Nine forces ANZAC Test to remain in Australia

[insert.pause]

The last trans Tasman test in Brisbane was literally weeks ago.

So because they have one game in a tournament played in Brisbane they can't have the ANZAC test there the following year? Australia has played at Suncorp three times since 2009, the 09 ANZAC test, 10' four nations final and last year's four nations. Hardly excessive for the games second biggest market.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

From a business point of view it's without a doubt the best decision.

From a grow the sport at any costs point of view it's not, but if the game goes broke then there's no sport to grow anyway.

Besides if our interests are only to grow the game as much as possible, then the best place to hold the games in Australasia would be either Perth or Melbourne. There're more fresh eyes and much more valuable untapped/under serviced markets in the south and west of Australia then there are in NZ, that's not a knock on either NZ or the NZRL, it's just a fact.

If we were to look at on a world scale from a grow the sport as much possible point of view, then China would be hosting the game, but that's not realistic is it.

So Brisbane is a lazy option that won't grow the game (and probably the result of gyngell bending smith over his desk) while Perth or china are too hard. If only there was a compromise venue that was likely to draw a good crowd and help strengthen the game in a non RL market. In don't know, somewhere like Auckland maybe.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So because they have one game in a tournament played in Brisbane they can't have the ANZAC test there the following year? Australia has played at Suncorp three times since 2009, the 09 ANZAC test, 10' four nations final and last year's four nations. Hardly excessive for the games second biggest market.

The issue is why isn't it being played in Auckland like it was meant to be? And the answer is the arlc are as under the thumb of a tv network now as when murdoch owned the game. The gutless wankers. So they've hit the default button that is lang park.

 

[insert.pause]

The issue is why isn't it being played in Auckland like it was meant to be? And the answer is the arlc are as under the thumb of a tv network now as when murdoch owned the game. The gutless wankers. So they've hit the default button that is lang park.

It's no different to the Broncos being contracted to play 18 Friday night games a season, they are contractually obligated, it has nothing to do with being gutless, they sold their right to schedule it to channel 9 three years ago, gutless is allowing Nine Adelaide to return to showing games after midnight despite being obligated to show it live.

Historically Suncorp has not been the default location for tests. Auckland has hosted the same number of tests involving Australia as Brisbane has since 09', three.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Its entirely gutless that Brisbane plays so many Friday games. But of course what is really gutless is that there aren't two Brisbane sides and no plan for a second one. But by comparison i couldn't really give a shit if nein f**ks the NRL sideways. Its just a club comp. The real question is why nein is allowed to do the same to test football. Or even why the arlc feel they have the right to give nein power over it when it is not a game they control alone. Perhaps its in response to one of the great gutless acts of the arlc to ban all tests at the end of the year involving Australia and a chance to mitigate the embarrassment of not having a single test in the world's biggest RL market this year. Instead its the four nations champions who will probably miss out in that department now.

 

[The Great Dane]

So Brisbane is a lazy option that won't grow the game (and probably the result of gyngell bending smith over his desk) while Perth or china are too hard.

No playing the game in Brisbane is cheaper and is certain to have a return in the hundreds of thousands, While playing the game in either Perth or China is more expensive and in the case of Perth is unlikely to have a large return and in China's case is likely to make a loss.

It's simply a case of risk and return, Brisbane is a low risk investment with a and high return, Perth is medium risk with low return and China is high risk with a possible low return, but more likely a significant loss on investment.

It's got nothing to do with difficulty, emotions or manipulation, it's just simple economics.

If only there was a compromise venue that was likely to draw a good crowd and help strengthen the game in a non RL market. In don't know, somewhere like Auckland maybe.

Again it's economics, holding the game in Auckland wont bring anywhere near as large a return as playing the game in Brisbane this year would.

Playing the game outside of Australia this year would be the equivalent of just throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars away, which is something that very few businesses can afford to do and the NRL is not one of the businesses that can afford to throw away hundreds of thousands yet.

The issue is why isn't it being played in Auckland like it was meant to be?

The only people I can find saying that the game was certainly going to be played in NZ this year is the NZRL, and unfortunately for them they don't really get much of a say in the final desicion, let alone get to make the final decision.

And the answer is the arlc are as under the thumb of a tv network now as when murdoch owned the game. The gutless wankers. So they've hit the default button that is lang park.

I still think that Nine is being used as the fall guy, it just makes sense.

THe ARLC and Nine would both stand to lose a fortune if the game was being played in NZ, but I reckon that the ARLC had no intention of playing the game in NZ this year, but so not to look like the bad guys to the NZ public, they blamed not playing the game in Auckland on Nine.

That's what I would have done in their position, makes them look like they're on the NZRLs side to the NZ public, when really they never were in the first place.
In this case they shouldn't be on the NZRLs side anyway in my opinion, they'd simply be forfeiting way to much money to justify holding the game in NZ.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Why would Brisbane be so devastatingly more profitable than Auckland? There's no guarantee they will even get a bigger crowd. The people it effects are nein. That's it. And that's why the game is in Brisbane. Nein said jump and the Welsh banker said how high. The fact the nzrl has no say only proves how f**ked up everything still is. And where will all these hundreds of thousands of extra dollars (if they exist) be going anyway? Not to IRL I'll bet.

