"It’s very realistic to say that we’ll have a second team in Brisbane in 2023": V'landys

[Jamberoo]

fta want a second brisbane club to boost their ratings. Get used to Brisbane2 on a Thursday and broncos Friday night every week
You haven’t been on here much if you think fans will travel more than an hour to get to games! Geez people say they wont go to Anz because they have to change trains once! Of course the die hard will but the other. 75% will come from a much closer radius of the stadium, especially on a weeknight when you are cutting out families attending.
An empty Suncorp will be as shthouse as watching games at an empty anz. Crowds will matter both from revenue, competing with big brother and so we don’t have another big empty stadium that turns audiences off. qlnd clubs tend to rate well in Brisbane so from that point of view there’s probably not much between the three. The bid with the best chance of having the resources to put out a successful club will draw the biggest tv audience in reality, that should be a key decision point on the bids.

I understand all that, but you have to have a point of difference (preferable more than one), and a geographic divide is the easiest one. Wanderers/SFC, West Coast/Freo. If you are based in the same region with no point of difference (Victory/Melb City), it is hard to build the fan base. I like the idea of Brisbane 3 at some stage, so a north team, then a south team will compliment the Broncos perfectly.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Both @Perth Red and @Jamberoo are right. People won't travel long distances and there needs to be a geographic point of distance between the teams for them to develop a meaningful rivalry. On that basis I'd go with Firehawks and Pirates, then when a new stadium is built in Moreton Bay, I'd add the Dolphins and NZ 2 some time during the mid to late 2030s. That will cover Australia's 4 largest cities and grow the game in NZ.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

i don’t see much in there that the other bids couldn’t also claim tbf. I’d like to see the dolphins release last years annual report so we can see just how financially sound they are. They have a lot of assets but what are their liabilities and what is their bottom line looking like? How much free cash a year do they actually have to invest? There location is the biggest issue for me, their region is too far away from Suncorp to attract big crowds that identify with the current Redcliffe brand.

30mins from Suncorp? By what, helicopter?

• There's a direct train line from Redcliffe to the CBD
• Most Brisbane RL fans are used to travelling from outer suburbs to Suncorp to watch games
• We are assuming that all Redcliffe fans will be drawn from the Redcliffe area which isn't true, they will have appeal to people outside of Redcliffe

 

[mongoose]

• There's a direct train line from Redcliffe to the CBD
• Most Brisbane RL fans are used to travelling from outer suburbs to Suncorp to watch games
• We are assuming that all Redcliffe fans will be drawn from the Redcliffe area which isn't true, they will have appeal to people outside of Redcliffe

that's a long ass train ride....



in fact according to Maps the train from Penrith station to Central in Sydney takes less time...

 

[flippikat]

Both @Perth Red and @Jamberoo are right. People won't travel long distances and there needs to be a geographic point of distance between the teams for them to develop a meaningful rivalry. On that basis I'd go with Firehawks and Pirates, then when a new stadium is built in Moreton Bay, I'd add the Dolphins and NZ 2 some time during the mid to late 2030s. That will cover Australia's 4 largest cities and grow the game in NZ.

Great summary of where the NRL probably should go with clubs 17-20.

The question then is "how big could the competition *sustainably* be?"

Logistically you could have up to 24 teams, with each team playing each other once for a "fair draw" with 23 rounds, and maybe a top 10 playoffs system, but is the playing & coaching depth gonna be there in the next 10-20 years?

OR do we say "20 clubs is optimal" and once we get there (for example your plan), the focus goes firmly on Sydney for some mergers, relocations or demotions to NSW Cup to free up room for the likes of NZ3, or Melbourne 2... or somewhere in NSW or Qld like Central Coast or Central Queensland if they get to that critical mass needed to sustain an NRL team of their own?

 

[MugaB]

Great summary of where the NRL probably should go with clubs 17-20.

The question then is "how big could the competition *sustainably* be?"

Logistically you could have up to 24 teams, with each team playing each other once for a "fair draw" with 23 rounds, and maybe a top 10 playoffs system, but is the playing & coaching depth gonna be there in the next 10-20 years?

