NRL's growth mindset points to 18th team. And it ain't Perth.

[The Great Dane]

I can't see TVNZ or TV3 bidding against Sky for some games. TVNZ would have to justify using "taxpayers money" to buy sports rights, and TV3 is flat broke.

The rights will stay with Sky, UNLESS the NRL inks a free-to-air deal that guarantees good exposure for the game despite taking a bit less than Sky would pay. A fair bit less.

At the moment our FTA coverage is appalling.. long long delays for the 2 games that Sky deem worthy of replaying on Prime (the FTA channel they own).

That's the reality of a low-population country with no anti-syphoning laws.

It's gonna take something creative from NRL HQ to change that.. and they may have to take a hit if they want better media exposure.

Assuming that's all correct, the questions become would Sky be willing to spend the extra $15mil, if so under what circumstances, and is the deal worth it to the NRL.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see Sky caving to the money, but whether or not their deal would offer the exposure necessary to make it worth it to the NRL is another question.
Whether or not the NRL cares about the exposure at all is another question as well.

It's good to know that people in NZ are stupid about taxpayers dollars as well though lol.
I mean either way the money will be spent, so the question is would you rather that money be spent on something that people might actually be interested in, or more of the usual crap that nobody cares about that public broadcasters normally produce.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Idiot there isn't ONLY 2 spots available, there can be 32 licences if they so want, they just all need to be sustainable first, punting current teams while expanding, isn't EXPANSION, you're in the wrong thread, go to the DIVISION thread or SUBTRACTION thread spew all your Brisbane Broncos and Sydney hating nonsense there. For a person who frequents the expansion forum to not even know what expansion means...
FML

The broadcasters arent going to cover the costs of screening 16 games (32 teams) each round. The money isn't there for more than 18 teams. None of the current 8 games are broadcast at the same time. That's obviously a decision Foxtel want as it allows their viewers to sit on the couch and watch all 8 games live. A 9th game xan be added ro their schedule without forcing games to be played at the same time, but any more and it'll be difficult to accomplish.

1 x Thurs
2 x Fri
3 x Sat
3 x Sun
Total = 9

A 10th game could be played on a Monday night if they're willing to go to 20 teams, but that will create 4 day turnarounds for some teams and the RLPA will not accept it.

Most of the game's revenue is tied up with Foxtel's broadcast deal, so what rhey say, goes. They don't want 20 teams and a we're lucky to be getting a 17th and 18th.

Im just pointing out that there isn't a fixed number, as long as they are all sustainable clubs, and all bring something to the table, then there's no end to how many licenses can be handed out, look at the NFL in how their expansion and conferences work, i know there's a waaaaay larger population there and wall to wall cities, but the structure works, and they limit games, so becomes more valuable, where the NRL stretches for 25 rounds, then finals... i feel it's too long, and we'd be better at 20 teams at 20 rounds, only having just one heritage/rivalries round as the team to verse twice, otherwise everyone plays each other once. And reverse the Home/Away for the next season, which probably gets 10 home games a year per club

This could quite possibly be the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

Most of the Sydney teams are unviable and reliant on the annual grant and pokie machine revenue. They'll never agree to a league that has 32 teams. They're already throwing a tantrum about a 17th team and trying to prevent it!

Where's the money for 32 teams going to come from?

Foxtel and the FTA networks aren't going to double the amount they're paying now so that the salary cap and annual grant remains the same. The RLPA will never agree to a massive decrease to the salary cap and players would go play RU if annual earnings were cut in half.

We dont have the population to support 32 teams. 18 is probably the maximum.

 

[Perth Red]

Sorry, but PVL isn't doing this for the shíts and giggles of it, local NRL teams in areas where local RL players are, its really simple, i don't doubt they are looking at Perth and Adelaide for the remaining expansion spots maybe down the track, but not until they get regular SoO fixture there for the next decade, all PVL and HQ want is more players for the pool, in a areas that already play RL, and aren't tied to existing franchises.
Thats northern SEQ and another Auckland based team that funnels pathways from players in the P.I's (tonga,fiji etc) putting teams in areas that will advance the player pool, then when the game grows off that, proper expansion into 1 or 2 AFL rusted states, i dare say PNG might even get a look

Any idea what player registration numbers are in Canterbury and Wellington comps? Looking at them they don’t seem to have many more clubs than here in WA. Canterbury region has 17 clubs but I suspect they are probably at a higher level in premier grade than the Perth comp?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

they’re in it for the long game. Come back in another 40 years and let’s see where the two codes are. They have already taken over the one advantage we had, tv audiences, pss on us in crowds and active fanbase and generate 50% more revenue than us. They have a clear strategy to be “Australia’s game”. Meanwhile we twiddle our thumbs and worry about building 15k seater suburban grounds in Sydney and can’t decide if another brisbane team is a good idea lol

Sydney RL fans are killing the game with their tunnel vision. They need to get it through their skulls that Sydney is incapable of supporting 9 clubs. There's just not enough demand in Sydney for 9 clubs, and half of the reason behind that is the younger generation aren't interested in watching a regional Sydney competition when there are truly national sporting leagues around the world that make our game look tiny. Affluent people from Sydney are migrating to fumbleball because it has a national presence and is important enough to its supporters to draw world class attendances. Basketball, soccer and netball are catching on with kids because they are national. When us older folk who live and breathe the game, mostly because we grew up in truly RL dominated landscapes, start to die, our game will rely on the younger folk who aren't as emotionally invested in it to attend matches, watch it on TV and buy memberships. What are they going to choose, a game that looks 2nd rate due to limited appeal around the country and is on its knees in its heartland, or something that looks professional, national and important?

