Nick Livermore speaks gibberish about expansion

[mongoose]

Limiting Brisbane to just two teams won't increase the game's profile around Australia. It'll just leave the door open for the other sports to tread water in Brisbane and limit the amount we can generate from broadcast rights. The ARLC would be more worried about ceding ground in SEQ to our main competitor than gaining ground in Perth.

this stupid argument again. Lets just remember Sydney has NINE, NEIN! teams, plus Newcastle 90 minutes away and this hasn't prevented AFL from getting a decent foothold in the city with the Swans. Oh thats right, its apparently because the NS Bears were kicked out LOL this is the pathetic kind of mentality holding this game back.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

this stupid argument again. Lets just remember Sydney has NINE, NEIN! teams, plus Newcastle 90 minutes away and this hasn't prevented AFL from getting a decent foothold in the city with the Swans. Oh thats right, its apparently because the NS Bears were kicked out LOL this is the pathetic kind of mentality holding this game back.

It really annoys you that Brisbane and Sydney are more important to rugby league than Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth.

Please pack your bags and leave Brisbane.

 

[Canard]

The whole point of increasing the competition to 20 teams is to generate more revenue from the next broadcast deal. Politis suggested the idea because we fell short of our main competitor at the last round of negotiation rights. He never brought it up to put dots on a map.

Sky NZ will pay less for the next broadcast rights because a) there's no one else in New Zealand bidding for the rights and b) ratings for RL in NZ aren't very strong. That leaves Brisbane as the only market that can generate more growth for our broadcasters. It's very possible that the Brisbane Tigers and Ipswich Jets could get two of the three licences that are up for grabs. Don't be surprised if Rockhampton enters the equation, either.

Limiting Brisbane to just two teams won't increase the game's profile around Australia. It'll just leave the door open for the other sports to tread water in Brisbane and limit the amount we can generate from broadcast rights. The ARLC would be more worried about ceding ground in SEQ to our main competitor than gaining ground in Perth.

Whether you like it or not, our game relies on Queensland and New South Wales because that's where 95% of its audience is based. The money our game acquires from broadcast rights is primarily generated by rugby league fans in Brisbane and Sydney. The pinnacle of our game is Queensland vs New South Wales because everyone knows these two states are the only place in the world that play the game at the highest level and have millions of supporters within their borders.

A third Brisbane team will strengthen the rivalry between Brisbane and Sydney and produce stronger ratings in SEQ. Better ratings in SEQ will generate more lucrative broadcast rights for the ARLC.

An Adelaide team won't be worth anything to the broadcasters because no one in the country will want to watch their games. I hate to say it, but a second New Zealand team and one in Perth will offer little to the broadcasters because few Queenslanders and New South Welshmen will be interested in watching them. The core audience is in Queensland and New South Wales, so their opinion is worth more than that of the few rugby league fans that live in the affiliate states.

What are the odds of New Zealand getting a second team?

Not enough people care about Australia vs New Zealand. There's no location in New Zealand that has enough people to support a second NZ team. We've got posters from New Zealand telling us this in the other thread.

The ARLC knows the Brisbane Tigers are the richest consortium bidding for the 18th licence. It cannot fail because it has $25m in cash and $35m in net assets to keep it afloat. No other bid can provide this much security. The ARLC is ultra-conservative and worried about having to prop up a new team.

You wouldn't be suprised if SEQ gets of 2 off the 3 next licence's and Rocky the third?

You're just shit stirring now.

I also love the complete about face a religious conservative like you has done on pokies.

They were pure evil only mere months ago, and now that they are the only reason the Tigers can even contemplate bidding for the NRL, any area without them is immediately disqualified in your opinion.

Also, suddenly population suddenly means nothing? Yet you still moan about the scorn put on you for suggesting Singapore as a location, based purely on population.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

And yet QLD produces

You wouldn't be suprised if SEQ gets of 2 off the 3 next licence's and Rocky the third?

You're just shit stirring now.

I also love the complete about face a religions conservative like you has done on pokies.