OR do we say "20 clubs is optimal" and once we get there (for example your plan), the focus goes firmly on Sydney for some mergers, relocations or demotions to NSW Cup to free up room for the likes of NZ3, or Melbourne 2... or somewhere in NSW or Qld like Central Coast or Central Queensland if they get to that critical mass needed to sustain an NRL team of their own?

I think less rounds and more teams, make each game more worthy of watching, this is what the NFL do.
Conferences can also help with a uneven amount of rounds, by setting up extra rounds versus nearby clubs to boost rivalries.
20 teams, 19 rounds vs each other, add a few extra rounds vs rivals

 

[Perth Red]

Great summary of where the NRL probably should go with clubs 17-20.

The question then is "how big could the competition *sustainably* be?"

Logistically you could have up to 24 teams, with each team playing each other once for a "fair draw" with 23 rounds, and maybe a top 10 playoffs system, but is the playing & coaching depth gonna be there in the next 10-20 years?

OR do we say "20 clubs is optimal" and once we get there (for example your plan), the focus goes firmly on Sydney for some mergers, relocations or demotions to NSW Cup to free up room for the likes of NZ3, or Melbourne 2... or somewhere in NSW or Qld like Central Coast or Central Queensland if they get to that critical mass needed to sustain an NRL team of their own?

In all honesty for a country the size of Aus/NZ, and the revenue level of the NRL, the ideal number would be 16. unfortunately the historical quagmire that is Sydney wont allow for that given the game needs to ultimately have another 4-6 clubs in other cities in it. The ARLC is boxed in by its NSWRL past and doesn't know where to go. AFL pretty much has the Australian footprint it wants and needs where as we continue to be decades (and some difficult decisions) away from it. There are only so any quality players, coaches, sponsors, TV grants etc to go round.

 

[MugaB]

In all honesty for a country the size of Aus/NZ, and the revenue level of the NRL, the ideal number would be 16. unfortunately the historical quagmire that is Sydney wont allow for that given the game needs to ultimately have another 4-6 clubs in other cities in it. The ARLC is boxed in by its NSWRL past and doesn't know where to go. AFL pretty much has the Australian footprint it wants and needs where as we continue to be decades (and some difficult decisions) away from it. There are only so any quality players, coaches, sponsors, TV grants etc to go round.

Thats garbage, as you only see it as a game that should spread around the country, but since it hasn't and is more of a slow burn sport, slowly encroaching on each city that it expands to, Melbourne being a great example, being a ALF heartland, the fact storm get stable crowds and following mean NRL will be able to do the same in other cities like Adelaide and Perth, and if ALF wasn't based there in VIC, theres 4.5million people that would be supporting the storm, effectively doubling the broncos ratio of crowds vs population.
But we cannot just merge or boot out sydney clubs that are the building block of the NRL, they are the brand, Aswell as expansion teams included too.
And the "competition" and ARLC are working for them, so it makes absolutely no sence that they'd want to shrink the amount of heartland clubs, to expand into areas not ready to run a club fulltime, yes any town or city, can hold exhibition matches, but to survive as a club in foreign sports territory, without a nearby rival or considerable fanbase is what has held back WA/SA from prospering, and where AFL gets it right, by having THAT rival occupation, makes it very hard to compete in those markets.
The competition can have 20-24 teams but it needs to build to it, it cannot be like in 1995 when 4 came in, each new expansion needs to grow the game around it.. to feed it, then move elsewhere..
I heard today PNG are looking for a licence in 4 years time.. thats great, not easy travel wise, but they have the population and want to be there and are more heartland in RL than any other bid outside SEQ, im not seeing that from WA or SA or even VIC, so why would the ARLC bother expanding where they aren't wanted

 

[Diesel]

I think less rounds and more teams, make each game more worthy of watching, this is what the NFL do.
Conferences can also help with a uneven amount of rounds, by setting up extra rounds versus nearby clubs to boost rivalries.
20 teams, 19 rounds vs each other, add a few extra rounds vs rivals

I think it worked well last year. 20 rounds and each game felt like it meant more

 

[flippikat]

I heard today PNG are looking for a licence in 4 years time.. thats great, not easy travel wise, but they have the population and want to be there and are more heartland in RL than any other bid outside SEQ, im not seeing that from WA or SA or even VIC, so why would the ARLC bother expanding where they aren't wanted

"I'm not seeing that from WA"... uhh, WA have made no secret about their desire to return to the NRL. Have been vocal about it for YEARS in the face of lukewarm indifference, shallow lip-service, and even rabid antipathy from some quarters. Yet they persist.

