Gold Coast Bears/Nth Sydney/Gosford

[Stallion]

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.

Id much rather the Melbourne logic than the suicidal option of destruction and disrespect!

 

[The Great Dane]

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.

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!

I've almost certainly been following rugby league since before you were born, I know about RLs struggles overseas, I know about RLs struggles in Japan (rather intimately considering I lived in Japan on and off for almost a decade), I know about the RU players in Japan that played a RL game one weekend (from memory one of the games was a charity game) and ended up losing their spots on their RU teams and some their jobs as well (one of them was my cousin).

I know about RLs struggles in Morocco, UAE, South Africa, England, Russia, France, Italy, Greece, and probably a handful of others that I'm forgetting at the moment.

Hell I was even a die-hard Bears fan before the Raiders were introduced into the NSWRL in 82, I still consider myself a Bears fan of sorts now, though If asked I would identify as a Raiders fan first and have done since roughly 87.
I even knew an old bloke through my Dad who was a Glebe fan, so I know a bit about what it is to lose a club (though we haven't really lost the Bears).

Really it'd be nice if you added something to the conversation instead of taking it off on BS tangents, maybe you could actually back what you say up with some sort of evidence or argument instead of bring up the problems RL has faced overseas that to a large degree it doesn't face here.

 

[Stallion]

I've almost certainly been following rugby league since before you were born, I know about RLs struggles overseas, I know about RLs struggles in Japan (rather intimately considering I lived in Japan on and off for almost a decade), I know about the RU players in Japan that played a RL game one weekend (from memory one of the games was a charity game) and ended up losing their spots on their RU teams and some their jobs as well (one of them was my cousin).

I know about RLs struggles in Morocco, UAE, South Africa, England, Russia, France, Italy, Greece, and probably a handful of others that I'm forgetting at the moment.

Hell I was even a die-hard Bears fan before the Raiders were introduced into the NSWRL in 82, I still consider myself a Bears fan of sorts now, though If asked I would identify as a Raiders fan first and have done since roughly 87.
I even knew an old bloke through my Dad who was a Glebe fan, so I know a bit about what it is to lose a club (though we haven't really lost the Bears).

Really it'd be nice if you added something to the conversation instead of taking it off on BS tangents, maybe you could actually back what you say up with some sort of evidence or argument instead of bring up the problems RL has faced overseas that to a large degree it doesn't face here.

So from all of that knowledge you choose a destructionist path for the game In Australia! Either you are a hypocrite or something isn't wired right? Absolutely amazing disrespect ! And I thought u had no knowledge of how significant the Sydney clubs are for the NRL. And u clearly do! Incredible! Give yourself an upper cut!

 

[The Great Dane]

I'm not scared of rationalisations I mentioned if a club can't handle the heat then relocate it.

Firstly, relocation don't fit the NRLs needs.

Secondly, by the time that a club falls over it's to late to control it, you can't plan for it ahead of time and you can't plan out what your competition is going to look like, you just have to hope that it turns out alright and you don't lose a club of strategic importance.
I other words it's extremely risky.

For example it would be a disaster if Manly fell over because they're the only club on the north side of the harbour, however if you plan rationalisation and take away a club that it's easy to cover the loss of you also open up space for that strategically important club to grow into.

BTW, letting clubs fall over naturally isn't really a rationalisation plan.

My point is Sydney rationalisation via the SL peace deal,was IMO a failure.

Well not shit Sherlock!

Nobody is suggesting that we do anything similar to what happened during the peace deal, it was a rushed, ill thought out, cluster f##k.

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.

Yeah but 18-20 teams isn't enough space to fit ever market that could be feasible long term if we're maintaining 9 clubs in Sydney.
So somebody has to miss out unnecessarily, we miss out on huge amounts of money (potentially billions), and we do all that to maintain 9 clubs in Sydney most of which Sydney can't support.

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.

Firstly, the NRL clubs marketing budget should not be covered by the NRL.

Secondly, though crowds help the bottom line they don't help it as much as they used to, and they're becoming less and less important financially.

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.

I don't want to go into to much detail, and I don't really want to discuss it as it's not really important, but frankly you believe way to much of what Phil Rothfield writes, or you have way to much trust in what your own club says, if you think that the Sharks are sustainable long term, cause their not.

Most of the profit they've made from the development is already gone in paying off debts, the rest will be gone in no time simply in meeting the on going costs of running their club.
They over estimate how much they'll make from selling and renting the properties, they over estimate the effect the population growth in their region will have on their business, they don't take into account possible delays in construction and the effect it may have on their business, they underestimate how much the costs of running a club are rising, they aren't using the money they got from their development to invest in other ventures to bolster their income, etc, etc, I can't be bothered going on but you get the point.

Long story short they've bought themselves time and an opportunity to really start investing into making the club sustainable long term, and so far they've squandered it, though that doesn't mean that they won't turn things around in the next ten or so years just that they haven't yet and everybody (seemingly including the Sharks themselves) is treating it as job done when it's not.

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.

Firstly, just because other competitions are doing something doesn't mean we should (such as relying on grants to sustain our clubs), nor should we accept losses just because other competitions may (such as A-league and SR suffering because of the death of TV).

Secondly, I feel like I've told you this a hundred times, but I don't support relocations for NRL clubs,they're too expensive, too slow, and have an impact on the old supporters that is largely avoidable using other methods.

