NRL and its clubs are expected to palm-off expansion until 2014 or 2015

[adamkungl]

It dilutes the greater Sydney area ranks of public, corporate support and players, making it even thinner than it already is,

Arbitrarily defined area to make a dubious point. CC is it's own city with its own public and corporate support.

has limitted attraction to the broadcasters (when compared to Perth, SEQ or even NZ bid), and nibbles into the markets of Manly and Newcastle, all of which makes it a less desirable model for expansion of the game IMO.

The Bears have more fans than Perth at the moment, and more than any plastic Broncos clone will ever have.

 

[Joker's Wild]

It may be arbitrary kungl, but its correct to a degree. The CC is its own city like Wollongong, which couldnt sustain a team, plus its is jammed between a saturated Sydney market and a recently struggling Newcastle one.

I hate the Bombers bid and dont support it 1 bit due to its inorganic and outright AFL inspired concept but the SEQ area really needs another side. As a Knights supporter here in Brissy I would buy a membership to a new team playing out of Suncorp, whether it be called Ipswich, SW Qld or whatever simply because Id love to see more footy that isnt the filthy Broncos and Im sure many others would at least like to see their non-Qld teams play more than 2 games in this part of the world a season. That to me is a big factor in letting in another SEQ side, the local ex-pats would boost the crowds in a big way.

 

[firechild]

It dilutes the greater Sydney area ranks of public, corporate support and players, making it even thinner than it already is, has limitted attraction to the broadcasters (when compared to Perth, SEQ or even NZ bid), and nibbles into the markets of Manly and Newcastle, all of which makes it a less desirable model for expansion of the game IMO.

I think this is a factor that CC bears supporters are pretty keen to overlook. They are quick to claim "Manly don't like it" or "Newcastle don't like it because the CC bid will eat into their recruitment areas, fanbases, etc". The reality is that in a congested market such as Sydney, we can't be introducing new clubs that will take anything away from the existing clubs. Brisbane is a different situation because it is a vastly greater population relative to the size of the single club in the area. There are more than enough juniors, businesses (sponsors) and potential fans to go around. If Sydney clubs are against the CC bid for these reasons then the issues should be looked at more closely.

 

[AuDragon]

Arbitrarily defined area to make a dubious point. CC is it's own city with its own public and corporate support.

So are Penrith, Parramatta and Willawong to name a few. Doesn't make it any less valid for the Panthers, Eels or Dragons, who are all "Greater Sydney" teams.
Why should if be different for the Bears, especially given the fact they will be drawing a lot of their support from North Sydney, despite being located in Gosford.
There's nothing arbitrary about it, it's probably your bias that makes you think that...

The Bears have more fans than Perth at the moment, and more than any plastic Broncos clone will ever have.

It may be so at the moment, but I don't share your view of the future. Perth is rapidly growing with heaps of ex-pats from NSW and Qld, and you seem to grossly underestimate the amount of anti-Broncos who would gladly support a competing team in the area... :roll:

 

[rednblack]

I think this is a factor that CC bears supporters are pretty keen to overlook. They are quick to claim "Manly don't like it" or "Newcastle don't like it because the CC bid will eat into their recruitment areas, fanbases, etc".

I see what you're saying, but I've gotta disagree for the most part.

Manly doesn't run juniors out of the Central Coast, or Hornsby, Lane Cove, Mosman or Chatswood. These are the areas we've been talking about with respect to local juniors (from North Sydney to Lake Munmorah). This massive catchment area IS NOT being utilized by any current NRL club as a talent breeding ground.

It isn't something that we're overlooking, but it IS something that we're keen to capitalize on, in the absence of any competition from other clubs. IF manly were actively recruiting and working with the juniors in these areas, it may be a different story, however that is not currently the case.

 

[firechild]

Manly doesn't have the funds to run the juniors in those areas and that is where the NRL needs to direct funding; keeping top flight clubs in contact with juniors in these areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that a new club should be added to the area in order to cover the juniors. Manly have made an attempt by including Asquith in their A-grade competition but without extra funding, they cannot possibly take up the entire north shore and central coast in their system. I agree that the juniors need to be looked after but this is exactly where the AFL is working while the NRL are fobbing it off to the clubs. The NRL must direct money to grass roots football.

 

[Goddo]

That's not completely right, Gallop has stressed about the importance of community engagement in nearly every single interview he has had in regards to expansion since 2008. Because without the community being behind the team, then where are you going to draw your viewers from? Who will invest in the team to make their financial model sound? Who will turn up to games in general?

Depends. For the Bears what you say is true, because they have an established brand and fan base. Community engagement is core to the Bears financial model.

