Gold Coast Bears/Nth Sydney/Gosford

[The Great Dane]

The plan had been changed as a matter of necessity.Not enough quality players ,as the ARL had a decent share.
Of course things changed the ARL and Packer didn't want a bar of it,ARL being contracted to Nine,and Packer paying a king's ransom to have it.Neither were going to lie down for News and warm heartedly think of England and charity.
The competition included Broncos and the new entrants Cowboys/Reds/Warriors.all part of the TV deal.
I'm not even going to respond to your original plan comment.It (the 14 team)was hardly a secret .Books written on the subject matter.Thus I call BS .The Tele scribes were out in full force praising the concept.,and they continued to do so when the Court case was won by News.

And to this very day,I see Rebecca Wilson the marketing face of SL,with a huge smile on her face when News won the final court battle;e,enabling them to play in 97.

Whatever the public knew beforehand and neither you or I know the numbers,and no doubt many had not a clue, the point was and remains the fact , the backlash from the public in the media, talkback,club fans, the drop off in SL crowds,TV ratings and indeed ARL crowds then, was a big warning to both warring parties.Keep this up and you are stuffed.

The fans could not handle the situation in SL with 10 teams, and the reaction at the Sharks' Leagues club, which you obviously did not attend,as relocation and or teams combining was mentioned in passing.
It was a case then many fans did not want a bar of News Ltd intrusion, and Ribot for quite a few was the devll incarnate.The Shark's board had already decided to go to SL for survival.


"Everyone happy with expansion" let me clarify ,people who are expansionists like moi and no doubt others were happy with the likes of Perth/Townsville/NZ/Crushers inclusion.Why? A 2nd Brisbane team:Needed.Perth": needed NZ:RL was going nowhere ATT. Cowboys:Heartland.
Yes some of the old traditionalists were agin it ,where will we get the players?My club is financially strung ,why use money to expand?
In fact it was Arthurson who was working on expansion for only 2 teams, but according to Masters,the bids were so good, what the heck, let's include the lot.

I'm not a Telecrap fan, but the Adelaide Aces was mentioned not only in that rag, but in RL Week.From memory the Dragons drew some decent crowds there.
Don't bang on about the ARL f*cking the Aces.That same mob were well on the way to pushing the Sharks interstate ,hence Got committing to SL.Which in retrospect saved the club, to get where it is today.

What makes up the overwhelming majority of ARL income ,the TV rights from ch9 ATT.Thats where the action and fan focus was.

If KP had not the money or inclination ,it would have been a lay down for News.News was used to getting its way on many issues, and still does.Their commercial arrogance is legendary.Rupert has openly admitted SL cost his company much more than anticipated, despite his Pay TV win.
The fact Packer had sent an emissary to South Africa to enter into discussion to start a Rugby World Series was also worrying.Not long after union became overtly;y professional.

Didn't Perth pay for travel and accommodation costs ,under the SL banner, also?

You can argue to and fro ,til you are back and blue, but Arthurson and Co were there to protect the existing comp and the TV contract.Some no doubt consider it selfish and anti expansionary by not reducing team numbers, but both Arko and Quayle were former 1st grade players and fans the game.They wanted to ensure fans of the existing clubs were if possible not lost as a result of rationalisation or relocation.Certainly in the short term.No doubt long term expansion to other areas and rationalisation was in their minds.

You're totally missing what I was saying and going off into a tangent about SL and what it turned into.

What I was saying wasn't a defence of SL, rather I was attempting to show that the same attitudes that existed back then largely speaking exist today and that SL turned into what it became largely because of Arko, Quayle, and the Sydney clubs in generals reaction to it, it didn't have to be what it turned into, but because they outright refused to even look at it, let alone discuss it, and refuse to engage with the clubs about some of the problems that they were having SL turned into what it became.

Their self interest and arrogance was a huge contributor to not only to SL happening but especially to how it turned into what it became, and that same sort of self interest and arrogance is still present in the game at all the clubs to varying degrees, but it's particularly virulent at the Sydney clubs with there attitude that they have a divine right to a spot in the comp.

So yeah long story short you missed the point.

I am and remain ,pro expansion,but with the retention of all financially viable and sustainable current NRL clubs.I suggest many who live outside Sydney,dont; share that view.Knowing full well the chances of their clubs being relocated or joint ventured are next to zero.

So in other words you aren't pro expansion!

You don't care if other clubs are added to the comp as long as they don't effect your club, you aren't pro expansion and making the comp the best and most competitive that it can be cause to do that nessacrly the expansion is going to affect the current clubs and sometimes in negitive ways, those are two very different things.

So yeah you aren't pro expansion, your pro expansion as long as it doesn't effect me, just like all of the Sydney old boys club back in the day who were "happy with expansion" until it affected them and played a huge part in setting the sport on a road to what ended up becoming SL...

 

[Stallion]

So I'm just supposed to just figure it out when you decide to add the whole populations of another city and region into your calculations for the population of a third unconnected city... Yeah whatever mate.



The problem with your "logic" is that it's based on a ton of presuppositions that are presupposed without evidence and are just asserted, so if I don't accept the presuppositions then all the "logic" that follows doesn't mean a dame thing cause the base of the argument is faulty and you have failed to support it.