Thirdly, you've got no clue what the AFL is or isn't doing so you should probably stop talking about it.
The AFL did say no more relocation, however they have been consistently trying to get some of the smaller clubs to move since saying that.
They tried to get the Demons to move to the GC before giving up and bring the Suns into the comp, they've pressured both the Roos and the Bulldogs to relocate to Canberra at different times, they've tried to push both the Hawks and the Demons into moving to Tasmania at different times, and they're just the attempts that we know of (or that I remember ATM lol) since they announced that there'd be no relocations or attempts to rationalise Melbourne.
Quite a few times now they've come within a bees dick of a full on rebellion by the richer clubs because of the tax they put on them to support the poorer clubs and the special allowances that they make for expansion clubs and clubs in the northern states, and multiple times now those richer clubs have pushed for smaller clubs to be relocated out of Melbourne or other forms of rationalisation.

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 .

Yep, but if you plan for the worst you plan for everything, we aren't planning for the worst and it could come back to bite us in the arse.

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.

By the time that revenues start to drop it's already to late, we're already in for lot of trouble by then, that's why we need to start planning and streaming lining the competition and the development pyramid now (well we needed to start 15-20 years ago really).

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.

Broadly speaking this is separate discussion that I really don't want to get into here, but personally I don't think that the taxpayer should be paying for upgrades to stadiums because of the demands of private businesses, and that the clubs should be forced into either rent whats on offer or build and maintain their own stadiums at their own expense.

It's also a moot point anyway as it's completely unrealistic to expect the government to maintain more then a few stadiums, so suburbans will eventually become a thing of the past and shared facilities (like in Melbourne) is what's going to happen whether we like it or not.

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.

Again that's an incredibly risky attitude as you can't plan it, and again relocations aren't in the NRL's interest.

 

[The Great Dane]

So from all of that knowledge you choose a destructionist path for the game In Australia! Either you are a hypocrite or something isn't wired right? Absolutely amazing disrespect ! And I thought u had no knowledge of how significant the Sydney clubs are for the NRL. And u clearly do! Incredible! Give yourself an upper cut!

Or I could just be a realist, not an idealist.

Also I still fail to see how rationalisation in Sydney is connected to RU's clandestine ways over seas, or why you think that RU in this country is in any position to attempt something clandestine of their own, or why you think anybody should respect the Sydney clubs to almost the point of reverence (especially considering the way they have used and abused the game, and the way they treat it outside of Sydney), or why you think that it's hypocritical to advocate rationalisation while knowing and understanding the history of the game (frankly I don't think you know what hypocritical means), and I'm pretty sure I will never know why you think these things because you never explain why you think these things you just repeat them over and over.

BTW did you say you were a teacher earlier.

 

[Stallion]

Firstly, relocation don't fit the NRLs needs.

Secondly, by the time that a club falls over it's to late to control it, you can't plan for it ahead of time and you can't plan out what your competition is going to look like, you just have to hope that it turns out alright and you don't lose a club of strategic importance.
I other words it's extremely risky.

For example it would be a disaster if Manly fell over because they're the only club on the north side of the harbour, however if you plan rationalisation and take away a club that it's easy to cover the loss of you also open up space for that strategically important club to grow into.

BTW, letting clubs fall over naturally isn't really a rationalisation plan.



Well not shit Sherlock!

Nobody is suggesting that we do anything similar to what happened during the peace deal, it was a rushed, ill thought out, cluster f##k.



Yeah but 18-20 teams isn't enough space to fit ever market that could be feasible long term if we're maintaining 9 clubs in Sydney.
So somebody has to miss out unnecessarily, we miss out on huge amounts of money (potentially billions), and we do all that to maintain 9 clubs in Sydney most of which Sydney can't support.



Firstly, the NRL clubs marketing budget should not be covered by the NRL.

Secondly, though crowds help the bottom line they don't help it as much as they used to, and they're becoming less and less important financially.



I don't want to go into to much detail, and I don't really want to discuss it as it's not really important, but frankly you believe way to much of what Phil Rothfield writes, or you have way to much trust in what your own club says, if you think that the Sharks are sustainable long term, cause their not.

Most of the profit they've made from the development is already gone in paying off debts, the rest will be gone in no time simply in meeting the on going costs of running their club.
They over estimate how much they'll make from selling and renting the properties, they over estimate the effect the population growth in their region will have on their business, they don't take into account possible delays in construction and the effect it may have on their business, they underestimate how much the costs of running a club are rising, they aren't using the money they got from their development to invest in other ventures to bolster their income, etc, etc, I can't be bothered going on but you get the point.

Long story short they've bought themselves time and an opportunity to really start investing into making the club sustainable long term, and so far they've squandered it, though that doesn't mean that they won't turn things around in the next ten or so years just that they haven't yet and everybody (seemingly including the Sharks themselves) is treating it as job done when it's not.



Firstly, just because other competitions are doing something doesn't mean we should (such as relying on grants to sustain our clubs), nor should we accept losses just because other competitions may (such as A-league and SR suffering because of the death of TV).

Secondly, I feel like I've told you this a hundred times, but I don't support relocations for NRL clubs,they're too expensive, too slow, and have an impact on the old supporters that is largely avoidable using other methods.