That is not the case for other bids, which are still viable financially without strong community engagement. They don't have a 100 year old brand and old fans to rely on.

This is especially true of the plastic Bombers bid, which is completely top down but viable because of the location and private backing. The viewers/fans come from general football fans. There are a lot of those in Brisbane which is why its probably the only place a totally top down structure will work.

Most bids are a mix of top down and bottom up structure. Each is just structuring itself to its strengths. Its the stability of the end financial model that counts.

You take the community element out of the bids and you might not even be bidding in the first place. It's the fans of the respected teams who will hold those teams together, through thick and thin. Without those fans, everything else is as worthless as the majority of opinions on here. No team can survive without community engagement, no team can make revenue without community engagement and no team will get TV time without community engagement. You honestly think that the TV stations will show a game if there's hardly anyone at the ground? It makes the over all spectacle, game and decision to broadcast that team/bringing that team in inept.

Again, what you say only applies to old clubs trying to get back in. It doesn't hold true for new clubs. New clubs glory days and strong support are ahead of them. So long as they have a financial model that works and generate money for the NRL they are just as deserving as the Bears bid.

And don't be absurd saying "hardly anyone at the ground". You know full well how much support there is in Brisbane from Sydney clubs (you are an example of it). A new Brisbane team will have little difficulty averaging somewhere around 18-25k, just off the back of fans of other clubs, general RL fans and the odd Broncos fan. Its not a saturated market like Sydney. Huge growth will come as the club becomes more established.

Sure the TV elements and financial models are crucial but without support then what's the point?

The point is to grow the game in new markets, or to grow/reinforce the game in under utilised markets. The point to a new side in a new market is to generate more and new support.

 

[rednblack]

Manly doesn't have the funds to run the juniors in those areas and that is where the NRL needs to direct funding; keeping top flight clubs in contact with juniors in these areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that a new club should be added to the area in order to cover the juniors. Manly have made an attempt by including Asquith in their A-grade competition but without extra funding, they cannot possibly take up the entire north shore and central coast in their system. I agree that the juniors need to be looked after but this is exactly where the AFL is working while the NRL are fobbing it off to the clubs. The NRL must direct money to grass roots football.

That may be a start on Manly's behalf, but the point was that a CC team wouldn't be stepping on anyone else's toes in regard to this issue (which you have just confirmed).

You raise a good point though, about how the juniors are funded, but that a separate argument. The fact is, the large region from North Sydney to Lake Munmorah is there for the taking, and currently un-utilized by anyone else (with regard to the fostering and development of juniors).

 

[Knightmare]

I agree that there is room in Qld for another team or two, but on current form and standings, the Bears bid KO's anything coming from North of the Tweed. The problem with the Bombers bid is that it isn't really an alternative to the Broncos- it's just another plastic franchise with f**k all history or any link to the QRL. Rugby League has been played at club level in Qld since 1908, yet no NRL side in Qld has a history before 1988.

A club like Redcliffe or Wynnum would be best placed, as they could both bring long established fanbases with them and a true 'club' to NRL in Qld, as opposed to a $2 franchise with bugger all connections to the games' history in the Sunshine State.

 

[firechild]

That may be a start on Manly's behalf, but the point was that a CC team wouldn't be stepping on anyone else's toes in regard to this issue (which you have just confirmed).

You raise a good point though, about how the juniors are funded, but that a separate argument. The fact is, the large region from North Sydney to Lake Munmorah is there for the taking, and currently un-utilized by anyone else (with regard to the fostering and development of juniors).

The point is though that we shouldn't drop a team in every location to look after the juniors. How about dropping a couple of first grade sides into Wagga, Bathurst and Dubbo? If the NRL took care of the grass roots development then this would not be a point for discussion. I understand where you're coming from and agree that something needs to be done but I disagree that dropping a new club into the region is the answer.

 

[rednblack]

The point is though that we shouldn't drop a team in every location to look after the juniors. How about dropping a couple of first grade sides into Wagga, Bathurst and Dubbo? If the NRL took care of the grass roots development then this would not be a point for discussion. I understand where you're coming from and agree that something needs to be done but I disagree that dropping a new club into the region is the answer.

All true, and you're right in so far as you can't have a team EVERYWHERE. No real argument about that.

However, if you go back and re-read AuDragon's original post, you'll see that the point here was never about who SHOULD cover the juniors. I was just refuting the notion that any team on the CC would be stepping on the toes of, or "nibbling away at" the areas of Manly or Newcastle.