Your "logic" also seem to be extremely internally inconsistent, with rules that apply to Sydney and Sydney clubs that don't apply to out of Sydney clubs etc, and because you outright refuse to answer questions or even discuss criticisms of these internal inconsistencies at all there's no way for you to clear up those logical inconsistencies if they are in fact simple misunderstandings, I don't think that they are misunderstandings you just don't care that you are completely inconsistent in your "logic", but we'll never know cause you wont even engage in attempting to clear it up, in fact you seemingly wont engage in anything that doesn't follow a pre-scripted argument that you've laid out, if anyone leaves the script you ignore what they said and try to twist the conversation back onto your script.

That's why I don't take you seriously, and I haven't since the first time that we communicated, cause you refuse to engage with any ideas that don't already fit into your 'world view' (for lack of a better term), so what is the point in taking you seriously there's nothing to be gained by it...



I have no problem with discussing the three different cities, I do however have a problem with you trying to arbitrarily merge their numbers into one to suit yourself when they aren't one city, they are as you say three (if you consider Gosford a city, I don't think that it's recognised as a city, could be wrong though).

What you are saying is that there should be 10 clubs in Sydney when what you mean is that there should be 8 in Sydney and 1 each in Woolongong an Gosford, by merging the two concepts into one you are just confusing the issue...



Maybe they are still on the eastern stand, I'm not sure and I don't really care, but they were defiantly replaced in at least some parts of the stadium at some point.

All the cities, and they are cities are relevant to the market available for the clubs that are being discussed. Gosford has over 300000 people and is a city, Wollongong has over 320000 and is a city . Geelong is a city with 178000. Hope you can factor in all of these very relevant locations as they are absolutely integral to calculating relevant markets for the sporting clubs of both football competitions. So in summary you advocate diluting the NRL (nine clubs) with a market of well over a million more people in Sydney and surrounds, yet the AFL is travelling very well with ten longstanding and well known clubs with over a million less in market potential? Get back to your calculator.
Finally you are conceding that the BEARS wording does exist and if you care to look it's all over the eastern concourse from tryline to tryline in coloured seating arrangements. This is all factual and all relevant to what has been discussed. Now go and buy a calculator! Oops and visit an optometrist as well!

 

[taipan]

You're totally missing what I was saying and going off into a tangent about SL and what it turned into.

What I was saying wasn't a defence of SL, rather I was attempting to show that the same attitudes that existed back then largely speaking exist today and that SL turned into what it became largely because of Arko, Quayle, and the Sydney clubs in generals reaction to it, it didn't have to be what it turned into, but because they outright refused to even look at it, let alone discuss it, and refuse to engage with the clubs about some of the problems that they were having SL turned into what it became.

Their self interest and arrogance was a huge contributor to not only to SL happening but especially to how it turned into what it became, and that same sort of self interest and arrogance is still present in the game at all the clubs to varying degrees, but it's particularly virulent at the Sydney clubs with there attitude that they have a divine right to a spot in the comp.

So yeah long story short you missed the point.



So in other words you aren't pro expansion!

You don't care if other clubs are added to the comp as long as they don't effect your club, you aren't pro expansion and making the comp the best and most competitive that it can be cause to do that nessacrly the expansion is going to affect the current clubs and sometimes in negitive ways, those are two very different things.

So yeah you aren't pro expansion, your pro expansion as long as it doesn't effect me, just like all of the Sydney old boys club back in the day who were "happy with expansion" until it affected them and played a huge part in setting the sport on a road to what ended up becoming SL...

And in typical well worn fashion,.you are misconstruing what I am saying..
Did I suggest your comments were a defence of SL?Your anti Sydney clubs view ,might suggest you are hardly anti SL.

The attitudes for some of the old school more likely.It's fair to argue most Sydney club fans are currently OK with expansion.If anything such as blogs,comments in newspapers, on radio and even here are to go by.

SL turned into the mess it became,because it was a raid pure and simple.To suggest otherwise is delusionary.The ideas behind it were no doubt well intentioned.But using the Trumpesque approach by the instigators was bound to end badly, as it did.
If protecting TV contracts and not undermining the status quo is arrogance so be it.
The irony of you calling these ARL guys arrogant,when you ignore the News side of the equation.They both wanted
their cake and eat it.

News attitude to contracts and competition of any sorts, adopts the bull in the china shop approach.They f*cked up Fox in the USA,in the UK with phone tapping and SL instigation.They also are effective in pushing agendas at election time in many countries mentioned.They know how to screw on TV deals .

I'm not here to protect Quayle or Arthurson(who were prepared to relocate the Sharks),but they are no more guilty of arrogance and not understanding the lie of the land ,than Ribot/Morgan /and Murdoch.

I am at complete liberty to suggest ,that should the Sharks enter the financial mire at any time, and the NRL decide to relocate,I accept the fact.And ditto for any club Sydney and or interstate clubs.So your statement about me not caring about expansion, as it doesn't affect (not effect)my clubs,is utter hogwash.

Why on earth should any club that is financially secure,grows its ,membership,sponsorship,revenue,has a decent junior base, and crowds, in a city where 3 other codes are trying and succeeding in many cases, be flicked because it's supposedly(and that's BS) good for the game.