 

[Perth Red]

I think a 20 team two conference comp would create that vibrant national game we are looking. If the game can wait another 25 years plus to get there is another question. Union has shown what can happen if you let a game decline in public interest, whilst we are more stagnant than declining we need to be mindful that it could happen. For all the investment in clubs by a 40% increase in the NRL grant overnight most clubs have not really grown at all in the last 5 years.

 

[baselinepanther]

you’d have to have your head well and truly buried in Vlandys backside not to see the gains they’ve made over RL in last 25 years.

but
a kids animated rabbit is still a bigger ratings winner in NSW & QLD
keep slurping down that koolaide champ

 

[Perth Red]

Can we have Beattie back?

ARLC chairman Peter V'landys has distanced the NRL from expanding into Perth but on Wednesday commissioner Peter Beattie didn't rule out a push into Western Australia.

Speaking at the launch of the Origin series, which is set to start in Melbourne on June 9, the former ARLC chairman said they would consider all input from clubs, including the impact of travel, before making a decision.

"We've been for the past two years to Adelaide and Perth and that's about growing the game," he said.

"They've got a good local competition over there (in Perth) and they're obviously interested in having another team.

"All of those things have to be considered.

"There's a lot of things on the table, including Perth."
Travel concerns raised in NRL split plans | PerthNow

 

[Perth Red]

but
a kids animated rabbit is still a bigger ratings winner in NSW & QLD
keep slurping down that koolaide champ

About 13% of AFLs metro ratings come from NRL states, NRL its about 6% from AFL states.

 

[baselinepanther]

About 13% of AFLs metro ratings come from NRL states, NRL its about 6% from AFL states.

13%
Id say it was more 20 years ago

meaning they're going backwards

 

[Perth Red]

13%
Id say it was more 20 years ago

meaning they're going backwards

You'd say it was more, or you have data that shows it was more?

 

[flippikat]

Assuming that's all correct, the questions become would Sky be willing to spend the extra $15mil, if so under what circumstances, and is the deal worth it to the NRL.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see Sky caving to the money, but whether or not their deal would offer the exposure necessary to make it worth it to the NRL is another question.
Whether or not the NRL cares about the exposure at all is another question as well.

It's good to know that people in NZ are stupid about taxpayers dollars as well though lol.
I mean either way the money will be spent, so the question is would you rather that money be spent on something that people might actually be interested in, or more of the usual crap that nobody cares about that public broadcasters normally produce.

Sky will do all they can to keep the status quo - "all games live" being an exclusive behind their paywall, and any FTA coverage (currently 2 games per weekend) at such a ridiculous delay, you'd have to be a masochist to watch it... oh and preferably FTA on their own channel so they can sweep the advertising crumbs from that.

If the NRL want games here on FTA with either a live kickoff or decent (1 maybe 2 hour) delay, they would likely have to settle for less money.

The wildcard here is Spark Sport - the streaming service.

IF (big if) Spark Sport deem the NRL a priority target, would the NRL be willing to take a comparable offer to Sky (almost as much?) In exchange for a deal where Spark Sport allows TVNZ to play 2-3 games per week FTA at a decent timeslot?

NZ Cricket did a deal with Spark Sport where all games were live on Spark, but a select few T20 matches were live on TVNZ.. so it's not without precident.

 

[flippikat]

Can we have Beattie back?

ARLC chairman Peter V'landys has distanced the NRL from expanding into Perth but on Wednesday commissioner Peter Beattie didn't rule out a push into Western Australia.

It warms my heart (somewhat) that there's still at least one voice on the Commission that's not towing the V'Landys "rusted-on AFL states" line.

His days are probably numbered after that statement, though :/

 

[baselinepanther]

You'd say it was more, or you have data that shows it was more?

and if I find it

will you never mention that bumbling abortion on these pages again ?

 

[Spanner in the works]

...

 

[Perth Red]

and if I find it

will you never mention that bumbling abortion on these pages again ?

For at least a week, go for it.

 

[Jamberoo]

There are three measure of success for expansion teams.
1. Crowds
2. TV ratings
3. Participation
The AFL’s expansionists into existing markets (WA & SA) has worked all three levels.
In NSW the Swans have huge crowds, ordinary ratings but massive participation growth.
Giants have poor crowds and ratings but strong participation growth.
Lions and Sun have solid crowds, improving ratings and strong participation.
NRL’s expansion into existing markets (Canberra, Newcastle, Nth Q, GC) has produced good crowds, good rating and borderline participation growth.
Storm have OK crowds (by Melbourne standards), ordinary ratings but almost zero participation growth.