They were pure evil only mere months ago, and now that they are the only reason the Tigers can even contemplate bidding for the NRL, any area without them is immediately disqualified in your opinion.

I was told by everyone on here that gaming machine revenue is just as legitimate as sponsorship, corporate hospitality, membership, ticketing and merchandise!

You can bet your arse that once the Tigers are in the NRL they will generate more revenue from football operations than all clubs bar the Broncos.

I didn't say Rockhampton or Jets will definitely get a licence. I said the Jets are a possibility and Rockhampton could enter the equation. There aren't many options available. Adelaide and New Zealand don't have any bidders. PNG is reliant on $25m per annum from Aus Gov.

Perth is the only other candidate with a potentially strong business case.

 

[mongoose]

It really annoys you that Brisbane and Sydney are more important to rugby league than Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth.

Please pack your bags and leave Brisbane.

posts like this are just embarrassing - please be a mature adult

 

[mongoose]

I was told by everyone on here that gaming machine revenue is just as legitimate as sponsorship, corporate hospitality, membership, ticketing and merchandise!

You can bet your arse that once the Tigers are in the NRL they will generate more revenue from football operations than all clubs bar the Broncos.

I didn't say Rockhampton or Jets will definitely get a licence. I said the Jets are a possibility and Rockhampton could enter the equation. There aren't many options available. Adelaide and New Zealand don't have any bidders. PNG is reliant on $25m per annum from Aus Gov.

Perth is the only other candidate with a potentially strong business case.

This is the whole problem with the NRL and its expansion mentality. The best "Business case" just means the team that requires the least amount of investment and effort. It's f**king pathetic. Lets hope the ARLC has some balls and vision for once, Another suburban pokie club in Brisbane isn't expansion and it sure as f**k won't impact the Brisbane Lions.

 

[MugaB]

I was told by everyone on here that gaming machine revenue is just as legitimate as sponsorship, corporate hospitality, membership, ticketing and merchandise!

You can bet your arse that once the Tigers are in the NRL they will generate more revenue from football operations than all clubs bar the Broncos.

I didn't say Rockhampton or Jets will definitely get a licence. I said the Jets are a possibility and Rockhampton could enter the equation. There aren't many options available. Adelaide and New Zealand don't have any bidders. PNG is reliant on $25m per annum from Aus Gov.

Perth is the only other candidate with a potentially strong business case.

Hahaha TAB now is a sponsor for the cowboys, so GROTD has now seen the light

 

[Perth Red]

The ARLC would be more worried about ceding ground in SEQ to our main competitor than gaining ground in Perth.

And that is why we will remain second to AFL. Until that mentality changes then we will never overtake them as the premier footy code in Australia. Still some people seem happy with 2nd best.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

posts like this are just embarrassing - please be a mature adult

Nothing immature about stating truths.

The broadcasters care about ratings in the five metropolitan regions. Only Brisbane and Sydney provide consistently strong ratings. That makes Brisbane and Sydney more valuable to the broadcasters.

Brisbane and Sydney are the two largest rugby league cities in the world. The bulk of the game's players have historically been produced in Brisbane and Sydney. Without great players there is no game. That makes Brisbane and Sydney the most important cities to the ARLC.

This is the whole problem with the NRL and its expansion mentality. The best "Business case" just means the team that requires the least amount of investment and effort. It's f**king pathetic. Lets hope the ARLC has some balls and vision for once, Another suburban pokie club in Brisbane isn't expansion and it sure as f**k won't impact the Brisbane Lions.

The ARLC doesn't invest in expansion like the AFL. In fact, virtually no organisation outside of AwFuL does what you're asking. The NFL, NBA and MLB provide licences to the highest bidder. Most of the world uses promotion and relegation to ensure the richest and strongest get to the top.

The only other example I can think of is Super Rugby. SANZAR stretched their resources thin by adding the Brumbies, Force and Rebels. It weakened the Reds and Waratahs to such an extent they're no longer competitive.