The biggest thing running against them is a stupidly blinked resistance from NRL administration, best exemplified by V'landys flippant "rusted-on AFL states" backhander.

 

[Diesel]

In all honesty for a country the size of Aus/NZ, and the revenue level of the NRL, the ideal number would be 16. unfortunately the historical quagmire that is Sydney wont allow for that given the game needs to ultimately have another 4-6 clubs in other cities in it. The ARLC is boxed in by its NSWRL past and doesn't know where to go. AFL pretty much has the Australian footprint it wants and needs where as we continue to be decades (and some difficult decisions) away from it. There are only so any quality players, coaches, sponsors, TV grants etc to go round.

Hard to disagree with you here. Sydney is Sydney and everyone has an opinion that it should be less teams but not “my team”. Most people would agree the mergers were a clusterf**k, the Dragons get a pass but it’s still strange having another club in the middle of their footprint.
The thing RL has over AFL is its talent pool that comes from NZ, PNG and a number of PI nations, namely Samoa & Tonga. There’s also another catchment in the Northern Hemisphere. AFL is stuck with the southern states and maybe Ireland as their catchment area.

 

[The Great Dane]

I understand all that, but you have to have a point of difference (preferable more than one), and a geographic divide is the easiest one. Wanderers/SFC, West Coast/Freo. If you are based in the same region with no point of difference (Victory/Melb City), it is hard to build the fan base. I like the idea of Brisbane 3 at some stage, so a north team, then a south team will compliment the Broncos perfectly.

No geography is the laziest one.

It's especially lazy when the best you can come up with is team A is from the metro area where all the fan base is and team B is from a tiny suburban/regional market on the outskirts of the city with no masse appeal across the city, which is what is currently being pushed in Brisbane.

The vast majority of the world's sport's greatest derbies are built on something other than just geography, and most of the clubs are also in direct competition in their markets, i.e. they don't have drawn out territories/districts that the other doesn't cross (at least not officially).

Picking the Dolphins, and probably the Jets, to be the second club in Brisbane would be like choosing Wigan Athletic to be the second football club in Manchester over Man City, it's f**king insane.

 

[The Great Dane]

Hard to disagree with you here. Sydney is Sydney and everyone has an opinion that it should be less teams but not “my team”. Most people would agree the mergers were a clusterf**k, the Dragons get a pass but it’s still strange having another club in the middle of their footprint.
The thing RL has over AFL is its talent pool that comes from NZ, PNG and a number of PI nations, namely Samoa & Tonga. There’s also another catchment in the Northern Hemisphere. AFL is stuck with the southern states and maybe Ireland as their catchment area.

Except that they've been successfully drawing talent from North America and Africa for years now.

Talent pools aren't the be all and end all, good scouting can be huge for a sport.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

• There's a direct train line from Redcliffe to the CBD
• Most Brisbane RL fans are used to travelling from outer suburbs to Suncorp to watch games
• We are assuming that all Redcliffe fans will be drawn from the Redcliffe area which isn't true, they will have appeal to people outside of Redcliffe

Would be good for afternoon games on the weekend, but a pain in the arse for any game on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night.

If the Dolphins get 15k fans from Brisbane, Redlands and possibly Logan to attend their games, with people from Moreton Bay Region making up 5k-10k of their ticketed supporter base, then they'll do well. Over time they might get a stadium built closer to home. Those who cannot attend from Moreton Bay Region will still be watching on TV and buying merchandise, which makes them valuable to the broadcasters.

I do think Redcliffe should rebrand as Moreton Bay Dolphins from juniors to NRL level so that they can draw upon a larger catchment.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

"I'm not seeing that from WA"... uhh, WA have made no secret about their desire to return to the NRL. Have been vocal about it for YEARS in the face of lukewarm indifference, shallow lip-service, and even rabid antipathy from some quarters. Yet they persist.

The biggest thing running against them is a stupidly blinked resistance from NRL administration, best exemplified by V'landys flippant "rusted-on AFL states" backhander.