Thirdly, you've got no clue what the AFL is or isn't doing so you should probably stop talking about it.
The AFL did say no more relocation, however they have been consistently trying to get some of the smaller clubs to move since saying that.
They tried to get the Demons to move to the GC before giving up and bring the Suns into the comp, they've pressured both the Roos and the Bulldogs to relocate to Canberra at different times, they've tried to push both the Hawks and the Demons into moving to Tasmania at different times, and they're just the attempts that we know of (or that I remember ATM lol) since they announced that there'd be no relocations or attempts to rationalise Melbourne.
Quite a few times now they've come within a bees dick of a full on rebellion by the richer clubs because of the tax they put on them to support the poorer clubs and the special allowances that they make for expansion clubs and clubs in the northern states, and multiple times now those richer clubs have pushed for smaller clubs to be relocated out of Melbourne or other forms of rationalisation.



Yep, but if you plan for the worst you plan for everything, we aren't planning for the worst and it could come back to bite us in the arse.



By the time that revenues start to drop it's already to late, we're already in for lot of trouble by then, that's why we need to start planning and streaming lining the competition and the development pyramid now (well we needed to start 15-20 years ago really).



Broadly speaking this is separate discussion that I really don't want to get into here, but personally I don't think that the taxpayer should be paying for upgrades to stadiums because of the demands of private businesses, and that the clubs should be forced into either rent whats on offer or build and maintain their own stadiums at their own expense.

It's also a moot point anyway as it's completely unrealistic to expect the government to maintain more then a few stadiums, so suburbans will eventually become a thing of the past and shared facilities (like in Melbourne) is what's going to happen whether we like it or not.



Again that's an incredibly risky attitude as you can't plan it, and again relocations aren't in the NRL's interest.

The only relocation thats feasible is for the North Sydney Bears to the Central Coast. Thats it. Its diabolical you think the smaller Sydney clubs dont add value to the NRL. What a mistake! When clubs win a grand final they gain fans for life! The memories of people of those great scenes are lifelong and u propose to erase such relevance?! To add clubs to this great competition is feasible. Any other way-relocation,merging and elimination is ludicrous!

 

[taipan]

Firstly, relocation don't fit the NRLs needs.

Secondly, by the time that a club falls over it's to late to control it, you can't plan for it ahead of time and you can't plan out what your competition is going to look like, you just have to hope that it turns out alright and you don't lose a club of strategic importance.
I other words it's extremely risky.

For example it would be a disaster if Manly fell over because they're the only club on the north side of the harbour, however if you plan rationalisation and take away a club that it's easy to cover the loss of you also open up space for that strategically important club to grow into.

BTW, letting clubs fall over naturally isn't really a rationalisation plan.



Well not shit Sherlock!

Nobody is suggesting that we do anything similar to what happened during the peace deal, it was a rushed, ill thought out, cluster f##k.



Yeah but 18-20 teams isn't enough space to fit ever market that could be feasible long term if we're maintaining 9 clubs in Sydney.
So somebody has to miss out unnecessarily, we miss out on huge amounts of money (potentially billions), and we do all that to maintain 9 clubs in Sydney most of which Sydney can't support.



Firstly, the NRL clubs marketing budget should not be covered by the NRL.

Secondly, though crowds help the bottom line they don't help it as much as they used to, and they're becoming less and less important financially.



I don't want to go into to much detail, and I don't really want to discuss it as it's not really important, but frankly you believe way to much of what Phil Rothfield writes, or you have way to much trust in what your own club says, if you think that the Sharks are sustainable long term, cause their not.

Most of the profit they've made from the development is already gone in paying off debts, the rest will be gone in no time simply in meeting the on going costs of running their club.
They over estimate how much they'll make from selling and renting the properties, they over estimate the effect the population growth in their region will have on their business, they don't take into account possible delays in construction and the effect it may have on their business, they underestimate how much the costs of running a club are rising, they aren't using the money they got from their development to invest in other ventures to bolster their income, etc, etc, I can't be bothered going on but you get the point.

Long story short they've bought themselves time and an opportunity to really start investing into making the club sustainable long term, and so far they've squandered it, though that doesn't mean that they won't turn things around in the next ten or so years just that they haven't yet and everybody (seemingly including the Sharks themselves) is treating it as job done when it's not.



Firstly, just because other competitions are doing something doesn't mean we should (such as relying on grants to sustain our clubs), nor should we accept losses just because other competitions may (such as A-league and SR suffering because of the death of TV).

Secondly, I feel like I've told you this a hundred times, but I don't support relocations for NRL clubs,they're too expensive, too slow, and have an impact on the old supporters that is largely avoidable using other methods.

Thirdly, you've got no clue what the AFL is or isn't doing so you should probably stop talking about it.
The AFL did say no more relocation, however they have been consistently trying to get some of the smaller clubs to move since saying that.
They tried to get the Demons to move to the GC before giving up and bring the Suns into the comp, they've pressured both the Roos and the Bulldogs to relocate to Canberra at different times, they've tried to push both the Hawks and the Demons into moving to Tasmania at different times, and they're just the attempts that we know of (or that I remember ATM lol) since they announced that there'd be no relocations or attempts to rationalise Melbourne.
Quite a few times now they've come within a bees dick of a full on rebellion by the richer clubs because of the tax they put on them to support the poorer clubs and the special allowances that they make for expansion clubs and clubs in the northern states, and multiple times now those richer clubs have pushed for smaller clubs to be relocated out of Melbourne or other forms of rationalisation.