 

[langpark]

Why would Brisbane be so devastatingly more profitable than Auckland? There's no guarantee they will even get a bigger crowd. The people it effects are nein. That's it. And that's why the game is in Brisbane. Nein said jump and the Welsh banker said how high. The fact the nzrl has no say only proves how f**ked up everything still is. And where will all these hundreds of thousands of extra dollars (if they exist) be going anyway? Not to IRL I'll bet.

I suppose the fact that 90% of players who would play in the match are based in Australia, that's one extra cost. Then there's the slightly weaker NZ currency. Brisbane is the safest option (gutless as someone previously put it)

 

[East Coast Tiger]

There would be more kiwi based players if there was a second nz NRL team. But that's another obvious opportunity for growth that won't happen. More than 90 per cent of players will be flying into Brisbane too. And I'll repeat it again, if its all about maximum profit then every single trans Tasman test from now on will be in brisbane.

 

[insert.pause]

Why would Brisbane be so devastatingly more profitable than Auckland? There's no guarantee they will even get a bigger crowd. The people it effects are nein. That's it. And that's why the game is in Brisbane. Nein said jump and the Welsh banker said how high. The fact the nzrl has no say only proves how f**ked up everything still is. And where will all these hundreds of thousands of extra dollars (if they exist) be going anyway? Not to IRL I'll bet.

It's in the broadcast rights contract, which had nothing to do with Smith.

 

[The Great Dane]

Why would Brisbane be so devastatingly more profitable than Auckland? There's no guarantee they will even get a bigger crowd.

You really show how little you understand the business side of professional sport here.

The money from ticket sales will only make up a part of the income, corporate sponsorship is another significant part, but advertising will make the lions share of the money for both the ARLC and Nine at an event like this, companies spend lots of money to have their logos and products on display at events like this one, whether it be at the field or in the ad breaks and Nine, Suncorp Stadium and the ARLC will all be able to sell their ad space at a premium because it's the 100th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli ANZAC test.

When it really comes down to it the ARLC can sell the tickets for a higher price in Australia (and particularly in Brisbane) then they can in NZ and still get a good turnout, there're more sponsorship dollars for sporting events in Australia then there are in NZ (especially for a RL game) and the advertising space for a game held in Brisbane with a main target audience of Australians is worth a truckload more then for a game held in Auckland with a main target audience of Kiwis.

Add to that there're more Australian companies with more money willing to support an event like this then Kiwi ones, there're more Australians then Kiwis, on average Australians have more disposable income then Kiwis and that the Australian dollar is worth more then the NZ dollar and you've got answer why the game is worth more in Australia then it is in NZ.

The people it effects are nein. That's it. And that's why the game is in Brisbane. Nein said jump and the Welsh banker said how high. The fact the nzrl has no say only proves how f**ked up everything still is. And where will all these hundreds of thousands of extra dollars (if they exist) be going anyway? Not to IRL I'll bet.

I don't deny that Nine would lose money from the game being played in NZ, or that it wouldn't be in their interests, however the ARLC would stand to lose more, and in my opinion probably never intended to play the game in NZ in the first place.

For example, if we took Nine out of the picture the game still wouldn't be being held in NZ, take the NRL out of the picture and replace it with any other professional sports competition (say the AFL, NFL or EPL) in the exact same situation that the ARLC are in and the game still wouldn't be being held in NZ.

In other words Nine wasn't to blame for this game not being held in NZ, socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances completely outside of the ARLC, NRL, NZRL and indeed Nine's control are to blame.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's in the broadcast rights contract, which had nothing to do with Smith.

Riiight. When its something positive the circle laud smith and the arlc but when its not its not his fault. Doesn't answer the question of why the f**k the arlc can sell rights to nein and the nzrl has no say.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You really show how little you understand the business side of professional sport here.

The money from ticket sales will only make up a part of the income, corporate sponsorship is another significant part, but advertising will make the lions share of the money for both the ARLC and Nine at an event like this, companies spend lots of money to have their logos and products on display at events like this one, whether it be at the field or in the ad breaks and Nine, Suncorp Stadium and the ARLC will all be able to sell their ad space at a premium because it's the 100th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli ANZAC test.

When it really comes down to it the ARLC can sell the tickets for a higher price in Australia (and particularly in Brisbane) then they can in NZ and still get a good turnout, there're more sponsorship dollars for sporting events in Australia then there are in NZ (especially for a RL game) and the advertising space for a game held in Brisbane with a main target audience of Australians is worth a truckload more then for a game held in Auckland with a main target audience of Kiwis.

Add to that there're more Australian companies with more money willing to support an event like this then Kiwi ones, there're more Australians then Kiwis, on average Australians have more disposable income then Kiwis and that the Australian dollar is worth more then the NZ dollar and you've got answer why the game is worth more in Australia then it is in NZ.