WA has increased its playing numbers and been bidding for a licence for awhile. Crowds to games in Perth haven't been bad. I think it is has a strong case to be the 17th or 18th team. It's almost the size of Brisbane and is parochial about its sports clubs, so there's definitely something to work with. Having the Western Force competing with them is probably a good thing as it's another source for players.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Thats garbage, as you only see it as a game that should spread around the country, but since it hasn't and is more of a slow burn sport, slowly encroaching on each city that it expands to, Melbourne being a great example, being a ALF heartland, the fact storm get stable crowds and following mean NRL will be able to do the same in other cities like Adelaide and Perth, and if ALF wasn't based there in VIC, theres 4.5million people that would be supporting the storm, effectively doubling the broncos ratio of crowds vs population.
But we cannot just merge or boot out sydney clubs that are the building block of the NRL, they are the brand, Aswell as expansion teams included too.
And the "competition" and ARLC are working for them, so it makes absolutely no sence that they'd want to shrink the amount of heartland clubs, to expand into areas not ready to run a club fulltime, yes any town or city, can hold exhibition matches, but to survive as a club in foreign sports territory, without a nearby rival or considerable fanbase is what has held back WA/SA from prospering, and where AFL gets it right, by having THAT rival occupation, makes it very hard to compete in those markets.
The competition can have 20-24 teams but it needs to build to it, it cannot be like in 1995 when 4 came in, each new expansion needs to grow the game around it.. to feed it, then move elsewhere..
I heard today PNG are looking for a licence in 4 years time.. thats great, not easy travel wise, but they have the population and want to be there and are more heartland in RL than any other bid outside SEQ, im not seeing that from WA or SA or even VIC, so why would the ARLC bother expanding where they aren't wanted

No Sydney teams should be cut, but there's an argument for relocation where it will benefit them and their new city. I don't know hoe it could be done under the current environment, but I can see some cases where it could work. Sea Eagles to NZ would be interesting as the club has a strong supporter base over there and struggles where it is, so maybe that's an option down the track. Bulldogs are struggling and could relocate to Christchurch and still be the Canterbury Bulldogs. I think Tigers could work in Perth and retain much of their identify, playing as Western Tigers or West Coast Tigers. Either name is better than Wests and basing themselves out of Perth makes them more valuable than where they are right now.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Picking the Dolphins, and probably the Jets, to be the second club in Brisbane would be like choosing Wigan Athletic to be the second football club in Manchester over Man City, it's f**king insane.

Manchester City weren't picked to be in the EPL. They earned their spot through promotion and relegation. At one stage they were in the third division.

 

[Perth Red]

"I'm not seeing that from WA"... uhh, WA have made no secret about their desire to return to the NRL. Have been vocal about it for YEARS in the face of lukewarm indifference, shallow lip-service, and even rabid antipathy from some quarters. Yet they persist.

The biggest thing running against them is a stupidly blinked resistance from NRL administration, best exemplified by V'landys flippant "rusted-on AFL states" backhander.

haha yeh it’s not like Cummins didn’t come out in the media and tell vlandys he’ll keep fighting for a team is it? Oh hang on.....

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/pl...bid-for-nrl-team-in-west-20200212-p5407u.html

 

[Perth Red]

Manchester City weren't picked to be in the EPL. They earned their spot through promotion and relegation. At one stage they were in the third division.

i think you’re missing his point lol, IF EPL was a closed shop you’d be nuts to admit Wigan over man city or st helens over Everton. For Brisbane2 to work it simply has to appeal and be able to draw 90% of its active supporter base from 25km radius of Suncorp. If it can’t it’s going to be more screwed than the Titans ended up. They will be battling broncos for sponsors and fans and paying a lot of rent for Suncorp. It’s not going to be the easy ride many seem to think imo.

 

[MugaB]

haha yeh it’s not like Cummins didn’t come out in the media and tell vlandys he’ll keep fighting for a team is it? Oh hang on.....

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/pl...bid-for-nrl-team-in-west-20200212-p5407u.html

Thats coming from a business man, not the crowd support that attend matches, and cummins is no different to nick limermore and his "bombers" brand that he has been pushing, i rate cummins a lot higher and hope he gets a licence, especially since all the work and efforts he puts into WA, but if folks arent making the effort to show up to exhibition matches, but pack out freo and WC eagles games, then that already tells the story