Gold Coast Bears/Nth Sydney/Gosford

[TheFrog]

The Roosters should relocate to North Sydney and get NSO rebuilt. The Rabbitohs can take over the East. The Bears should head west all the way.

For goodness sake. Another taxpayer funded white elephant within spitting distance of the GPO.

 

[T-Boon]

For goodness sake. Another taxpayer funded white elephant within spitting distance of the GPO.

What is the GPO?
I mean get NSO built rather than SFS. NSO is closer to the CBD than SFS is and also is in RL heartland.

 

[Perth Red]

What is the GPO?
I mean get NSO built rather than SFS. NSO is closer to the CBD than SFS is and also is in RL heartland.

But Sydney people won’t cross the bridge apparently

 

[Perth Red]

Never is a very long time and who knows what the future holds, but I'd go so far as to say they won't get a team this century. The numbers just don't stack up.

Yeh why would you want to try and include a capital city of 1.3million when you’ve got suburbs of 200k in the comp lol

 

[TheFrog]

Yeh why would you want to try and include a capital city of 1.3million when you’ve got suburbs of 200k in the comp lol

One's a heartland and the other isn't. A city in enemy territory with 30% the population of Melbourne can expect 30% of Melbourne's crowds only after they work their guts out to build the franchise up and make the finals every year for a couple of decades. The existing clubs have demonstrated viability over many decades no matter what.

Anyway its not me you have to convince, its Todd and his goons.

 

[Perth Red]

One's a heartland and the other isn't. A city in enemy territory with 30% the population of Melbourne can expect 30% of Melbourne's crowds only after they work their guts out to build the franchise up and make the finals every year for a couple of decades. The existing clubs have demonstrated viability over many decades no matter what.

Anyway its not me you have to convince, its Todd and his goons.

Both are likely to draw 13k

1995
Rams v mariners 27k
Rams v Reds 16k

What might have been.

 

[The Great Dane]

One's a heartland and the other isn't. A city in enemy territory with 30% the population of Melbourne can expect 30% of Melbourne's crowds only after they work their guts out to build the franchise up and make the finals every year for a couple of decades. The existing clubs have demonstrated viability over many decades no matter what.

Who f**king cares about crowds. They don't mean jack shit anymore, haven't mean't anything for at least a couple decades now. Ratings and increasingly clicks are where the money is at, crowds are just a bonus if you can get them, not a necessity.

You wouldn't be setting up an Adelaide club for the crowds anyway. Initially you'd be setting it up for the broadcaster and sponsorship appeal, building a rusted on fan base would be a long term project, just as it was a long term project for the Swans and Storm.

Aside from that it's impossible to build an audience if you aren't selling the product in their market, so how do you expect to build an audience for the product in Adelaide without putting a club there?

Besides crowds in Adelaide have been relatively good historically, so I think that they would probably surprise you.

Anyway its not me you have to convince, its Todd and his goons.

I reckon they're using selling matches such as SOO to Adelaide as an excuse to test the waters and see what may be possible.

So I reckon that Toddy and friends have at least been convinced that they need a presence in Adelaide long term already.

 

[Stallion]

The Roosters should relocate to North Sydney and get NSO rebuilt. The Rabbitohs can take over the East. The Bears should head west all the way.

Unfortunately historical and cultural relevance counts for the locals on northern Sydney . However I'm ok with the Roosters having a name change of either East Sydney Roosters or East Coast Roosters. The sole reference to Sydney is not accurate when acknowledging the other clubs within Sydney's area. Just my opinion.

 

[T-Boon]

Who f**king cares about crowds. They don't mean jack shit anymore, haven't mean't anything for at least a couple decades now. Ratings and increasingly clicks are where the money is at, crowds are just a bonus if you can get them, not a necessity.

Disagree. Crowd attendance is always going to be important for a multitude of reasons.

From my own experience it even effects my enjoyment of the live TV experience. I am much more likely to watch NRL on TV if there is a big involved crowd than if there is a small crowd. If it is a small crowd I feel like I am watching something nobody is interested in.

 

[Perth Red]

Disagree. Crowd attendance is always going to be important for a multitude of reasons.

From my own experience it even effects my enjoyment of the live TV experience. I am much more likely to watch NRL on TV if there is a big involved crowd than if there is a small crowd. If it is a small crowd I feel like I am watching something nobody is interested in.

Not to mention clubs with crowds of 25k plus make a shed load of money!

 

[The Great Dane]

Disagree. Crowd attendance is always going to be important for a multitude of reasons.

From my own experience it even effects my enjoyment of the live TV experience. I am much more likely to watch NRL on TV if there is a big involved crowd than if there is a small crowd. If it is a small crowd I feel like I am watching something nobody is interested in.

That's good for you.