Yep, but if you plan for the worst you plan for everything, we aren't planning for the worst and it could come back to bite us in the arse.



By the time that revenues start to drop it's already to late, we're already in for lot of trouble by then, that's why we need to start planning and streaming lining the competition and the development pyramid now (well we needed to start 15-20 years ago really).



Broadly speaking this is separate discussion that I really don't want to get into here, but personally I don't think that the taxpayer should be paying for upgrades to stadiums because of the demands of private businesses, and that the clubs should be forced into either rent whats on offer or build and maintain their own stadiums at their own expense.

It's also a moot point anyway as it's completely unrealistic to expect the government to maintain more then a few stadiums, so suburbans will eventually become a thing of the past and shared facilities (like in Melbourne) is what's going to happen whether we like it or not.



Again that's an incredibly risky attitude as you can't plan it, and again relocations aren't in the NRL's interest.

 

[Stallion]

Or I could just be a realist, not an idealist.

Also I still fail to see how rationalisation in Sydney is connected to RU's clandestine ways over seas, or why you think that RU in this country is in any position to attempt something clandestine of their own, or why you think anybody should respect the Sydney clubs to almost the point of reverence (especially considering the way they have used and abused the game, and the way they treat it outside of Sydney), or why you think that it's hypocritical to advocate rationalisation while knowing and understanding the history of the game (frankly I don't think you know what hypocritical means), and I'm pretty sure I will never know why you think these things because you never explain why you think these things you just repeat them over and over.

BTW did you say you were a teacher earlier.

If you have feeling for the Bears thats a Sydney club. You are advocating the elimination of more such clubs. Perhaps a hypocritical thought process and definitely a person with no soul and respect for history, tradition and relevance. You dismiss these vital words as if they dont matter! Well they do matter. And this is where your logic dismally fails. Shame on you!
And dont kid yourself! You are the one that needs a reality check. The Sydney clubs are real and have real fans all over Australia. Your ideological and reckless regard for this competition is both ignorant and lacks wise business accumen. You dont rid a competition of established markets! Golden rule.

 

[taipan]

In fact under the current Tv money situation ,the stadium issues and the need for consolidation,the intent of clubs to be more proactive in new infrastructure plans, the status quo and not relocation fits the NRL;s position .
It is sensible therefore the current grants to clubs involving additional monies marketing and growth strategies is the answer.Thus avoiding clubs falling over is not necessary.

I cannot agree with the point , losing a club in any area ,is not a good option.You whiteant your support for the code, your grassroots and potential sponsors.North Sydney is whether we agree or not a rl desert by comparison to other rl areas.It became a welcome mat for AFL.

And there are no guarantees a new club in another non heartland area ,is going to be a success.It could in fact be a huge financial drain on resources.The code cannot afford to spend $20m pa and have a debacle.and come crawling back home.

Why the need to rationalise ,if you can make the clubs grow their support base and juniors.Especailly now there is talk of updating infrastructure in the outer Sdney clubs.

The SL rationalisation was rushed because of the time factor for Pay TV and funding available.
@ Expedient for the ARL and News
b)Because also there was SFA money in the kitty.$25m ARL money went down the tube.
The situation from 2018-2023 is completely different.

Your view about 18 20 teams not having enough space ,doesn't mean that it is correct and not practical or financially sustainable.We cannot emphatically say that is the case.
Particularly if you secure a huge TV deal.Or whatever revenue comes form other technologies down the line.

TV monies is a result of club participation in the NRL.Hence they should secure the lion's share of the revenue,and thus be entitled to marketing assistance and junior support and infrastructure support.

Crpwds of course down and that affects the bottom line.Get clubs marketing assistance with better facilities and scheduling and that can be reversed.


I have zero time for Rothfield.My opinion about the club is based on my long term association and membership of that club.5 years ago the Sharks were in financial sh*t street.that is not the situation now.,and is also the view of Bruno Cullen who audited their books and looked into the plans.David Smith w1as of that view.Yet you know better than all.
The notion I follow Rothfield is pure and utter fantasy.
The construction is well on target.Two blocks completed and occupied.Two new blocks under construction.There have been little in the way of delays,weather has also been kind.
and looking like mid next year completionRetail starting in the next couple of months.$1m plus rental; just from retail.
Squandering most of their money LOL.They have a repayment to the private lender, legal issues and fees re players.The profits from units well in excess of thugs figures,In addition plans for an additional 200 units and a hotel on top of the 700 plus units agreed.A refurbished two floor Leagues club part of the next retail stage.

The AFL have tried and not succeeded in further relocation, a message from their clubs and fans.Something the NRL should heed.And the nRL has stated expansion will be looked at for the 2023 period.
The AFL have spent a motza on expansion clubs, and that has upset the established ones.$20m pa per expansion club is not chicken feed.And whose to say that would not happen in NRL expansion

 

[Stallion]

In fact under the current Tv money situation ,the stadium issues and the need for consolidation,the intent of clubs to be more proactive in new infrastructure plans, the status quo and not relocation fits the NRL;s position .
It is sensible therefore the current grants to clubs involving additional monies marketing and growth strategies is the answer.Thus avoiding clubs falling over is not necessary.