By what criteria? There are no guarantees in place removing a Sydney club is going to grow crowds/revenue or TV ratings, by placing it in another location.
Whose to say other codes will not take advantage of the vacuum ?It happened post 95 with the Swans.
Who says,expanding to 18 teams, leaving Sydney clubs in tact(provided they are viable)cannot be achieved and grow the game at all levels and also provide a bigger TV deal?
Who says expansion will be a roll gold success.Like all ventures ,it's a gamble?
Who knows the effect on crowds with new Sydney stadiums?

Your attitude is expand.and Sydney clubs be damned.Your current club ironically ,is not in the firing line.The old slash and burn approach, and bugger the consequences .

Expansion into NZ was and still is struggle in a union dominated country.The Cowboys got into financial sh*t in the early years.Are you suggesting if the Broncos or Storm run into financial problems for a few years, they should be flicked? Look at the financial issues with the Knights over the years.

Expansion needs to happen, with an 18 team comp.Here endeth my rant.

I also believe West Tigers should be domiciled in Campbelltown,where the so called fish or flathead are.St George domiciled in Wollongong.Both with 3 games at Jubilee/Leichhardt respectively.
If the Sharks wanted to play a game or two Interstate regularly, all good.

 

[The Great Dane]

All the cities, and they are cities are relevant to the market available for the clubs that are being discussed. Gosford has over 300000 people and is a city, Wollongong has over 320000 and is a city . Geelong is a city with 178000.Hope you can factor in all of these very relevant locations as they are absolutely integral to calculating relevant markets for the sporting clubs of both football competitions.

Gosford does not have a population of over 300 thousand, it's population as of 2016 (the most recent stats that I can find) is 169 thousand, and I don't think that anybody considers it a city officially (though I don't really care if it is or isn't considered a city, just trying to keep the conversation based in fact).

Wollongong doesn't have a population of over 320 thousand either, it's population is as of last year is 213 thousand...

So yeah your numbers are more then a hundred thousand off in both cases...

So in summary you advocate diluting the NRL (nine clubs) with a market of well over a million more people in Sydney and surrounds, yet the AFL is travelling very well with ten longstanding and well known clubs with over a million less in market potential? Get back to your calculator.

Firstly I don't advocate diluting the Sydney market, I don't advocate killing clubs outright at all, I don't even advocate relocation of clubs to outside of the city, I only advocate restructuring the NRL and lower tiers for a better more even spread of clubs and markets and a more valuable result, that's a big difference.

I worst you might get if I had complete control of the NRL is a handful of clubs dropped down into the NSW/Qld cup or a new national reserve grade competition that has the same amount of coverage nationally as the NRL, and maybe a few clubs forced into minor re-brands, maybe the odd relocation to a suburb over or whatever, and a refocusing of some of their business plans and targets.

Again you are presupposing that the AFL is traveling well and that they are traveling well is an accepted fact! It's not an accepted fact and they aren't traveling particularly well, and basically nobody with any knowledge on the subject agrees with you on this point!

Are the AFL doing better then the NRL? Yes, much better.

Are they doing as well as they could be? No, they could be doing a lot better by making a handful of changes.

Are they being weighed down by an over saturated market? Yes, and they're headed to the same calamity that the the NRL is.

When it comes to the Melbourne clubs the AFL are basically in exactly the same spot that the NRL is in Sydney, the only difference is that more of their bigger clubs in Melbourne are actually sustainable and/or profitable then the NRL clubs in Sydney.

Finally you are conceding that the BEARS wording does exist and if you care to look it's all over the eastern concourse from tryline to tryline in coloured seating arrangements. This is all factual and all relevant to what has been discussed. Now go and buy a calculator! Oops and visit an optometrist as well!

No I'm not conceding that the bears wording exists on the eastern concourse, I'm saying I don't know and I don't really care! Those are two hugely different things...

BTW considering that all your numbers are way off maybe it is you that needs to buy a calculator...

 

[The Great Dane]

And in typical well worn fashion,.you are misconstruing what I am saying..
Did I suggest your comments were a defence of SL?Your anti Sydney clubs view ,might suggest you are hardly anti SL.

Firstly I never suggested that you did say that what I said was a defence of SL, I was simply stating that it wasn't to make it clear.

Secondly, I don't hold anti-Sydney club views, I hold anti-oversaturation that in the long term will screw the NRL and the sport as a whole in this country views. I'd hold the same views that I do now if the oversaturation was in Brisbane instead of Sydney.

And finally, so you're saying that you weren't suggesting that I was defending SL, but that I probably am a SL supporter, ok then...

For the record I do not and have never supported SL, I liked some of their ideas and some of the directions that they wanted to take the game in, I but I was strongly opposed to a media corporation having so much control of the sport and the conflicts of interest that situation would have created. That's more then you can say considering that you say you voted for the Sharks to join SL.

The attitudes for some of the old school more likely.It's fair to argue most Sydney club fans are currently OK with expansion.If anything such as blogs,comments in newspapers, on radio and even here are to go by.

No most of them are like you, they are pro-expansion so long as it doesn't effect them.

As soon as expansion does effect them they aren't for it anymore...

SL turned into the mess it became,because it was a raid pure and simple.To suggest otherwise is delusionary.

Good thing I never suggested otherwise then...

Look you either don't understand what I was saying, or you are willfully ignoring it, and I don't think you are dumb so IMO it's almost certainly the later, so if you refuse to engage with what I was saying at all then there's no point in pushing that line of discussion.