I'm sure with limitless funds, then either of these clubs could cover the CC juniors. Or the national body could take up the initiative, that would be a good thing for the region and the game as a whole. Having a team in the region may not be a reason to have the team on it's own, but fear of poaching juniors from neighboring clubs is misinformation, and should be knocked on the head as such. That's where I was coming from.

 

[bobmar28]

The only reason we have for putting new teams anywhere is for the sake of expansion. Putting any new teams in NSW is not expansion. NSW has too many teams.

 

[AuDragon]

All true, and you're right in so far as you can't have a team EVERYWHERE. No real argument about that.

However, if you go back and re-read AuDragon's original post, you'll see that the point here was never about who SHOULD cover the juniors. I was just refuting the notion that any team on the CC would be stepping on the toes of, or "nibbling away at" the areas of Manly or Newcastle.

I'm sure with limitless funds, then either of these clubs could cover the CC juniors. Or the national body could take up the initiative, that would be a good thing for the region and the game as a whole. Having a team in the region may not be a reason to have the team on it's own, but fear of poaching juniors from neighboring clubs is misinformation, and should be knocked on the head as such. That's where I was coming from.

I wasn't talking about junior catchment areas, as that should ne under the NRL purview imo, but that is an entirely different discussion.
I was talking about anything that can be of influence, such as funding, spectators, players, sponsors, etc...

If you don't think another club in Gosford will take resources away from Manly and/or Newcastle, you're deluded; or more likely... in your claim for a Bears spot in the NRL, you'd rather ignore it.

FTR, I have nothing against the Bears, who are a proud secular club and were probably hard done by in years past.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

The only reason we have for putting new teams anywhere is for the sake of expansion. Putting any new teams in NSW is not expansion. NSW has too many teams.

No, Einstein.
Putting new teams in is to strengthen the game.
If it could be proven that another 5 strong clubs could be put in NSW, then this should be done - if it strengthens hegame.

Similarly, if a new club is put into a new area then falls over for lack of interest or competence (e.g. possibly Titans in 2-3 years), then what's the point?

Remember - the real argument for less NSW teams was self-serving crap concocted by News Limited to reduce teams under the criteria in the late 90's - not because it was unsustainable but because News Limited wanted to pay less in grant money.

 

[Goddo]

No, Einstein.
Putting new teams in is to strengthen the game.
If it could be proven that another 5 strong clubs could be put in NSW, then this should be done - if it strengthens hegame.

Similarly, if a new club is put into a new area then falls over for lack of interest or competence (e.g. possibly Titans in 2-3 years), then what's the point?

Remember - the real argument for less NSW teams was self-serving crap concocted by News Limited to reduce teams under the criteria in the late 90's - not because it was unsustainable but because News Limited wanted to pay less in grant money.

Ronny, the whole idea of reducing the number of Sydney clubs is much older than the Super League War.

Its a financial reality - as the game grows beyond a Sydney competition it is unsustainable to be run as a mostly Sydney comp. Clubs have to look to increasing the size of their market and grow, unless of course you want it to be like the Shute Shield.

In 1982, Wests were shifted to Campbelltown as the NSWRL thought it unsustainable that they stay in Lidcombe. Note, the NSWRL tried to boot them out first. Newtown actually were booted.

Why? Because they had their eyes on expansion in Canberra, Illawarra, Newcastle, Brisbane and Gold Coast.

The idea of rationalising the clubs in the 90s was the result of a NSWRL paper written in 1991. It outlined the future for the game required a reduction of clubs in Sydney in order to expand into big new markets. The problem the game faced was as the paper concluded - either teams are forcibly removed, or it becomes survival of the fittest, and they are left to die.

A national "Super League" was the ARL/NSWRL's idea. They favoured a "survival of the fittest" scenario, and pushed ahead with expansion in Perth, North Queensland, Auckland and South Queensland. It was the right idea, just very poor execution.

The clubs knew what was comming. St George and Easts looked at merging, some clubs were really struggling, some rebranded themselves as "Sydney" Tigers/Bulldogs/Roosters to broaden their market apeal. The Bears tried to get out of Sydney to Gosford.

So when Rupert Murdoch came along, disputed the PayTV rights which were given to Packer for nothing and splashed some cash around, no wonder some clubs jumped.

Clubs like Canterbury, Penrith and Brisbane left because as wealthy clubs, they saw rationalisation as the future of the game.
Others were struggling and desperate, such as Auckland, Perth, Cronulla. In the case of Auckland and Perth, it was because of rediculous rules regarding paying for other teams transport and accomodation which sent them bust.

It ended up the "middle class" clubs and some weaker clubs stayed in ARL.