I cannot agree with the point , losing a club in any area ,is not a good option.You whiteant your support for the code, your grassroots and potential sponsors.North Sydney is whether we agree or not a rl desert by comparison to other rl areas.It became a welcome mat for AFL.

And there are no guarantees a new club in another non heartland area ,is going to be a success.It could in fact be a huge financial drain on resources.The code cannot afford to spend $20m pa and have a debacle.and come crawling back home.

Why the need to rationalise ,if you can make the clubs grow their support base and juniors.Especailly now there is talk of updating infrastructure in the outer Sdney clubs.

The SL rationalisation was rushed because of the time factor for Pay TV and funding available.
@ Expedient for the ARL and News
b)Because also there was SFA money in the kitty.$25m ARL money went down the tube.
The situation from 2018-2023 is completely different.

Your view about 18 20 teams not having enough space ,doesn't mean that it is correct and not practical or financially sustainable.We cannot emphatically say that is the case.
Particularly if you secure a huge TV deal.Or whatever revenue comes form other technologies down the line.

TV monies is a result of club participation in the NRL.Hence they should secure the lion's share of the revenue,and thus be entitled to marketing assistance and junior support and infrastructure support.

Crpwds of course down and that affects the bottom line.Get clubs marketing assistance with better facilities and scheduling and that can be reversed.


I have zero time for Rothfield.My opinion about the club is based on my long term association and membership of that club.5 years ago the Sharks were in financial sh*t street.that is not the situation now.,and is also the view of Bruno Cullen who audited their books and looked into the plans.David Smith w1as of that view.Yet you know better than all.
The notion I follow Rothfield is pure and utter fantasy.
The construction is well on target.Two blocks completed and occupied.Two new blocks under construction.There have been little in the way of delays,weather has also been kind.
and looking like mid next year completionRetail starting in the next couple of months.$1m plus rental; just from retail.
Squandering most of their money LOL.They have a repayment to the private lender, legal issues and fees re players.The profits from units well in excess of thugs figures,In addition plans for an additional 200 units and a hotel on top of the 700 plus units agreed.A refurbished two floor Leagues club part of the next retail stage.

The AFL have tried and not succeeded in further relocation, a message from their clubs and fans.Something the NRL should heed.And the nRL has stated expansion will be looked at for the 2023 period.
The AFL have spent a motza on expansion clubs, and that has upset the established ones.$20m pa per expansion club is not chicken feed.And whose to say that would not happen in NRL expansion

I would also suggest that the addition of Brisbane 2 and Perth based club would be a reclamation of the NRL footprint that was decimated by the super league agreement. These additional clubs can be realised once again without punishing the code in Sydney.

 

[Stallion]

Or I could just be a realist, not an idealist.

Also I still fail to see how rationalisation in Sydney is connected to RU's clandestine ways over seas, or why you think that RU in this country is in any position to attempt something clandestine of their own, or why you think anybody should respect the Sydney clubs to almost the point of reverence (especially considering the way they have used and abused the game, and the way they treat it outside of Sydney), or why you think that it's hypocritical to advocate rationalisation while knowing and understanding the history of the game (frankly I don't think you know what hypocritical means), and I'm pretty sure I will never know why you think these things because you never explain why you think these things you just repeat them over and over.

BTW did you say you were a teacher earlier.

I am a teacher and am witnessing the decline in rugby league interest within the schools I teach at in Newcastle. The neglect by the game in development is rife! All rugby league needs to do is get amongst it in the schools where the game has been played and things will improve. The kids are crying out to play rugby league but have no avenue. Even League tag competitions would be great for primary school aged kids. A well targeted development push in schools within the Sydney metropolitan area and elsewhere will reap rewards for the game into the future. Running away and apathy does not work. Other codes are benefitting from this lazy and ill targeted development of recent times.
And your (get rid of clubs in Sydney)stance is hypocritical given you claimed to be a North Sydney Bears fan. No Bears fan would have advocated what you are putting forward! It's resulted in the Bears demise! Pleeeeease! That's hypocritical!

Perhaps you might need a PHPDE refresher lesson in values such as respect and loyalty?

 

[The Great Dane]

I am a teacher and am witnessing the decline in rugby league interest within the schools I teach at in Newcastle. The neglect by the game in development is rife! All rugby league needs to do is get amongst it in the schools where the game has been played and things will improve. The kids are crying out to play rugby league but have no avenue. Even League tag competitions would be great for primary school aged kids. A well targeted development push in schools within the Sydney metropolitan area and elsewhere will reap rewards for the game into the future. Running away and apathy does not work. Other codes are benefitting from this lazy and ill targeted development of recent times.
And your (get rid of clubs in Sydney)stance is hypocritical given you claimed to be a North Sydney Bears fan. No Bears fan would have advocated what you are putting forward! It's resulted in the Bears demise! Pleeeeease! That's hypocritical!

Perhaps you might need a PHPDE refresher lesson in values such as respect and loyalty?

Please tell me you are a PE teacher.

And you need to look up what hypocrisy means.

 

[The Great Dane]

I honestly don't care enough about the Sharks stuff to argue about it, so I cut it, but you need to re-read what I wrote because you've misunderstood a lot of it, and I'd suggest that you should be careful trusting people in power with an agenda.