I am at complete liberty to suggest ,that should the Sharks enter the financial mire at any time, and the NRL decide to relocate,I accept the fact.And ditto for any club Sydney and or interstate clubs.So your statement about me not caring about expansion, as it doesn't affect (not effect)my clubs,is utter hogwash.

So you're saying that the Sharks should be relocated then?! Cause they aren't a self sustaining or profitable business and never will be unless a lot of the other Sydney clubs fold first!

They are completely reliant on the NRL and NRL grants for their existence, and always will be cause they simply cannot compete with the other bigger clubs in Sydney, and that is where the trouble that the NRL is in begins, with the clubs being 100% reliant on them for their existence and yet the NRL has no control over how the clubs are run.

BTW you are way more hardcore then me, I wouldn't relocate the Sharks or any club, I'd just help them restructure their business and drop them into a league where they can be more competitive.

Why on earth should any club that is financially secure,grows its ,membership,sponsorship,revenue,has a decent junior base, and crowds, in a city where 3 other codes are trying and succeeding in many cases, be flicked because it's supposedly(and that's BS) good for the game.

They shouldn't be flicked at all in my opinion, but the reason that Sydney needs to rationalise is simply as you stated above, cause none of the Sydney clubs is financially secure! They are all 100% reliant on the NRL for their existence, and that fact is because of oversaturation, and it's completely artificial and unnecessary, we are intentionally over supplying the market and its having a massive effect on the rest of the competition!

Apart from the Broncos and Cowboys the out of town clubs aren't self sustaining either, though that isn't due to oversaturation, it's due to all sorts of reasons, mainly cause of poor management and over spending trying in an attempt to win the comp. But the over saturation is effecting the out of town clubs too, it artificially lowers their national exposure which artificially lowers their sponsorship value, their ability to attract fans in large parts of the country, etc, etc.

All round the situation is a negative one for the sport, and the only reason you can't see that is cause you're letting you're emotions cloud your judgment, when realistically none of the things you are scared of are necessary to fix the problem.

By what criteria? There are no guarantees in place removing a Sydney club is going to grow crowds/revenue or TV ratings, by placing it in another location.

Good thing I don't suggest that we move any Sydney clubs out of Sydney.......

Whose to say other codes will not take advantage of the vacuum ?It happened post 95 with the Swans.

Oh they'll try, but if you plan it right it isn't a big problem long term, there're hundreds of examples from all over the world of how to rationalise a competition successfully.

And there's no hard evidence that SL or any of the happenings in the late 90s had any significant effect on the Swans growth.
The Swans were already steadily growing at that time, and were going into a successful period at the time, the Swans capitalising on SL or whatever is tantamount to urban legend at this point.

Who says,expanding to 18 teams, leaving Sydney clubs in tact(provided they are viable)cannot be achieved and grow the game at all levels and also provide a bigger TV deal?

It would grow the game and provide a bigger TV deal, but we'd still have all the problems that an oversaturated market brings with and it'd be stunted growth because of it...

Who says expansion will be a roll gold success.Like all ventures ,it's a gamble?

Nobody says that all expansion will be a success, most expansion certainly wont be instant successes (which seems to be the ludicrous minimum expectation in this sport), but even if they aren't massive successes they'll still add heaps to the kitty that we are currently missing out on, more then they take out of the kitty if we do it right.

Who knows the effect on crowds with new Sydney stadiums?

Broadly speaking crowds are a separate issue to expansion, and frankly in todays' world crowds are massively overrated.

Your attitude is expand.and Sydney clubs be damned.Your current club ironically ,is not in the firing line.The old slash and burn approach, and bugger the consequences .

No my attitude is that most of the clubs (in and out of Sydney) are already damned, they are completely reliant on the NRL and completely screwed if/when hard times come, so we need to make the necessary and sometimes hard changes now to make sure that they are sustainable long term...

BTW my club isn't currently in the "firing line", but if all goes well and the sport continues to grow at a steady pace then it almost certainly will be in the firing line sometime down the line, and that's not a bad thing, old cells have to die so new stronger ones can take their place...

Expansion into NZ was and still is struggle in a union dominated country.

Taking a significant share of the NZ market was and is never going to happen with one club, so I'm not surprised that the Warriors have struggled, I don't know the ARLs' plans for NZ and I'm sure that SL, etc, interfered with those plans, but the Warriors never should have been given a license if the current situation in NZ was all that was planned.

But it can be turned around, we just need to plan things out and get more hands on deck in NZ.

The Cowboys got into financial sh*t in the early years.

Considering the times and the fact that they were a brand new club in a relitively small market is that surprising?

They've gone just about as well as could be expected, hopefully they wont stuff it up.

Are you suggesting if the Broncos or Storm run into financial problems for a few years, they should be flicked?

Nope, in the current market they are simply to valuable to let fold. I really can't see any situation in the foreseeable future where they don't add more then they take.

Look at the financial issues with the Knights over the years.

Poor management is a problem that all businesses are susceptible to, but with the right business plan and good management I have no doubt that the Knights can be sustainable and even profitable, it's just about putting them on the right track and hoping that they stay on it.

Expansion needs to happen, with an 18 team comp.Here endeth my rant.

Expansion does need to happen, but so does rationalisation...

You've got to prune the bush regularly to make sure it grows as big and strong as possible.