We tried it with Melbourne. Unique circumstances and $100m over 20 years was needed to make it work. You're kidding yourself if you think the ARLC will try to replicate that model. The 17 NRL clubs, QRL and NSWRL will block it. The only reason the Storm model was embraced is because News Ltd had a 50% stake in the game and were funding it. The ARL were broke and had little leverage. News Ltd also sacrificed Adelaide, Brisbane 2, Gold Coast, Hunter and Perth during the rationalisation period between 1997 and 2000 to provide the Storm with players.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

And that is why we will remain second to AFL. Until that mentality changes then we will never overtake them as the premier footy code in Australia. Still some people seem happy with 2nd best.

We've always been second to them. Their sport is older and was established across Australia before rugby league reached our shores. Interstate migration from Victoria to SEQ has helped the Lions. We'll never close the gap.

The WA mining boom has flooded Perth with Queenslanders and New South Welshmen. Once again, the two rugby league states have helped grow rugby league in a non-rugby League state. This fortunate circumstance has put us in a position to establish a Perth team. If we get it done then that just leaves Adelaide without a team.

 

[BuffaloRules]

And that is why we will remain second to AFL. Until that mentality changes then we will never overtake them as the premier footy code in Australia. Still some people seem happy with 2nd best.

Out of interest,,,

What has stopped RL from becoming more popular in London?

RL been around for 120 years and we are talking a couple hundred KMs away as opposed to Aust great distances…

The hold that Soccer has over London is similar to the hold AFL has over Melb, Perth and Adelaide…they are all difficult markets ..

Im all for Perth having a team… but its going to be a tough road and I don’t really expect significant juniors or TV ratings in the next 50 years or longer…they are too rusted on and markets don’t really change from one football code to the other in great numbers …

For all their onfield success … the Swans get low ratings although their crowds are relatively good…As has been mentioned ..Sydney is a much more cosmopiltian city attracting a lot of people from the AFL states… no where near as many go the other way

 

[Perth Red]

Brisbane and Sydney are the two largest rugby league cities in the world. The bulk of the game's players have historically been produced in Brisbane and Sydney. Without great players there is no game. That makes Brisbane and Sydney the most important cities to the ARLC.

And those cities have 11 clubs (plus another 2 60mins away) in a 17 club competition ! Does it really need anymore in either?

 

[Perth Red]

We've always been second to them. Their sport is older and was established across Australia before rugby league reached our shores. Interstate migration from Victoria to SEQ has helped the Lions. We'll never close the gap.

The WA mining boom has flooded Perth with Queenslanders and New South Welshmen. Once again, the two rugby league states have helped grow rugby league in a non-rugby League state. This fortunate circumstance has put us in a position to establish a Perth team. If we get it done then that just leaves Adelaide without a team.

Juts because something has been doesn't mean it will always be.

what tosh, RL was strongest in WA in the early 90's when we only had 1million here and few nsw and qlnd immigrants. WARL has been around 75 years. In the 60's WA were playing international teams, in the 80's we were playing NSWRL sides. The neglect of the last 30 years of the game here nearly killed it. Its viability has got nothing to do with NSW and Qnld immigration. If anything modern day NZ immigration is far more influencing. The game was going gangbusters in WA long before large scale interstate immigration.

 

[Perth Red]

Out of interest,,,

What has stopped RL from becoming more popular in London?

RL been around for 120 years and we are talking a couple hundred KMs away as opposed to Aust great distances…

The hold that Soccer has over London is similar to the hold AFL has over Melb, Perth and Adelaide…they are all difficult markets ..

Im all for Perth having a team… but its going to be a tough road and I don’t really expect significant juniors or TV ratings in the next 50 years or longer…they are too rusted on and markets don’t really change from one football code to the other in great numbers …

For all their onfield success … the Swans get low ratings although their crowds are relatively good…As has been mentioned ..Sydney is a much more cosmopiltian city attracting a lot of people from the AFL states… no where near as many go the other way

Not dissimilar to those Australian markets, a lack of effort, investment, vision and strategy. London is rife for RL, it should be being pushed in every london council estate to stop the kids stabbing each other. RL just has a terrible global history of failure in growing new markets.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

And those cities have 11 clubs (plus another 2 60mins away) in a 17 club competition ! Does it really need anymore in either?