Mean while in the real world we've got competitions all over the world (including the NRL) that are thriving solely off of broadcasting deals because of their high ratings, and if you want to go into Esports (which we should because they are doing some amazing things that the 'traditional sports' could learn a lot from) they're making stupid amounts of money from streaming and clicks.

So though crowds are nice to have, and in a perfect world we'd have strong ones, they aren't a necessity for survival anymore and haven't been for decades, so factoring them into almost any discussion is at best a stupid obfuscation from the real point at hand.

 

[Perth Red]

That's good for you.

Mean while in the real world we've got competitions all over the world (including the NRL) that are thriving solely off of broadcasting deals because of their high ratings, and if you want to go into Esports (which we should because they are doing some amazing things that the 'traditional sports' could learn a lot from) they're making stupid amounts of money from streaming and clicks.

So though crowds are nice to have, and in a perfect world we'd have strong ones, they aren't a necessity for survival anymore and haven't been for decades, so factoring them into almost any discussion is at best a stupid obfuscation from the real point at hand.

So untrue. Yes of course the media deals are massive but the disbursement of the grants from these arent compared to the potential for income generated by the fanbase. The more committed the fanbase the greater the net revenue worth of each fan becomes. If you can get 35k attending games then you will earn from related revenue (which includes corporate because lets be honest who wants to buy a box or sponsor a team that is playing in an empty stadium) is significantly greater. WC Eagles are the largest football related revenue generating club in Australia. That isnt because of the $14mill TV grant, its because of the $50mill fanbase generated revenue.

Even in one of the richest comps in the world TV wise a club like Manchester United earns double from its fanbase revenue than it does from its TV grant!

Crowds dont matter if you dont have many fans.

 

[The Great Dane]

So untrue. Yes of course the media deals are massive but the disbursement of the grants from these arent compared to the potential for income generated by the fanbase. The more committed the fanbase the greater the net revenue worth of each fan becomes. If you can get 35k attending games then you will earn from related revenue (which includes corporate because lets be honest who wants to buy a box or sponsor a team that is playing in an empty stadium) is significantly greater. WC Eagles are the largest football related revenue generating club in Australia. That isnt because of the $14mill TV grant, its because of the $50mill fanbase generated revenue.

Even in one of the richest comps in the world TV wise a club like Manchester United earns double from its fanbase revenue than it does from its TV grant!

Crowds dont matter if you dont have many fans.

It's totally true that crowds aren't a necessity for survival, or to even thrive, and nothing you've said in that post refutes that.

All you've said is 'look at these clubs that have good ratings and big crowds, they are doing better then the clubs that only have good ratings', well no f**king shit Sherlock, but those clubs that have good ratings and big crowds don't need the big crowds to survive, you could totally wipe the income from their crowds away and they'd still be operating strong businesses.

The whole crowds thing is basically playing keeping up with the Joneses at this point, they aren't a necessity, and people don't actually give a f**k what they actually bring to the table, people just want crowds like the NFL, AFL, etc, 'because they've got big crowds so we should have big crowds'.

It's a dick measuring competition at it's worst, and it's one where nobody wants to accept that it's highly unlikely that the NRL will ever be able to compete because almost all of the reasons why crowds are significantly larger in those comps are almost completely outside of the NRL's control.

The NRL has basically zero control over the fact that stadiums in most of their major markets were poorly placed and have terrible public transport access, the NRL cannot help that they aren't the most popular sport by far in a country with a far more dense population of over 300mil, etc, etc.

So instead of worrying about things we can't change maybe we should worry about the things where we can actually make a difference.

 

[Perth Red]

It's totally true that crowds aren't a necessity for survival, or to even thrive, and nothing you've said in that post refutes that.

All you've said is 'look at these clubs that have good ratings and big crowds, they are doing better then the clubs that only have good ratings', well no f**king shit Sherlock, but those clubs that have good ratings and big crowds don't need the big crowds to survive, you could totally wipe the income from their crowds away and they'd still be operating strong businesses.

The whole crowds thing is basically playing keeping up with the Joneses at this point, they aren't a necessity, and people don't actually give a f**k what they actually bring to the table, people just want crowds like the NFL, AFL, etc, 'because they've got big crowds so we should have big crowds'.

It's a dick measuring competition at it's worst, and it's one where nobody wants to accept that it's highly unlikely that the NRL will ever be able to compete because almost all of the reasons why crowds are significantly larger in those comps are almost completely outside of the NRL's control.

The NRL has basically zero control over the fact that stadiums in most of their major markets were poorly placed and have terrible public transport access, the NRL cannot help that they aren't the most popular sport by far in a country with a far more dense population of over 300mil, etc, etc.

So instead of worrying about things we can't change maybe we should worry about the things where we can actually make a difference.