I also believe West Tigers should be domiciled in Campbelltown,where the so called fish or flathead are.St George domiciled in Wollongong.Both with 3 games at Jubilee/Leichhardt respectively.
If the Sharks wanted to play a game or two Interstate regularly, all good.

I have no problem with the above, if the clubs want to do that then so be it.

 

[Stallion]

Gosford does not have a population of over 300 thousand, it's population as of 2016 (the most recent stats that I can find) is 169 thousand, and I don't think that anybody considers it a city officially (though I don't really care if it is or isn't considered a city, just trying to keep the conversation based in fact).

Wollongong doesn't have a population of over 320 thousand either, it's population is as of last year is 213 thousand...

So yeah your numbers are more then a hundred thousand off in both cases...



Firstly I don't advocate diluting the Sydney market, I don't advocate killing clubs outright at all, I don't even advocate relocation of clubs to outside of the city, I only advocate restructuring the NRL and lower tiers for a better more even spread of clubs and markets and a more valuable result, that's a big difference.

I worst you might get if I had complete control of the NRL is a handful of clubs dropped down into the NSW/Qld cup or a new national reserve grade competition that has the same amount of coverage nationally as the NRL, and maybe a few clubs forced into minor re-brands, maybe the odd relocation to a suburb over or whatever, and a refocusing of some of their business plans and targets.

Again you are presupposing that the AFL is traveling well and that they are traveling well is an accepted fact! It's not an accepted fact and they aren't traveling particularly well, and basically nobody with any knowledge on the subject agrees with you on this point!

Are the AFL doing better then the NRL? Yes, much better.

Are they doing as well as they could be? No, they could be doing a lot better by making a handful of changes.

Are they being weighed down by an over saturated market? Yes, and they're headed to the same calamity that the the NRL is.

When it comes to the Melbourne clubs the AFL are basically in exactly the same spot that the NRL is in Sydney, the only difference is that more of their bigger clubs in Melbourne are actually sustainable and/or profitable then the NRL clubs in Sydney.



No I'm not conceding that the bears wording exists on the eastern concourse, I'm saying I don't know and I don't really care! Those are two hugely different things...

BTW considering that all your numbers are way off maybe it is you that needs to buy a calculator...

I suspected you would play that naming game! Ok. These cities are capitals of their regions. So we will put the Illawarra and Central Coast just for you. I know what sort of a ignoramus and whiteanter I'm dealing with. Hope you are accepting of the intention by the ARLC to expand with additional clubs?! It might debunk your implosion stance!

 

[Perth Red]

Tbf Beattie said nothing about how he would see the game expanding and if that would inevitably mean some rationalisation of an overcrowded market.

 

[taipan]

Firstly I never suggested that you did say that what I said was a defence of SL, I was simply stating that it wasn't to make it clear.

Secondly, I don't hold anti-Sydney club views, I hold anti-oversaturation that in the long term will screw the NRL and the sport as a whole in this country views. I'd hold the same views that I do now if the oversaturation was in Brisbane instead of Sydney.

And finally, so you're saying that you weren't suggesting that I was defending SL, but that I probably am a SL supporter, ok then...

For the record I do not and have never supported SL, I liked some of their ideas and some of the directions that they wanted to take the game in, I but I was strongly opposed to a media corporation having so much control of the sport and the conflicts of interest that situation would have created. That's more then you can say considering that you say you voted for the Sharks to join SL.



No most of them are like you, they are pro-expansion so long as it doesn't effect them.

As soon as expansion does effect them they aren't for it anymore...



Good thing I never suggested otherwise then...

Look you either don't understand what I was saying, or you are willfully ignoring it, and I don't think you are dumb so IMO it's almost certainly the later, so if you refuse to engage with what I was saying at all then there's no point in pushing that line of discussion.



So you're saying that the Sharks should be relocated then?! Cause they aren't a self sustaining or profitable business and never will be unless a lot of the other Sydney clubs fold first!

They are completely reliant on the NRL and NRL grants for their existence, and always will be cause they simply cannot compete with the other bigger clubs in Sydney, and that is where the trouble that the NRL is in begins, with the clubs being 100% reliant on them for their existence and yet the NRL has no control over how the clubs are run.

BTW you are way more hardcore then me, I wouldn't relocate the Sharks or any club, I'd just help them restructure their business and drop them into a league where they can be more competitive.



They shouldn't be flicked at all in my opinion, but the reason that Sydney needs to rationalise is simply as you stated above, cause none of the Sydney clubs is financially secure! They are all 100% reliant on the NRL for their existence, and that fact is because of oversaturation, and it's completely artificial and unnecessary, we are intentionally over supplying the market and its having a massive effect on the rest of the competition!

Apart from the Broncos and Cowboys the out of town clubs aren't self sustaining either, though that isn't due to oversaturation, it's due to all sorts of reasons, mainly cause of poor management and over spending trying in an attempt to win the comp. But the over saturation is effecting the out of town clubs too, it artificially lowers their national exposure which artificially lowers their sponsorship value, their ability to attract fans in large parts of the country, etc, etc.

All round the situation is a negative one for the sport, and the only reason you can't see that is cause you're letting you're emotions cloud your judgment, when realistically none of the things you are scared of are necessary to fix the problem.



Good thing I don't suggest that we move any Sydney clubs out of Sydney.......



