sustainable, because it's more then likely that for the foreseeable future our broadcasting rights (and the grants with the rights) will be going down (potentially way down) as TV dies, nobodies really sure how things will work out for sport (especially sports and competitions that don't have a large global audience like RL and the NRL) as the internet and streaming kills TV, it could turn out alright or it could be disastrous.

Secondly, you and I both know that most of the clubs wont spend the extra money wisely, and that many of them will still be begging for more once the grants get increased next year.

 

[taipan]

It was one of more then a few reasons, but that is beside the point.

Anyway if you understand all of this then why are you so scared of rationalisation?
Surely you see that it wasn't the rationalisation in of it's self that caused the things you are scared of, it was merely one factor among dozens, tens of dozens, most of which were more damaging then the rationalisation it's self.
Surely you see that apart from the fact that mergers are inherently a bad idea that's never truly succeeded anywhere, the main reason why the mergers and the Bears being dropped failed was mainly to do with a mixture of bad timing, poor planning, a terrible administration, and self interest.

Almost all of the mitigating factors that caused the peace deals and it's outcomes to be such a cluster f##k are gone, so if we were to attempt rationalisation right now, this very second, it wouldn't have an outcome anywhere near as bad as what happen in the late 90s-early 00s, if we took the time and planned it properly rationalisation would be nothing but positive for the game.



You've get no disagreement from me, the only thing I would say is that if there wasn't as much competition for sponsors in Sydney and the game was national the Sharks sponsorship would be worth a shit ton more than it's worth now, also it wasn't that long ago that the Sharks were struggling to do anything well, and if their not careful they'll be back in that position within 15-20 years time.



That's a massive over simplification, and in todays climate (and it looks like far into the future as well) attendance is one of the least important revenue streams, crowds are more important in the way that they make a club look good and popular more so then the money they bring in.



Firstly, the clubs shouldn't be relying on the new grant to be sustainable, because it's more then likely that for the foreseeable future our broadcasting rights (and the grants with the rights) will be going down (potentially way down) as TV dies, nobodies really sure how things will work out for sport (especially sports and competitions that don't have a large global audience like RL and the NRL) as the internet and streaming kills TV, it could turn out alright or it could be disastrous.

Secondly, you and I both know that most of the clubs wont spend the extra money wisely, and that many of them will still be begging for more once the grants get increased next year.

I'm not scared of rationalisations I mentioned if a club can't handle the heat then relocate it.My point is Sydney rationalisation via the SL peace deal,was IMO a failure.
The AFL tried to get a joint venture from memory involving Hawthorn and another,

Of course the mitigating factors have gone,howver since we have had an A
league, all the money thrown in by the AFL, S15 ,which were barely in existence prior.

No argument from me on a National domicile being worth more sponsorship wise,That's why I'm for at least 18 -20 teams nationally.
Simplification!!! I mentioned all aspects attendance,membership,sponsorship,merchandise.Getting a NRL grant to fully cover the cap plus an extra % for marketing.Bums on seats is a huge plus for the AFL and should be for the NRL.
/infrastrucure also helps the bottom line.
The Sharks have already planned ahead, not just to rely on on revenue or two revenue streams.The development from part of their initial plan not only to save the club but provide additional revenue for the long term.

The AFL clubs in the majority of cases rely on grants to sustain them.Hell the A league and S18 would be stuffed without Fox money.
The AFL moved the Swans and Lions as they were basket cases.They had stated no further moves will be done.They tired a merger involving Hawthorn,knocked on the head.They were lucky with the Swans, initially a disaster, then a SL godsend, plus a G.F.The Lions initially OK now a basket case losing millions.You think the AFL will flick them no way.

Few of us know I would imagine, what technology will do in the next 20 years.FTA TV is going through a tough time and that may well continue, hence I'd guess the reason the NRL has the new tech/news section.What other forms of showing games could engender decent revenue for the NRL down the line .

Any club worth its salt would be put on notice.If TV revenue drops substantially,clubs either have to make up the shortfall by their own initiatives or if they can't, then they move to wherever.

And clubs should be pushing ,Those on the Sydney fringe )for better stadium infrastructure.
Pay $15 to sit on the hill in the weather or $25 under cover in a decent covered stand as an example.


Under past club admins and indeed a couple of current ones I would agree.However think most now run by professional people not ex players, and being told they won't be getting any help if they cannot survives sufficient incentive for them to get off their a*ses and keep the clubs viable.

 

[Stallion]

I'm not scared of rationalisations I mentioned if a club can't handle the heat then relocate it.My point is Sydney rationalisation via the SL peace deal,was IMO a failure.
The AFL tried to get a joint venture from memory involving Hawthorn and another,

Of course the mitigating factors have gone,howver since we have had an A
league, all the money thrown in by the AFL, S15 ,which were barely in existence prior.

No argument from me on a National domicile being worth more sponsorship wise,That's why I'm for at least 18 -20 teams nationally.
Simplification!!! I mentioned all aspects attendance,membership,sponsorship,merchandise.Getting a NRL grant to fully cover the cap plus an extra % for marketing.Bums on seats is a huge plus for the AFL and should be for the NRL.
/infrastrucure also helps the bottom line.
The Sharks have already planned ahead, not just to rely on on revenue or two revenue streams.The development from part of their initial plan not only to save the club but provide additional revenue for the long term.

The AFL clubs in the majority of cases rely on grants to sustain them.Hell the A league and S18 would be stuffed without Fox money.
The AFL moved the Swans and Lions as they were basket cases.They had stated no further moves will be done.They tired a merger involving Hawthorn,knocked on the head.They were lucky with the Swans, initially a disaster, then a SL godsend, plus a G.F.The Lions initially OK now a basket case losing millions.You think the AFL will flick them no way.

Few of us know I would imagine, what technology will do in the next 20 years.FTA TV is going through a tough time and that may well continue, hence I'd guess the reason the NRL has the new tech/news section.What other forms of showing games could engender decent revenue for the NRL down the line .

Any club worth its salt would be put on notice.If TV revenue drops substantially,clubs either have to make up the shortfall by their own initiatives or if they can't, then they move to wherever.

And clubs should be pushing ,Those on the Sydney fringe )for better stadium infrastructure.
Pay $15 to sit on the hill in the weather or $25 under cover in a decent covered stand as an example.


Under past club admins and indeed a couple of current ones I would agree.However think most now run by professional people not ex players, and being told they won't be getting any help if they cannot survives sufficient incentive for them to get off their a*ses and keep the clubs viable.

You bring up a very important point about what they are doing in Melbourne. No more loss ot teams! Funnily enough Melbourne has one million less people and ten teams whereas Sydney has one million more people and 8.5 teams in their 'main' code. Go figure the logic of the destructionists ? Shear lunacy! No doubt they will ignore it but its there for their awareness Great stuff!

 

[Perth Red]

You bring up a very important point about what they are doing in Melbourne. No more loss ot teams! Funnily enough Melbourne has one million less people and ten teams whereas Sydney has one million more people and 8.5 teams in their 'main' code. Go figure the logic of the destructionists ? Shear lunacy! No doubt they will ignore it but its there for their awareness Great stuff!

Couple of things afl has though, afl structures it's revenue distribution to prop up those failing melbourne teams, why are they failing? Because they have too many teams as well! They desperately tried to get one of them to relocate at last expansion. They tax the biG clubs to help out the small clubs and have unequal grant distribution. And all that despite the smaller clubs still getting 30k plus fans through the gate!

There may come a time they may not have the revenue, big clubs may spit the dummy or the over saturation becomes so impacting that they will have to rationalise Melbourne.