In fact under the current Tv money situation ,the stadium issues and the need for consolidation,the intent of clubs to be more proactive in new infrastructure plans, the status quo and not relocation fits the NRL;s position .
It is sensible therefore the current grants to clubs involving additional monies marketing and growth strategies is the answer.Thus avoiding clubs falling over is not necessary.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, so I'll leave it.

I cannot agree with the point , losing a club in any area ,is not a good option.You whiteant your support for the code, your grassroots and potential sponsors.North Sydney is whether we agree or not a rl desert by comparison to other rl areas.It became a welcome mat for AFL.

That loss of support has been shown to be generational time and time again, yes you lose the support of a lot of the current fans (to what degree and whether or not they jump to new sports or clubs, and to what degree they jump to those new sports or clubs, we don't know cause the reserch ha never been done) but if you plan for it properly you can win back their kids and their grandchildren.

Also generally speaking rationalisation doesn't effect the grassroots at all if you plan it right (apart from a small drop in participation rates right after the loss of a club), the NS situation is more a situation of the Bears on making as they have consistently blocked any other NRL club from taking over or assisting their juniors now that they can't support them properly anymore, this attitude has done more damage for RL in NS then anything else over the past 20 years.

And again you have failed to present any causation between the Bears demise and the AFLs growth, in the grassroots or anywhere else.

And there are no guarantees a new club in another non heartland area ,is going to be a success.It could in fact be a huge financial drain on resources.The code cannot afford to spend $20m pa and have a debacle.and come crawling back home.

It's true that new clubs might not be successful straight away, but they've got something that the Sydney clubs don't!
Their mere presence in the competition adds value to the competitions TV rights, sponsorship, etc, that wouldn't be there if they weren't, so even if they did lose 20 million a year it wouldn't matter because in of themselves they add $30mil (just as an example, not an actual figure) to the TV rights value so you could give them the $20mil each year to support themselves and still come out on top with an extra $10mil in the bank.
This isn't true of the Sydney clubs as it only takes a one club in each major city to give you that value on the TV rights. In other words you could lose a handful of Sydney clubs and not have any affect on the value of the TV rights, however if you lose the Broncos or the Storm you would cut a quarter or more off the TV rights value overnight.

Why the need to rationalise ,if you can make the clubs grow their support base and juniors.Especailly now there is talk of updating infrastructure in the outer Sdney clubs.

Because the Sydney clubs can never grow as big as the out of town clubs in other cities can with all the competition they face locally, and because you can support all of the juniors, sponsors, corporates, potential supporters, etc, in Sydney with only 4-6 clubs in Sydney.

In other words you don't need 9 clubs to maintain any of those benefits in Sydney, and spaces in the competition are finite, and by having 9 clubs in Sydney that means that more clubs in other places have to miss out on a place in the competition then is necessary and that the NRL (and to a large degree RL it's self) has to miss out on access to those markets and the benefits that they offer.

The SL rationalisation was rushed because of the time factor for Pay TV and funding available.
@ Expedient for the ARL and News
b)Because also there was SFA money in the kitty.$25m ARL money went down the tube.
The situation from 2018-2023 is completely different.

Yeah and how this is an indictment of rationalisation?

All bring this shows is an example of how not to do rationalisation, not that rationalisation in of it's self is bad.

Your view about 18 20 teams not having enough space ,doesn't mean that it is correct and not practical or financially sustainable.We cannot emphatically say that is the case.

Yes we can emphatically say that 18-20 teams in the NRL isn't enough space to accommodate every potential expansion club of the future given current growth rate for the sport.

Though I'm not suggesting that all of these places should get a club (in fact I think it'd be bloody stupid to give most of these potential bids a license anytime soon), it is reasonable that within the next 50 or so years that Perth and Perth 2, Brisbane 2, 3, and 4, Adelaide 1 and 2, Melbourne 2, CC, CQ, Sunshine coast, Geelong, Darwin, Tasmania, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Hamilton, Auckland 2, and PNG could all realistically support a club, and that's not taking into account wildcard places like Hawaii, Singapore, etc, which may want to join or may be viable at some point.

I think it's pretty obvious that potentially 20+ doesn't fit into the roughly 4-6 spots that we have left in the competition, I also think it's very unlikely that we'll be able to support a large competition with multiple conferences anytime soon with the current licensing agreements and the size of the grants as a percentage of the broadcasting rights the NRL is giving to the clubs.

Particularly if you secure a huge TV deal.Or whatever revenue comes form other technologies down the line.

Well how things will turn out in that regard is very up in the air.

TV monies is a result of club participation in the NRL.Hence they should secure the lion's share of the revenue,and thus be entitled to marketing assistance and junior support and infrastructure support.

Frankly no, the lions share shouldn't go to a handful of professional clubs, the lions share should go into developing the game because it's not the clubs that create the TV audience it's the game, there'd be no clubs without the game, and for the game to survive and thrive the roots need to be watered so that the flowers can grow big and strong.

And frankly the NRL shouldn't have to assist the clubs marketing endeavors, as frankly they suck at marketing themselves (which is one of RLs biggest problems in this country), but mainly because the clubs should just be doing it themselves and should have been doing it from time in memorial.
The clubs are businesses in their own right, they need to start acting like it.

And though I don't really want to get into it to much, as it's another huge topic in of it's self, but I think that we should be slowly taking junior development away from the NRL clubs, but that's a conversation for another time.