Oh they'll try, but if you plan it right it isn't a big problem long term, there're hundreds of examples from all over the world of how to rationalise a competition successfully.

And there's no hard evidence that SL or any of the happenings in the late 90s had any significant effect on the Swans growth.
The Swans were already steadily growing at that time, and were going into a successful period at the time, the Swans capitalising on SL or whatever is tantamount to urban legend at this point.



It would grow the game and provide a bigger TV deal, but we'd still have all the problems that an oversaturated market brings with and it'd be stunted growth because of it...



Nobody says that all expansion will be a success, most expansion certainly wont be instant successes (which seems to be the ludicrous minimum expectation in this sport), but even if they aren't massive successes they'll still add heaps to the kitty that we are currently missing out on, more then they take out of the kitty if we do it right.



Broadly speaking crowds are a separate issue to expansion, and frankly in todays' world crowds are massively overrated.



No my attitude is that most of the clubs (in and out of Sydney) are already damned, they are completely reliant on the NRL and completely screwed if/when hard times come, so we need to make the necessary and sometimes hard changes now to make sure that they are sustainable long term...

BTW my club isn't currently in the "firing line", but if all goes well and the sport continues to grow at a steady pace then it almost certainly will be in the firing line sometime down the line, and that's not a bad thing, old cells have to die so new stronger ones can take their place...



Taking a significant share of the NZ market was and is never going to happen with one club, so I'm not surprised that the Warriors have struggled, I don't know the ARLs' plans for NZ and I'm sure that SL, etc, interfered with those plans, but the Warriors never should have been given a license if the current situation in NZ was all that was planned.

But it can be turned around, we just need to plan things out and get more hands on deck in NZ.



Considering the times and the fact that they were a brand new club in a relitively small market is that surprising?

They've gone just about as well as could be expected, hopefully they wont stuff it up.



Nope, in the current market they are simply to valuable to let fold. I really can't see any situation in the foreseeable future where they don't add more then they take.



Poor management is a problem that all businesses are susceptible to, but with the right business plan and good management I have no doubt that the Knights can be sustainable and even profitable, it's just about putting them on the right track and hoping that they stay on it.



Expansion does need to happen, but so does rationalisation...

You've got to prune the bush regularly to make sure it grows as big and strong as possible.



I have no problem with the above, if the clubs want to do that then so be it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with the approach ,because nothing you or I state is going to change the others viewpoint.
Your going around in circles with the same old, ever-growing encyclopaedia size responses.

My point is the Sydney market is the biggest market in this country, and rationalisation has already happened here, Just as it did in the AFL.And joint ventures it can be argued have hardly been an extra raging success cept Tigers 05 and Dragons occasionally.

My view is no extra sides in Sydney and no less ,unless a last resort.I've stated my case, and your opinion is no more rational than mine.
Also whose to say what is the right number of NRL clubs, it could in fact be more than 18.As long as it's financially viable, and if the players are there, then let it be.If that means 2 teams in Melbourne,1 in Perth,1 in Adelaide,3 in Brisbane,when Australia has 40m population/


With right management,foresight ,there is no reason Sydney cannot sustain the current status quo, plus grow the code outside.Just like the AFL has done.
When Panthers and Sharks were admitted to the NSWRL,I doubt the Dragons were enthusiastic about it.

Australia's population is actually growing among the fastest in the Western World.Sydney's population
ditto, just behind Melbourne.
You prune the bush when necessary agree.Conversely you don't axe a healthy shrub or shrubs, which continues to serve its purpose in providing cover/shade etc..
There are zero guarantees in life accepted, but one thing you don't do is whiteant your base just for pins on maps, which may or may not be successful.The RU mob showed that loud and clear here.
Their cash reserves also wasted on expansionary clubs, due to poor management.

 

[Stallion]

Tbf Beattie said nothing about how he would see the game expanding and if that would inevitably mean some rationalisation of an overcrowded market.

PR . I think that has been inferred by the fact they have pinpointed areas outside of Sydney and are looking to add value (extra NRL game) to the next NRL deal. A pretty negative comment from you PR! If that's your stance despite the positive news then I retract any support for WA franchise. If you are still intent on imploding Rugbyleague in Australias largest metropolitan area then you are showing your true destructive nature and disregard for the code. I reaffirm that an 18 team competition is being planned for the next tv deal.

 

[The Great Dane]

I suspected you would play that naming game! Ok. These cities are capitals of their regions. So we will put the Illawarra and Central Coast just for you. I know what sort of a ignoramus and whiteanter I'm dealing with.

See now you've gone and done it again, you've moved the goalposts again.

You didn't say the populations of the Illawarra or CC, you said the populations of Gosford and Woolongong, those are two different things!

If you said what you god damn meant you wouldn't have these problems.

By the way I still haven't seen any evidence that either the CC or Illawarra could support an NRL team independent of Sydney, and I don't accept that even if they could support teams independent of Sydney that they would be better options for expansion then major cities such as Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane 2, or even more distant prospects such as Melbourne 2, and that is without taking NZ into account.

Hope you are accepting of the intention by the ARLC to expand with additional clubs?! It might debunk your implosion stance!

I don't see how expansion would "debunk" my stance on rationalisation, I don't even think that you understand my stance on rationalisation so I don't know how you could even reckon to pass judgment on what would or wouldn't "debunk" it.