That's hardly a fair comparison.

Sydney has nine clubs.

Brisbane has two.

It's not like Brisbane is over saturated, is it?

If a small city like Hull can have two teams then there's no reason a large city like Brisbane cannot have three or four, especially when you consider the larger population of the UK.

I don't see rugby league fans from the north of England suggesting we leave traditional rugby league teams out of the top league so we can fill it with unwanted expansion clubs from, Newcastle, Notingham, Glasgow, Birmingham, Belfast, Dublin and Cardiff. The RFL didn't give any extra funding to Toronto and the French club that got relegated.

You cannot expect rugby league fans from Brisbane to sacrifice 90 year old clubs with history and money for new ones in non-rugby league cities that will never be anything but niche and rely on money and talent generated by Brisbane's rugby league clubs and fanbase. SEQ has been grossly under-represented since 1988 and has done more for expansion than any other region in the world. It's time for us to get what we're owed and for the non-RL cities to stop bumming off us.

 

[Perth Red]

That's hardly a fair comparison.

Sydney has nine clubs.

Brisbane has two.

It's not like Brisbane is over saturated, is it?

If a small city like Hull can have two teams then there's no reason a large city like Brisbane cannot have three or four, especially when you consider the larger population of the UK.

I don't see rugby league fans from the north of England suggesting we leave traditional rugby league teams out of the top league so we can fill it with unwanted expansion clubs from, Newcastle, Notingham, Glasgow, Birmingham, Belfast, Dublin and Cardiff. The RFL didn't give any extra funding to Toronto and the French club that got relegated.

You cannot expect rugby league fans from Brisbane to sacrifice 90 year old clubs with history and money for new ones in non-rugby league cities that will never be anything but niche and rely on money and talent generated by Brisbane's rugby league clubs and fanbase. SEQ has been grossly under-represented since 1988 and has done more for expansion than any other region in the world. It's time for us to get what we're owed and for the non-RL cities to stop bumming off us.

Brisbane isnt over saturated, and there is no need to do so. Its right for now with two clubs. IF Dolphins keep growing and when Brisbane population grows and when we have teams in capital cities with no teams then we can look at the need for Brisbane3 in the comp.

TBH if there was a city in UK, say Birmingham or London or Sheffield that had 4000 registered players, was drawing crowds of 20-40k full of of locals and had multi millionaire owners waiting then I would suggest the Sl should get them in asap, even at the cost of a smaller northern club.

Yes I can, for the good of the game. If youre an Ipswich or Easts fan youc an go watch your club in the QRL cup. If you want to follow NRL you can become a Broncos or Dolphins member. You have options. Its incredibly selfish to deny fans in other cities with no option to actively follow a club to appease fans who already have two options.

 

[Pneuma]

The Redcliffe Dolphins are spending $2m per annum on junior pathways and women's rugby league in the Moreton Bay region.

The Dolphins have agreed to invest $1m per annum on grassroots rugby league and pathways as well as an additional $1m per annum on women’s rugby league pathways and development.​

​

‘Exciting day’: NRL locks in 17th team

More games, more rounds and more byes will be coming to the NRL in 2023 after confirmation of a 17th team, the first new club since 2007.

thewest.com.au

Are the Melbourne Storm doing this?

If so, then how much are they spending and for how long have they done it?

If not, why not?

The Brisbane Tigers could do something similar for Logan, Ipswich and southern Brisbane. It would help more juniors from Brisbane progress to the NRL.

Have you thought of actually going to the storms website and to the Nrl vic site to see what is actually happening in Victoria or (and this is likely) are you just happy to be a large smelly ignorant turd? Asking for a friend.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Brisbane isnt over saturated, and there is no need to do so. Its right for now with two clubs. IF Dolphins keep growing and when Brisbane population grows and when we have teams in capital cities with no teams then we can look at the need for Brisbane3 in the comp.