I would score both codes fairly even in their expansion into existing markets, and the main difference is new markets is that the NRL has had virtually no growth in participation after 23 years in Melbourne, where as AFL participation in NSW and Qld is booming. Qld and NSW combined has double the population of Victoria, but at least twenty times more people play AR in NSW/Qld than play RL in Victoria. So the AFL is doing 10 times better in regards to participation.

What can we learn from this?
1. AFL is taking female football more seriously - about one third of the growth in participation is from Female footy. There are seven games of women’s RL each season and over seventy AFLW. The NRL needs to have a plan that each club has a team soon with at least a 10 games season. Otherwise the participation battle will be lost within a decade, even in NSW and Qld.
2. More people on the ground (players at schools, clinics, etc), makes kids more interested.
3. Melbourne Storm has not done enough in Melbourne. The crowds are OK by Sydney standards but they have hardly grown in 23 years. On field, brilliant. On balance, off field, it has been a failure.
4. If the NRL wants to put teams in WA or SA they need to put a whole lot of money like the AFL has done in NSW & Qld. I.e. hundreds of millions over 10 - 20 years. If participation does grow there is no point have new teams there.

 

[Perth Red]

Melbourne’s crowds have doubled from 2009 to last few seasons. I don’t think there is any other nrl club that has had 100% attendance growth in that time period?

vic used to get flogged every year by WA in the state championship, now their under 18’s beat us regularly and their snr team is a match for ours. That would suggest a decent improvement in quality if not quantity..

AFL has had such growth because it invests close to $140million a year in its two expansion states ($90mill on its afl clubs). Nrl invests around $15million ($13million to nrl club). It’s not hard to see why we lag behind!

At its height in early 90’s WA had 10k registered players, that dropped to less than 500 after Reds were culled and SL war took its toll, its gradually built back up to over 3000 on the smell of an oily rag. An nrl team and some decent grass roots funding and we can see a major boom in participation again. Do nothing and I can guarantee Twiggy will have all the big kids playing union within next few years.

 

[baselinepanther]

For at least a week, go for it.

nope
fullstop

 

[baselinepanther]

There are three measure of success for expansion teams.
1. Crowds
2. TV ratings
3. Participation
The AFL’s expansionists into existing markets (WA & SA) has worked all three levels.
In NSW the Swans have huge crowds, ordinary ratings but massive participation growth.
Giants have poor crowds and ratings but strong participation growth.
Lions and Sun have solid crowds, improving ratings and strong participation.
NRL’s expansion into existing markets (Canberra, Newcastle, Nth Q, GC) has produced good crowds, good rating and borderline participation growth.
Storm have OK crowds (by Melbourne standards), ordinary ratings but almost zero participation growth.

I would score both codes fairly even in their expansion into existing markets, and the main difference is new markets is that the NRL has had virtually no growth in participation after 23 years in Melbourne, where as AFL participation in NSW and Qld is booming. Qld and NSW combined has double the population of Victoria, but at least twenty times more people play AR in NSW/Qld than play RL in Victoria. So the AFL is doing 10 times better in regards to participation.

What can we learn from this?
1. AFL is taking female football more seriously - about one third of the growth in participation is from Female footy. There are seven games of women’s RL each season and over seventy AFLW. The NRL needs to have a plan that each club has a team soon with at least a 10 games season. Otherwise the participation battle will be lost within a decade, even in NSW and Qld.
2. More people on the ground (players at schools, clinics, etc), makes kids more interested.
3. Melbourne Storm has not done enough in Melbourne. The crowds are OK by Sydney standards but they have hardly grown in 23 years. On field, brilliant. On balance, off field, it has been a failure.
4. If the NRL wants to put teams in WA or SA they need to put a whole lot of money like the AFL has done in NSW & Qld. I.e. hundreds of millions over 10 - 20 years. If participation does grow there is no point have new teams there.

according to the AFL participation is booming in the NRL states
but..as we all know
a lot of that is kids being dragged to auskick clinics at school & girls

smoke n mirrors
the AFL are past masters at it

 

[Jamberoo]

Melbourne’s crowds have doubled from 2009 to last few seasons. I don’t think there is any other nrl club that has had 100% attendance growth in that time period?

vic used to get flogged every year by WA in the state championship, now their under 18’s beat us regularly and their snr team is a match for ours. That would suggest a decent improvement in quality if not quantity..

AFL has had such growth because it invests close to $140million a year in its two expansion states ($90mill on its afl clubs). Nrl invests around $15million ($13million to nrl club). It’s not hard to see why we lag behind!

At its height in early 90’s WA had 10k registered players, that dropped to less than 500 after Reds were culled and SL war took its toll, its gradually built back up to over 3000 on the smell of an oily rag. An nrl team and some decent grass roots funding and we can see a major boom in participation again. Do nothing and I can guarantee Twiggy will have all the big kids playing union within next few years.

In 2000 Storm averaged 15k, 18k in 2019. That’s 20% increase in 20 seasons. The new stadium has helped of course as has continued success.
And to say that Vic local standard has improved because they perform better against WA is tenuous at best. Perhaps WA is just much weaker now - as you actually suggest.