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

[Bring back John Fifita]

South island especially. Incredible lakes, mountains and of course milford sounds

Ive yet to get to the South Island... I can’t wait to get back over. Given the North island blew me away as much as it did...

I might need a crate of tissues and a defibrillator to take with me when I get to the south..

 

[The Great Dane]

1. The government is not going to subsidise a stadium that competes with their own stadium.

Why?

It happens all the time all over the world, it effectivally happened at Docklands for example, so there's no reason why it couldn't happen in Wellington or any other place that the NRL might be interested in.

That's not to say that Wellington/the NZ government would necessarily be willing to subsidise the stadium in some way, but you'd have to ask them to know for sure.

2. Manuka was never a realistic proposal. Did not even get close.

Only because NIMBYs have way too much power in this city and Andrew Barr still has/had hope of the new stadium in Civic being an oval. There were also questions about exactly how much money each party would be putting in, and exactly what each party would own once it was built.

And that fact doesn't change the fact that the AFL was able to get a developer willing drop hundreds of millions into upgrading Manuka Oval without a great deal of trouble, and there's no reason why the NRL couldn't do the same given the right circumstances.

3. The AFL got lucky with Docklands. They put in extra at the beginning to make it oval (was supposed to be rectangular) and part of the deal with that they got it for nothing after 25 years. Poor negotiating by the then Vic govt. Kennett was keen to sell off as many state assets as possible.

That may be the case, doesn't change the fact that stadiums can be good investments.

4. Ny numbers were optimistic. There is no way the NRL clubs would allow $250m (or $15m each) to build a stadium in another country. It makes no sense.

You're numbers were at best guesstimates that ignored a bunch of potential factors, i.e. they were BS, just like all numbers would be this early on.

And why wouldn't the clubs support it assuming that there was a sound business proposal? If it helps secure their positions and (hopefully) eventually makes the NRL money, that they would share in, then it'd be in their interests also. Same goes with what country it's in, who cares as long as it's a good asset.

 

[Jamberoo]

Why?

It happens all the time all over the world, it effectivally happened at Docklands for example, so there's no reason why it couldn't happen in Wellington or any other place that the NRL might be interested in.

That's not to say that Wellington/the NZ government would necessarily be willing to subsidise the stadium in some way, but you'd have to ask them to know for sure.

Only because NIMBYs have way too much power in this city and Andrew Barr still has/had hope of the new stadium in Civic being an oval. There were also questions about exactly how much money each party would be putting in, and exactly what each party would own once it was built.

And that fact doesn't change the fact that the AFL was able to get a developer willing drop hundreds of millions into upgrading Manuka Oval without a great deal of trouble, and there's no reason why the NRL couldn't do the same given the right circumstances.

That may be the case, doesn't change the fact that stadiums can be good investments.

You're numbers were at best guesstimates that ignored a bunch of potential factors, i.e. they were BS, just like all numbers would be this early on.

And why wouldn't the clubs support it assuming that there was a sound business proposal? If it helps secure their positions and (hopefully) eventually makes the NRL money, that they would share in, then it'd be in their interests also. Same goes with what country it's in, who cares as long as it's a good asset.

I disagree. I doubt that anyone at any club would think that spending $250m to build a stadium in Wellington is a good idea. It simply isn’t.
If you want to flush $250m down the toilet with a stadium, at least build one in Australia. One multiple NRL clubs could use.

 

[The Great Dane]

I disagree. I doubt that anyone at any club would think that spending $250m to build a stadium in Wellington is a good idea. It simply isn’t.
If you want to flush $250m down the toilet with a stadium, at least build one in Australia. One multiple NRL clubs could use.

It's not a year ago that everybody was whinging that the NRL had pissed billions of dollars up against a wall without any assets to show for it. So to suggest that none of the clubs would support the NRL owning an asset like a stadium (and the land it's built on) is just utter BS.

What difference does it make whether it's built in Australia, New Zealand, or Timbuktu, as long as the business proposal makes sense who gives a shit.