I also wouldn't hold my breath on the ARLCs' intention to expand, cause firstly the ARLC hasn't announced any intention to expand, only Beatie has and he isn't the Chairman of the ARLC yet and even if he becomes the Chairman of the ARLC he doesn't have the power to do such a thing by himself, also plenty different people at the ARLC and NRL have said that 'expansion is on the table' etc, over the years and nothing has ever come of it, so yeah I'll believe that they are interested in expanding when I actually see them starting the process of expansion...

 

[Stallion]

See now you've gone and done it again, you've moved the goalposts again.

You didn't say the populations of the Illawarra or CC, you said the populations of Gosford and Woolongong, those are two different things!

If you said what you god damn meant you wouldn't have these problems.

By the way I still haven't seen any evidence that either the CC or Illawarra could support an NRL team independent of Sydney, and I don't accept that even if they could support teams independent of Sydney that they would be better options for expansion then major cities such as Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane 2, or even more distant prospects such as Melbourne 2, and that is without taking NZ into account.



I don't see how expansion would "debunk" my stance on rationalisation, I don't even think that you understand my stance on rationalisation so I don't know how you could even reckon to pass judgment on what would or wouldn't "debunk" it.

I also wouldn't hold my breath on the ARLCs' intention to expand, cause firstly the ARLC hasn't announced any intention to expand, only Beatie has and he isn't the Chairman of the ARLC yet and even if he becomes the Chairman of the ARLC he doesn't have the power to do such a thing by himself, also plenty different people at the ARLC and NRL have said that 'expansion is on the table' etc, over the years and nothing has ever come of it, so yeah I'll believe that they are interested in expanding when I actually see them starting the process of expansion...

The thing that concerns me most about your stance is that It's quite clear that 6.2million people in the three regions that are inexplicably involved in a tangible way to enjoy the top flight 9 NRL clubs is not oversaturation. And if you continue this false and clearly wrong assertion you are not the full quid.
There's no changing goalposts here. You must have almost cried when the progressive news of expansion clubs with additional teams in the NRL is clearly on the agenda! A tissue box is 95cents at Coles. MR IMPLOSION.

 

[Perth Red]

PR . I think that has been inferred by the fact they have pinpointed areas outside of Sydney and are looking to add value (extra NRL game) to the next NRL deal. A pretty negative comment from you PR! If that's your stance despite the positive news then I retract any support for WA franchise. If you are still intent on imploding Rugbyleague in Australias largest metropolitan area then you are showing your true destructive nature and disregard for the code. I reaffirm that an 18 team competition is being planned for the next tv deal.

As I said! Masters seems to believe it wont be until a Sydney club falls over!!

“While Beattie is right to send a signal to State Cup teams that they are candidates for inclusion in the NRL, they will have to wait until a Sydney club falls over well into the 2023-27 broadcast cycle before they can win a start.”

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...p-rugby-league-expansion-20180201-h0ryjc.html

 

[Stallion]

As I said! Masters seems to believe it wont be until a Sydney club falls over!!

“While Beattie is right to send a signal to State Cup teams that they are candidates for inclusion in the NRL, they will have to wait until a Sydney club falls over well into the 2023-27 broadcast cycle before they can win a start.”

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...p-rugby-league-expansion-20180201-h0ryjc.html

PR . I think that has been inferred by the fact they have pinpointed areas outside of Sydney and are looking to add value (extra NRL game) to the next NRL deal. A pretty negative comment from you PR! If that's your stance despite the positive news then I retract any support for WA franchise. If you are still intent on imploding Rugbyleague in Australias largest metropolitan area then you are showing your true destructive nature and disregard for the code. I reaffirm that an 18 team competition is being planned for the next tv deal.

An extremely negative article from Masters. Master's does have the look of a man bordering senility? He seems to think that clubs run for profit. Profit is a bonus. Numerous reasons impact on profitability. These reasons range from: high ticket prices, poor scheduling, inclement weather, poor promotion of games, lazy or no correctly targeted junior development and tampering with club identity. Masters has ignored that Beatie has mentioned many of these issues in his initial statement about the clubs. And so have the implosionists! I notice you failed to acknowledge the positive embracing of two additional expansion clubs widely discussed on FOX on Monday night at 7.30pm. The very significant and ignored (facts) -by you 'assassin minded implosion' people , if proactively approached and remedied to some extent, will compell the NRL to expand without imploding. The only one that is not humanly controllable is inclement weather. So it's sad & funny: "when the rats come out to play, it's only when their's signs of decay! "(A verse for you implosion dudes) Meanwhile the other codes must be rubbing their hands if your 'decay' stance is being considered as you so enthusiastically put it! The implosion talk was not on the agenda on FOX league on Monday night. It was all positive and about two added clubs into the next NRL tv deal! Mention that! Will you? "Implosion rats"? Highly unlikely.

 

[Stallion]

We'll just have to agree to disagree with the approach ,because nothing you or I state is going to change the others viewpoint.
Your going around in circles with the same old, ever-growing encyclopaedia size responses.

My point is the Sydney market is the biggest market in this country, and rationalisation has already happened here, Just as it did in the AFL.And joint ventures it can be argued have hardly been an extra raging success cept Tigers 05 and Dragons occasionally.