Following the war, there were 22 clubs! That had to be reduced to reign in costs.

Nationally, some viable locations such as Perth, North Queensland, Gold Coast, Auckland were to be chopped to save money. Only some survived.

The plastic teams were killed first, Adelaide, Hunter Mariners.

The problem in Sydney still hadn't been fixed, and so the ARL and News agreed (remember it wasn't just News, the ARL wanted to cull clubs too) to come up with the criteria.

Fair? I dunno about that, but it is business. But its what has happened in the past, and rationalisation will happen in the future.

The only club to fight it was Souths, and they scrapped back in. So after all that, why would the NRL expand in NSW? This is why the Bears won't happen. I don't say this to anger you or out of some sort of hatred of your club. It just is.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

So after all that, why would the NRL expand in NSW? This is why the Bears won't happen. I don't say this to anger you or out of some sort of hatred of your club. It just is.

The key decision made in the 90's was that Gosford is important - a heartland area - for rugby league. This has not changed. It is an important REGIONAL area - it is not Sydney.

Next - the CC Bears reintroduces a connection with rugby league on the north shore. It also recaptures north shore people (and other Bears fans) lost to rugby league after the Bears were shafted.

So - let's drop this questionable "too many teams in sydney" mantra - because this is not relevant for the CC Bears - a regional team.

Finally - the key driver of value to TV rights is advertisers who will pay for exposure on the various channels. With Singo, his connections, the north shore etc, the C Bears bid blows everyone out of the water on this point.

It's time the facts were distinguished from the bullshit propaganda.

 

[Raiderdave]

No, Einstein.
Putting new teams in is to strengthen the game.
If it could be proven that another 5 strong clubs could be put in NSW, then this should be done - if it strengthens hegame.

Similarly, if a new club is put into a new area then falls over for lack of interest or competence (e.g. possibly Titans in 2-3 years), then what's the point?

Remember - the real argument for less NSW teams was self-serving crap concocted by News Limited to reduce teams under the criteria in the late 90's - not because it was unsustainable but because News Limited wanted to pay less in grant money.

yeah , lets put this bloke in Charge of the NRL :sarcasm:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[Goddo]

The key decision made in the 90's was that Gosford is important - a heartland area - for rugby league. This has not changed. It is an important REGIONAL area - it is not Sydney.

Next - the CC Bears reintroduces a connection with rugby league on the north shore. It also recaptures north shore people (and other Bears fans) lost to rugby league after the Bears were shafted.

So - let's drop this questionable "too many teams in sydney" mantra - because this is not relevant for the CC Bears - a regional team.

Finally - the key driver of value to TV rights is advertisers who will pay for exposure on the various channels. With Singo, his connections, the north shore etc, the C Bears bid blows everyone out of the water on this point.

It's time the facts were distinguished from the bullshit propaganda.

I disagree.

Gosford was a quick fix option, but when faced with expansion in more important locations such as Perth, Brisbane, Wellington it falls down the list.

Thats not to say there shouldn't be a club like the Bears. Gallop has said the key to the bid is the Northern rail/road corridor, North Sydney/Chatswood CBD. But why do it when niche market Manly and Cronulla exist? Its a distribution problem, not one of expansion.

As for the Regional area notion, it already hosts NRL games, and as far as TV/advertisers/sponsors go it is Sydney. It will also rely on Sydney for fans/sponsors.

Likewise, I consider the Ipswich Logan corridor bid a Brisbane bid for the same reasons.

To suggest that having "Singo" onboard makes up for the Geography, you are wrong.

I personally would love to have the Bears back in as a Northern version of St George Illawarra, playing half their games at North Syd Oval and half at Gosford. To do so, I'd relocate Manly to the Sunshine Coast.

But the NRL will soon have a commission which has to do whats in the games best interests. Chopping and changing clubs isn't, so what I think is far more likely is Manly takes up the slack more in North Sydney/Gosford, and expansion occurs in Perth and Brisbane.

 

[firechild]

I think it's just a matter of time before Manly expands its fan base and even junior base to the North Shore. At present there are still a lot of old Bears fans that hate Manly, in time that will change. There are plenty of kids on the north shore who know little or nothing about the super league war. Anyone still in high school wouldn't even remember it, most weren't even around for it. The Bears will eventually become a historical team (with respect to first grade) like Sydney Uni or Newtown. The next generation of North Shore kids won't have a bitter resentment towards Manly because they never lost their club and it is more likely that they will embrace a club on the Northern beaches than a club on the Central Coast.

 

[betcats]

The next gen will be taught to hate Manly.