 

[Jamberoo]

It's not a year ago that everybody was whinging that the NRL had pissed billions of dollars up against a wall without any assets to show for it. So to suggest that none of the clubs would support the NRL owning an asset like a stadium (and the land it's built on) is just utter BS.

What difference does it make whether it's built in Australia, New Zealand, or Timbuktu, as long as the business proposal makes sense who gives a shit.

If building and running stadiums was hugely profitable, private enterprise would be doing it rather than governments / statutory bodies. It isn’t and they don’t.
If the NRL had a spare $250m (they don’t) then it would be hoped that they would invest it more wisely. Buy some shares, bitcoin perhaps.
Your suggestion is rediculous. Who would lest the NRL a quarter of a million? Secured against what? And in a tiny country in a city smaller than Canberra or Newcastle?
Actually ‘rediculous’ was being generous. Your idea is absolutely proposterous.

 

[The Great Dane]

If building and running stadiums was hugely profitable, private enterprise would be doing it rather than governments / statutory bodies. It isn’t and they don’t.
If the NRL had a spare $250m (they don’t) then it would be hoped that they would invest it more wisely. Buy some shares, bitcoin perhaps.
Your suggestion is rediculous. Who would lest the NRL a quarter of a million? Secured against what? And in a tiny country in a city smaller than Canberra or Newcastle?
Actually ‘rediculous’ was being generous. Your idea is absolutely proposterous.

Nobody claimed it was hugely profitable, that's just a straw man, which along with making up numbers seems to be all you have.
However in the right place, under the right circumstances, they can be very profitable, it all depends on a bunch of circumstances that would have to be investigated before you invest in building/buying the stadium. BTW, a lot of stadiums overseas are privately owned, particularly in Europe.

Besides, as has been stated multiple times now the value in the NRL owning a stadium isn't in the stadium it's self, but in owning the land. The land is the valuable asset, the stadium just justifies the NRL owning it and puts it to good use for the sport until they need it.

Why Wellington (or somewhere similar), well precisely for the reason you condemned it for.
It's a smaller city where good land is cheaper, but it's growing quickly which means the value of the land will grow quickly. There's no competition from other large rectangular stadiums, and there're multiple pro teams that could be permanent tenants. In other words you'd effectively have a monopoly on rectangular stadiums in a market with at least three teams to use it, and that's a very unusual set of circumstances.

Your problem is you are a small minded moron condemning things before you've even thought them through.

 

[Jamberoo]

Nobody claimed it was hugely profitable, that's just a straw man, which along with making up numbers seems to be all you have.
However in the right place, under the right circumstances, they can be very profitable, it all depends on a bunch of circumstances that would have to be investigated before you invest in building/buying the stadium. BTW, a lot of stadiums overseas are privately owned, particularly in Europe.

Besides, as has been stated multiple times now the value in the NRL owning a stadium isn't in the stadium it's self, but in owning the land. The land is the valuable asset, the stadium just justifies the NRL owning it and puts it to good use for the sport until they need it.

Why Wellington (or somewhere similar), well precisely for the reason you condemned it for.
It's a smaller city where good land is cheaper, but it's growing quickly which means the value of the land will grow quickly. There's no competition from other large rectangular stadiums, and there're multiple pro teams that could be permanent tenants. In other words you'd effectively have a monopoly on rectangular stadiums in a market with at least three teams to use it, and that's a very unusual set of circumstances.

Your problem is you are a small minded moron condemning things before you've even thought them through.

Personal insults. Charming.
I have thought them through. I am just realistic. I work in property and actually know people involved in Stadium Management and the only stadiums that get enough events in Oz/NZ to be close to profitable if you factor in the land and construction costs are the MCG and Docklands. And each of those would cost $1.5B+ if you have to buy the land and build today.
Clearly you haven't thought things through at all if you reckon spending $250M to get some land in a small city that will only ever be worth a fraction of that is a good idea.
And If the NRL borrows $250M, no one will be lending them any more money if we have another COVID type event. They would have no equity in the stadium or land. Just debts. A lot of debts.
Anyway, no institution is ever going to lend the NRL $250M so the point is probably moot.
Think harder and give us a suggestion that has at least a 0.0001% chance of ever happening.