My view is no extra sides in Sydney and no less ,unless a last resort.I've stated my case, and your opinion is no more rational than mine.
Also whose to say what is the right number of NRL clubs, it could in fact be more than 18.As long as it's financially viable, and if the players are there, then let it be.If that means 2 teams in Melbourne,1 in Perth,1 in Adelaide,3 in Brisbane,when Australia has 40m population/


With right management,foresight ,there is no reason Sydney cannot sustain the current status quo, plus grow the code outside.Just like the AFL has done.
When Panthers and Sharks were admitted to the NSWRL,I doubt the Dragons were enthusiastic about it.

Australia's population is actually growing among the fastest in the Western World.Sydney's population
ditto, just behind Melbourne.
You prune the bush when necessary agree.Conversely you don't axe a healthy shrub or shrubs, which continues to serve its purpose in providing cover/shade etc..
There are zero guarantees in life accepted, but one thing you don't do is whiteant your base just for pins on maps, which may or may not be successful.The RU mob showed that loud and clear here.
Their cash reserves also wasted on expansionary clubs, due to poor management.

Mind you the rugby union mob have a crap product purely propagated by the establishment! Myths can only go so far. Although that code RU has done a massive hatchet job on the far more attractive code of rugby league for over 100 years!

 

[taipan]

Mind you the rugby union mob have a crap product purely propagated by the establishment! Myths can only go so far. Although that code RU has done a massive hatchet job on the far more attractive code of rugby league for over 100 years!

When you have so many contacts in the business world, many via the Private school system, it's not hard to push a sport's agenda or to be crude ,polish a t*rd to make it something it's not.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

The thing that concerns me most about your stance is that It's quite clear that 6.2million people in the three regions that are inexplicably involved in a tangible way to enjoy the top flight 9 NRL clubs is not oversaturation. And if you continue this false and clearly wrong assertion you are not the full quid.
There's no changing goalposts here. You must have almost cried when the progressive news of expansion clubs with additional teams in the NRL is clearly on the agenda! A tissue box is 95cents at Coles. MR IMPLOSION.

Don’t forget of those 6.2mil people about 100k are members. Lol heartland right there!

Sydney 3 cities; 6.2mil x 9 teams = 688k
Brisbane and Ipswich 2.5mil only 1 team.
Perth 2mil NO team.
PNG 7mil NO team.
Adelaide 1.3 mil NO team.
NZ 4.7mil 1 team.

Seems Sydney are pretty lucky in regards to your population averages per team calculation.

 

[Stallion]

Don’t forget of those 6.2mil people about 100k are members. Lol heartland right there!

Sydney 3 cities; 6.2mil x 9 teams = 688k
Brisbane and Ipswich 2.5mil only 1 team.
Perth 2mil NO team.
PNG 7mil NO team.
Adelaide 1.3 mil NO team.
NZ 4.7mil 1 team.

Seems Sydney are pretty lucky in regards to your population averages per team calculation.

You just don't get it. It's my and others (not yourself )belief that rugbyleague is an attractive sport to be enjoyed by all demographics and ethnicities. This wholistic market reach is diluted significantly when you merge or take away clubs. And not once have I suggested that additional clubs not be embraced in other areas?! You don't think the code is capable of attracting these people , I and others do !

 

[Stormwarrior82]

You just don't get it. It's my and others (not yourself )belief that rugbyleague is an attractive sport to be enjoyed by all demographics and ethnicities. This wholistic market reach is diluted significantly when you merge or take away clubs. And not once have I suggested that additional clubs not be embraced in other areas?! You don't think the code is capable of attracting these people , I and others do !

You are actually making up things now! You make stupid blanket statements that are untrue that completely destroy your own argument. I’ve always thought that rugby league is an attractive sport to be enjoyed by all demographics and enthnicities and also by the WHOLE of Australia not just a little area called Sydney.

My previous posts destroys any argument you have about population numbers and puts another Sydney team about 5th in line.

I’m not merging or relocating any Nrl club. YOU ARE!! Youre the person sprouting implosion logic not me. If a 2nd tier clubs wants to join the Nrl go ahead but come to me with a proposal better than taking a area that’s already being used. Expanding while also consolidating!! That is what’s needed.

 

[Stallion]

You are actually making up things now! You make stupid blanket statements that are untrue that completely destroy your own argument. I’ve always thought that rugby league is an attractive sport to be enjoyed by all demographics and enthnicities and also by the WHOLE of Australia not just a little area called Sydney.

My previous posts destroys any argument you have about population numbers and puts another Sydney team about 5th in line.

I’m not merging or relocating any Nrl club. YOU ARE!! Youre the person sprouting implosion logic not me. If a 2nd tier clubs wants to join the Nrl go ahead but come to me with a proposal better than taking a area that’s already being used. Expanding while also consolidating!! That is what’s needed.

? So are you not trying to reduce Sydney's NRL clubs? And supporting additional expansion area clubs? If so we have no issue!

 

[The Great Dane]

? So are you not trying to reduce Sydney's NRL clubs? And supporting additional expansion area clubs? If so we have no issue!

I agree with both of those things and you have issue with me...

I have no interest in killing off any NRL clubs and I want to expand, but of course you'd know that if you actually understood what your 'opponents' position is or even bothered to inquire what they actually think, but you think that cause you've viewed a pixel that you know what the whole picture is of. . .