Crpwds of course down and that affects the bottom line.Get clubs marketing assistance with better facilities and scheduling and that can be reversed.

Yes that's true, but crowds are not as valuable as ratings, or clicks anymore, the market has changed drastically in that regard (and is changing drastically again), the obsession with crowds is massively over blown, and you don't need large crowds to survive anymore (though admittedly they are a nice thing to have, and do help), people should be much more worried about ratings being down cause that's where the real money is at the moment.

And frankly huge crowds isn't going to save clubs or make them sustainable in of themselves.

The AFL have tried and not succeeded in further relocation, a message from their clubs and fans.Something the NRL should heed.And the nRL has stated expansion will be looked at for the 2023 period.
The AFL have spent a motza on expansion clubs, and that has upset the established ones.$20m pa per expansion club is not chicken feed.And whose to say that would not happen in NRL expansion

Firstly, the AFL haven't forced the issue on rationalisation since the 90s, if they did it'd be very hard for their clubs to stop them.

Secondly, there is no message from the clubs or fans to heed as it hasn't been taken far enough for them to protest it, and even if they did they're replaceable if you plan it right and the AFL know this.

Thirdly, the AFLs expansion clubs have more then paid for themselves in the value they've added to the TV rights (and sponsorship values) and running an operating an NRL club is not as expensive as running a AFL club.

 

[Stallion]

Please tell me you are a PE teacher.

And you need to look up what hypocrisy means.

You seem to have a 'closed' understanding of the word hypocritical? You informed that you were a true Bears fan and you seek the elimination of Sydney clubs, just like the Bears? Its clear you are insincere in your motives. The word 'insincere' is a common synonymn for the word hypocritical. Enough on the teaching please! Im on school holidays.
Looking at your overall comments they do have relevance way into the future but are very inappropriate for now or the foreseeable future. Dismantling the core of the game is not prudent or required for the NRL to expand in these times.

 

[taipan]

I honestly don't care enough about the Sharks stuff to argue about it, so I cut it, but you need to re-read what I wrote because you've misunderstood a lot of it, and I'd suggest that you should be careful trusting people in power with an agenda.



I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, so I'll leave it.



That loss of support has been shown to be generational time and time again, yes you lose the support of a lot of the current fans (to what degree and whether or not they jump to new sports or clubs, and to what degree they jump to those new sports or clubs, we don't know cause the reserch ha never been done) but if you plan for it properly you can win back their kids and their grandchildren.

Also generally speaking rationalisation doesn't effect the grassroots at all if you plan it right (apart from a small drop in participation rates right after the loss of a club), the NS situation is more a situation of the Bears on making as they have consistently blocked any other NRL club from taking over or assisting their juniors now that they can't support them properly anymore, this attitude has done more damage for RL in NS then anything else over the past 20 years.

And again you have failed to present any causation between the Bears demise and the AFLs growth, in the grassroots or anywhere else.



It's true that new clubs might not be successful straight away, but they've got something that the Sydney clubs don't!
Their mere presence in the competition adds value to the competitions TV rights, sponsorship, etc, that wouldn't be there if they weren't, so even if they did lose 20 million a year it wouldn't matter because in of themselves they add $30mil (just as an example, not an actual figure) to the TV rights value so you could give them the $20mil each year to support themselves and still come out on top with an extra $10mil in the bank.
This isn't true of the Sydney clubs as it only takes a one club in each major city to give you that value on the TV rights. In other words you could lose a handful of Sydney clubs and not have any affect on the value of the TV rights, however if you lose the Broncos or the Storm you would cut a quarter or more off the TV rights value overnight.



Because the Sydney clubs can never grow as big as the out of town clubs in other cities can with all the competition they face locally, and because you can support all of the juniors, sponsors, corporates, potential supporters, etc, in Sydney with only 4-6 clubs in Sydney.

In other words you don't need 9 clubs to maintain any of those benefits in Sydney, and spaces in the competition are finite, and by having 9 clubs in Sydney that means that more clubs in other places have to miss out on a place in the competition then is necessary and that the NRL (and to a large degree RL it's self) has to miss out on access to those markets and the benefits that they offer.



Yeah and how this is an indictment of rationalisation?

All bring this shows is an example of how not to do rationalisation, not that rationalisation in of it's self is bad.



Yes we can emphatically say that 18-20 teams in the NRL isn't enough space to accommodate every potential expansion club of the future given current growth rate for the sport.





Though I'm not suggesting that all of these places should get a club (in fact I think it'd be bloody stupid to give most of these potential bids a license anytime soon), it is reasonable that within the next 50 or so years that Perth and Perth 2, Brisbane 2, 3, and 4, Adelaide 1 and 2, Melbourne 2, CC, CQ, Sunshine coast, Geelong, Darwin, Tasmania, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Hamilton, Auckland 2, and PNG could all realistically support a club, and that's not taking into account wildcard places like Hawaii, Singapore, etc, which may want to join or may be viable at some point.

I think it's pretty obvious that potentially 20+ doesn't fit into the roughly 4-6 spots that we have left in the competition, I also think it's very unlikely that we'll be able to support a large competition with multiple conferences anytime soon with the current licensing agreements and the size of the grants as a percentage of the broadcasting rights the NRL is giving to the clubs.



Well how things will turn out in that regard is very up in the air.