TBH if there was a city in UK, say Birmingham or London or Sheffield that had 4000 registered players, was drawing crowds of 20-40k full of of locals and had multi millionaire owners waiting then I would suggest the Sl should get them in asap, even at the cost of a smaller northern club.

Yes I can, for the good of the game. If youre an Ipswich or Easts fan youc an go watch your club in the QRL cup. If you want to follow NRL you can become a Broncos or Dolphins member. You have options. Its incredibly selfish to deny fans in other cities with no option to actively follow a club to appease fans who already have two options.

Are you against a third Brisbane team because you care about developing the game in Adelaide or Perth?

Or are you doing so because the Brisbane Tigers are a legitimate threat to Perth getting the 18th licence?

We all know if it comes down to financial stability then the ARLC will choose the Brisbane Tigers over Perth. Ch9 have already stated they want a fifth team in Queensland because it's a parochial market that draws solid ratings.

I'm convinced News Ltd will prefer the Brisbane Tigers over a Perth team because the company has a strong stake in the Brisbane print media.

A third team can generate more content for The Courier Mail. It'll be similar to what the nine Sydney clubs do for The Daily Telegraph.

Does News Ltd have a stake in the Perth print media?

I found this:

News Corp Australia's trusted News Metro Network includes The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, The Courier-Mail and The Advertiser that run seven days a week across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia.

Home - NewsCorp Australia

www.newscorpaustralia.com

Ch9 also have a stake in the print media since they bought Fairfax.

It's not my job as a BRL fan to sacrifice the 100 year plus history of my city's clubs to appease the tiny rugby league community In Adelaide and Perth.

Would you give up your English club to appease a few hundred people in London?

Calling RL fans in Brisbane selfish because they won't gift Perth a team won't get them on your side. If you want Perth to have a team then work with the NSWRL and QRL to secure one of the next three licences.

I'm all for Perth having a team, for the record. It has enough interstate migrants and the nucleus of a domestic scene to develop into something valuable. Adelaide does not.

I don't agree with restricting rugby league mad Brisbane to just two teams so we can expand into markets thet cannot support a club nor want one. Perth is the beggar looking for a seat at the table with the big boys. It needs to know its place and stop biting the hand it will rely on for survival. What you're arguing for is affirmative action to give lesser qualified minorities a spot ahead of experienced professionals who have an outstanding portfolio.

There's nothing preventing rugby league fans in Perth from supporting the NRLWA Clubs.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Not dissimilar to those Australian markets, a lack of effort, investment, vision and strategy. London is rife for RL, it should be being pushed in every london council estate to stop the kids stabbing each other. RL just has a terrible global history of failure in growing new markets.

They have tried several times to get RL started in London and it hasn’t worked out ..

Name me one place in the Western World in the last 75 years where one football code has replaced another as the most popular sport or even as a credible competitor ..,
It doesn’t happen…regardless of the spend …how much more money the AFL pumping into Western Sydney to be ignored? More than what the NRL is prepared to spend in Perth… that’s for sure

 

[Wb1234]

Out of interest,,,

What has stopped RL from becoming more popular in London?

RL been around for 120 years and we are talking a couple hundred KMs away as opposed to Aust great distances…

The hold that Soccer has over London is similar to the hold AFL has over Melb, Perth and Adelaide…they are all difficult markets ..

Im all for Perth having a team… but its going to be a tough road and I don’t really expect significant juniors or TV ratings in the next 50 years or longer…they are too rusted on and markets don’t really change from one football code to the other in great numbers …

For all their onfield success … the Swans get low ratings although their crowds are relatively good…As has been mentioned ..Sydney is a much more cosmopiltian city attracting a lot of people from the AFL states… no where near as many go the other way

Short answer is no money in England

davd Hughes whose put in tens of millions into the broncos is a bad owner

the rfl made Ian leneghan sell his shares since he wanted to own Wigan and that was the beginning of the end for the broncos