I don't deny that Nine would lose money from the game being played in NZ, or that it wouldn't be in their interests, however the ARLC would stand to lose more, and in my opinion probably never intended to play the game in NZ in the first place.

For example, if we took Nine out of the picture the game still wouldn't be being held in NZ, take the NRL out of the picture and replace it with any other professional sports competition (say the AFL, NFL or EPL) in the exact same situation that the ARLC are in and the game still wouldn't be being held in NZ.

In other words Nine wasn't to blame for this game not being held in NZ, socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances completely outside of the ARLC, NRL, NZRL and indeed Nine's control are to blame.

:lol:

What f**king sponsors? Like the ones who sponsored the four nations? Yeah the arlc will have them rolling in. The corporate geniuses that they are. And once again I will repeat, if its all about profits then EVERY test must be in Brisbane from now on. Every one.

 

[insert.pause]

Riiight. When its something positive the circle laud smith and the arlc but when its not its not his fault. Doesn't answer the question of why the f**k the arlc can sell rights to nein and the nzrl has no say.

Who is lauding him for something he's not responsible for?

The Australian rights to the ANZAC Test is sold by the ARLC and the NZ rights are sold by the NZRL, I would imagine the test is the product of the ARL and the NZRL are 'invited' to participate and in return receive the NZ domestic rights.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

And I would imagine having an administration that does the right thing by the sport at all times. Imagination is fun.

 

[RedVee]

I can't imagine that

 

[The Great Dane]

:lol:

What f**king sponsors? Like the ones who sponsored the four nations?

You know when the players have a drink how it's either a bottle of Powerade or a bottle with Powerade written on the bottle, what about when you look around the ground at the Billbords with all the different company logos on it, or maybe the naming rights sponsor, or the trophy sponsor, the halftime entertainment sponsor, etc, etc, f##king etc!

Yeah the arlc will have them rolling in. The corporate geniuses that they are.[[/QUOTE]

Pretty much everything can be sold as for sponsorship, things you don't even think you notice until you see the product later and think you've seen it somewhere. I remember once about 25-30 years ago when I was in living in Japan, a local RU team I was working with sold the rights to paint the makings on their pitch to a local painting company for roughly a grand ever 6 months or so, free paint to repaint the sh!thy little half garage half shack they called the clubhouse and the right to put a couple signs about the pitch for their business.

And once again I will repeat, if its all about profits then EVERY test must be in Brisbane from now on. Every one.

Of course it's not all about profits, it's all about the potential risks and the potential returns.

This year it's illogical to hold the game anywhere but in Brisbane, Sydney or maybe at a stretch Melbourne because of the added interest in ANZAC related events and thus the added value in those events because of the 100th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli. That added value in Australia cannot be matched by NZ and the other benefits of holding the game in aren't worth sacrificing that extra money that would be made in Australia.

However that added value because of the anniversary will not be a factor next year, and the potential benefits of playing the game in NZ may outweigh the much reduced profits to be made in Brisbane or any other city.
It's all about picking your moments when it comes to this sort of thing, you've got to think it through as much as possible, otherwise you might sacrifice a ton of money one year by taking the game some where you are trying to grow the sport and then the next not make a cent when you take a game to the city you would have made a killing in the year before.

Besides as I said before if we're really going to talk about growing the game as large as possible, then on a list of untapped and under serviced markets in Australasia, NZ still wouldn't be the top of the list of priorities either for participation in the sport or market share!

By my quick calculations, Melbourne would be, then Brisbane and Perth, after that it depends on how you cut it. If you count the whole of NZ as one market (as the ARLC and many others naively seems to do in my opinion) then they come next, however if you cut NZ into smaller chunks (like I think it should be) then Auckland comes next, then back across the Tasman to Adelaide, then back to Wellington and after that it's hard to categories without hours of research that I wouldn't be being paid to do.

So of the top five underutilized and untapped markets in Australasia that RL (and the NRL in particular) should be focusing on gaining a larger market share in, realistically four of them are in Australia!

 

[The Great Dane]

And I would imagine having an administration that does the right thing by the sport at all times. Imagination is fun.

Unfortunately what you deem to be "the right thing by the sport at all times" would mean that the ARLC would be taking in a lot less money and wouldn't be able to do those things in the first place, or they'd have tried to do "the right thing by the sport at all times" anyway and have gone broke years ago.

Hate the game, not the player.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Stop pretending to calculate things. You making shit up is not a calculation. If Brisbane will deliver the most cash, and your calculations clearly and unquestioningly prove it will, then it will every single time. In which case every test must now be played in Brisbane under the principle that no potential revenue can be foregone. I look forward to this playing out.

 

[The Great Dane]

Stop pretending to calculate things. You making shit up is not a calculation. If Brisbane will deliver the most cash, and your calculations clearly and unquestioningly prove it will, then it will every single time. In which case every test must now be played in Brisbane under the principle that no potential revenue can be foregone. I look forward to this playing out.

That's not the system works and you know it.

I'll conclude the same way as I did before, hate the game no the player.