Frankly no, the lions share shouldn't go to a handful of professional clubs, the lions share should go into developing the game because it's not the clubs that create the TV audience it's the game, there'd be no clubs without the game, and for the game to survive and thrive the roots need to be watered so that the flowers can grow big and strong.

And frankly the NRL shouldn't have to assist the clubs marketing endeavors, as frankly they suck at marketing themselves (which is one of RLs biggest problems in this country), but mainly because the clubs should just be doing it themselves and should have been doing it from time in memorial.
The clubs are businesses in their own right, they need to start acting like it.

And though I don't really want to get into it to much, as it's another huge topic in of it's self, but I think that we should be slowly taking junior development away from the NRL clubs, but that's a conversation for another time.



Yes that's true, but crowds are not as valuable as ratings, or clicks anymore, the market has changed drastically in that regard (and is changing drastically again), the obsession with crowds is massively over blown, and you don't need large crowds to survive anymore (though admittedly they are a nice thing to have, and do help), people should be much more worried about ratings being down cause that's where the real money is at the moment.

And frankly huge crowds isn't going to save clubs or make them sustainable in of themselves.



Firstly, the AFL haven't forced the issue on rationalisation since the 90s, if they did it'd be very hard for their clubs to stop them.

Secondly, there is no message from the clubs or fans to heed as it hasn't been taken far enough for them to protest it, and even if they did they're replaceable if you plan it right and the AFL know this.

Thirdly, the AFLs expansion clubs have more then paid for themselves in the value they've added to the TV rights (and sponsorship values) and running an operating an NRL club is not as expensive as running a AFL club.

I will not go into detail, because I'm having a lot of fun with a troll in the fight club.cept to suggest you make a lot of assumptions about the Sharks a few which are incorrect,about fans after clubs chopped, about expansion clubs, bout clubs having the onus of marketing themselves as being a no no, about the AFL and expansion(as they are pushing dark stuff up a hill to get further relocations and providing grants andextra benefits to smaller clubs.The AFL will well argue the expansion clubs have pushed up the TV value, but what is forgotten Murdoch up the ante on the Tv deal, due to his disgust about the NRL doing a swift with 9.

You and I can argue back and forth til we are blue in the face, but I haven't changed my view sand no doubt you have not changed yours.

All I will say ,the lie of the land for me will be better exposed when the NRL has sorted out the RLPA issues,the money coming in from 2018,the sale of Titans and Knights,money for grassroots and whether the weight/age aspect will be brought in and when Parra stadium is played inland the other stadiums are sorted out.I want the game to grow, but not at the expense of any more clubs.
Here endeth my rant.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The market has been there in Sydney for over 100 years, it is not poorly developed and certainly not neglected, it is over saturated. Your Sydney population growth in any of the NRL catchment areas isn't going to be bigger than the population of Perth which currently has no team at all to support or Brisbane which has one. And for all the population growth in Sydney over the last 20 years club support has hardly grown, suggesting new people moving there are not very interested in following an NRL club.

As someone who has watched his club yoyo up and down, nearly go bust twice and unable to invest long term because of lack of tenure I can assure you P&R is not the answer!

Sydney needs 6 super clubs the size of the Broncos, a strong second tier of grass roots jnr development clubs and to let the game grow nationally. This selfishness and entitlement that Sydney must have nine clubs, Sydney must have the GF, why should Sydney give up an origin game, Sydney should have RLWC big games etc is pretty distasteful tbh.

PR, I don't disagree with you about rationalisation of Sydney but which should be the super clubs?

Paramatta, Canterbury, Souths, St George-Illawarra, Wests Tigers seem to be the biggest (I could be wrong about that) but do you put the rest in NSW Cup? Do you relocate some (Many or Roosters to Gosford)?

I think your proposal makes sense and it opens up spots in the top teir to start developing larger city markets (look how far Melbourne have come since their humble beginnings), but I do worry about further apathy towards the game in Sydney that would come with removing two or three clubs.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

If any club became financially stricken they would have access to the sinking fund pool. This would cause other clubs to be annoyed and pissed that they have got themselves to that point. It would force them to make drastic decisions for their survival. Any club would relocate before removal.

The club would want to make it look like they have decided to relocate and start fresh etc. yes some fans may become disgruntled but the majority would be accepting I feel.

 

[Stallion]

Pretty sure most people on this acknowledge rugby league needs to broaden its footprint all over Australia. Timing is the issue as far as directly impacting the foundations of the game (the Sydney clubs) Any short to medium term moves to relocate, eliminate, merge will prove disastrous for this very vulnerable code. Many mistakes are being made that are pissing fans off like taking away games from the Aussie weekend, continually changing playing strips from week to week, overuse of technology in making on field decisions and poorly targeted development work etc that is resulting in a downhill slide for this great sport as we speak. To meddle with the established advantage of the core of the game(Sydney clubs) in the foreseeable future will send another negative message to the general public. For the sake of the game it is wise to embrace expansion by introducing (or re introducing-Perth & Brisbane2 etc)additional clubs to NRL. Any more bleeding from Sydney is not good for this code. Sydney clubs need to lift their game and market and develope for the code rather than seek short-term money gains.

 

[Vee]

Dad always taught me I should never argue with a fool, people watching on might not be able to tell the difference.

Words to live by even if I need reminding sometimes.

 

[Diesel]

Has anyone got an inside word or update about the sale?