Did you read what I wrote? I can tell you for a fact that if you took away the Eagles $50mill and left them with just the tv grant they definitely wouldn’t be thriving! Same with broncos, $46mill revenue, $13mill tv grant. Basic business economics! It only doesn’t matter if you dont have fans lol. That’s an incredibly simplistic view to believe we can’t grow crowds. We’ve never tried that hard and clubs that have needed to seem to be having some success doing so.

 

[The Great Dane]

Did you read what I wrote? I can tell you for a fact that if you took away the Eagles $50mill and left them with just the tv grant they definitely wouldn’t be thriving! Same with broncos, $46mill revenue, $13mill tv grant. Basic business economics!

I read what you wrote, the premise is totally predicated on A. crowds are important because money, and B. that you aren't thriving unless you're making tons of money.

As long as people are watching I simply don't care how they are watching, and I don't care how much money the clubs make as long as they make enough to support themselves and grow their businesses and their reach (especially when it comes to expansion clubs). To achieve that you don't need huge crowds, sure they help, but you don't need them.

And if I had to pick between emulating the AFL and getting large average crowds or emulating the League of Legends World Championship, who's finals only got an attendance of 23k but their stream had 99.6 million unique viewers, I'll take the eyeballs over bums on seats any day of the week!

It only doesn’t matter if you dont have fans lol. That’s an incredibly simplistic view to believe we can’t grow crowds. We’ve never tried that hard and clubs that have needed to seem to be having some success doing so.

The NRL really can't, because 90% of the things that would make a real difference are either totally outside of their control, or any real changes that they could make that would actually make a measurable difference would be totally unpalatable to the majority if they actually tried to change them.

It's like rationalisation, everybody who's opinion is worth a damn agrees that it has to happen, until it's their club on the chopping block.

The same is true of growing crowds, everybody is for it, until they hear that their club is going to have to move away from their suburban ground to a centralised stadium, their club is going to have to invest hundreds of thousands, probably even millions over an extended period, into producing a good, and more importantly unique, game day experience.

The NRL are going to have to lower licensing fees so that merch is cheaper and turns over more sales thus creating more free advertising, they're going to have to invest into proper advertising campaigns instead of almost exclusively relying on the free ad space that the broadcasters give the NRL, consistently incentivise players to accentuate their personalities to create drama to draw attention, to actually address the problems with refereeing to stop disenfranchisement of the fan base, etc, etc, etc.

I could go on forever with massive issues that you'd need to have a crack at fixing if you really want to have a go at pushing up crowd numbers in any significant way, all of which would be deeply controversial and difficult to even get people to actually seriously consider addressing at all.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Don’t have TV rights and bingo, crowds will be at games as it is that or listen on radio.

FMD it’s not rocket science PR.

TV rights money v crowds at games.

Take the money every day and enjoy the wonderful coverage from your lounge room.

 

[horrie hastings]

But Sydney people won’t cross the bridge apparently

That is Manly supporters that won't cross the Harbour Bridge.

 

[T-Boon]

The NRL really can't, because 90% of the things that would make a real difference are either totally outside of their control, or any real changes that they could make that would actually make a measurable difference would be totally unpalatable to the majority if they actually tried to change them.

I think clubs have put a token effort into crowd growth, an effort comparable to the effort they put into membership pre the NRL stepping and insisting they make a bigger effort. NRL clubs have always been lazy and cheap because of the income source they have from slot machines and then TV.
NRL clubs could get the same conversion of couch fan to game attending fan as the AFL does except they just haven't ever bothered trying very hard.

 

[Perth Red]

I think clubs have put a token effort into crowd growth, an effort comparable to the effort they put into membership pre the NRL stepping and insisting they make a bigger effort. NRL clubs have always been lazy and cheap because of the income source they have from slot machines and then TV.
NRL clubs could get the same conversion of couch fan to game attending fan as the AFL does except they just haven't ever bothered trying very hard.

In epl it wasn’t until they were given no choice but to upgrade stadiums that they got their sht together and started building facilities people then flocked to. Won’t happen here until the nrl does something about it. As you say clubs with pokies or other non football revenue are the ones putting in the least effort and generally got the lowest crowds.

 

[mongoose]

So untrue. Yes of course the media deals are massive but the disbursement of the grants from these arent compared to the potential for income generated by the fanbase. The more committed the fanbase the greater the net revenue worth of each fan becomes. If you can get 35k attending games then you will earn from related revenue (which includes corporate because lets be honest who wants to buy a box or sponsor a team that is playing in an empty stadium) is significantly greater. WC Eagles are the largest football related revenue generating club in Australia. That isnt because of the $14mill TV grant, its because of the $50mill fanbase generated revenue.

Even in one of the richest comps in the world TV wise a club like Manchester United earns double from its fanbase revenue than it does from its TV grant!

Crowds dont matter if you dont have many fans.

Where did you get that info on Man united? I am pretty sure their TV and sponsorship revenue dwarfs their gate takings. They rake in 200 million a year from TV revenue.