 

[Santino Patane]

Personal insults. Charming.
I have thought them through. I am just realistic. I work in property and actually know people involved in Stadium Management and the only stadiums that get enough events in Oz/NZ to be close to profitable if you factor in the land and construction costs are the MCG and Docklands. And each of those would cost $1.5B+ if you have to buy the land and build today.
Clearly you haven't thought things through at all if you reckon spending $250M to get some land in a small city that will only ever be worth a fraction of that is a good idea.
And If the NRL borrows $250M, no one will be lending them any more money if we have another COVID type event. They would have no equity in the stadium or land. Just debts. A lot of debts.
Anyway, no institution is ever going to lend the NRL $250M so the point is probably moot.
Think harder and give us a suggestion that has at least a 0.0001% chance of ever happening.

I’d say that’s a game, set and match response!

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

It's not a year ago that everybody was whinging that the NRL had pissed billions of dollars up against a wall without any assets to show for it. So to suggest that none of the clubs would support the NRL owning an asset like a stadium (and the land it's built on) is just utter BS.

What difference does it make whether it's built in Australia, New Zealand, or Timbuktu, as long as the business proposal makes sense who gives a shit.

Ch9 were throwing a tantrum because they'l wanted to pay less than the amount they agreed to. They've used the money saved from the rewritten deal and spent it on onionball.

 

[Perth Red]

If building and running stadiums was hugely profitable, private enterprise would be doing it rather than governments / statutory bodies. It isn’t and they don’t.
If the NRL had a spare $250m (they don’t) then it would be hoped that they would invest it more wisely. Buy some shares, bitcoin perhaps.
Your suggestion is rediculous. Who would lest the NRL a quarter of a million? Secured against what? And in a tiny country in a city smaller than Canberra or Newcastle?
Actually ‘rediculous’ was being generous. Your idea is absolutely proposterous.

again you missed the bit where the nrl get the land as an asset. Ideally you would have three nrl clubs playing there to make the clubs stronger like afl is doing with docklands but the ultimate reason is to end up with a $500mill asset on the books for a $250mill investment. Afl borrowed $200mill to get docklands early and now have a massive asset sat on their books which as it turned out has been a huge benefit to them when they needed to borrow money last year. If the operations of the stadium can make a bit of profit as well even better.

3 tennants equals 30 games at $100k a game = $3mill
Naming rights $3mill a year
Stadium memberships, sponsorship,signage, food and drink sales
Occasional events and functions

you should at least be able to cover the loan lol

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

again you missed the bit where the nrl get the land as an asset. Ideally you would have three nrl clubs playing there to make the clubs stronger like afl is doing with docklands but the ultimate reason is to end up with a $500mill asset on the books for a $250mill investment. Afl borrowed $200mill to get docklands early and now have a massive asset sat on their books which as it turned out has been a huge benefit to them when they needed to borrow money last year. If the operations of the stadium can make a bit of profit as well even better.

3 tennants equals 30 games at $100k a game = $3mill
Naming rights $3mill a year
Stadium memberships, sponsorship,signage, food and drink sales
Occasional events and functions

you should at least be able to cover the loan lol

In AwFuL's case it helped that they drew over 30k and sometimes almost 50k to the games played at Docklands.

 

[Perth Red]

In AwFuL's case it helped that they drew over 30k and sometimes almost 50k to the games played at Docklands.

sure bigger crowds and bigger stadiums obviously help, and having a supportive govt that sells you the place at a knockdown price lol maybe nrl should have gone halves on bankwest with a deal to take ownership in a few years time.

 

[The Great Dane]

Personal insults. Charming.

Well excuse me for being totally bored with the discussion when the way it's gone is I say something, you say it's impossible, I say it's worked for other people so obviously it is possible, and you ignore that and just reassert that it's impossible because you made up some numbers and your mates said so.

It's lame argumentation made by a person who refuses to be open minded to possibilities that they hadn't considered.

You say most stadiums in Australia aren't profitable, so what!?
Any business that is poorly setup and/or poorly run is likely to fail. Most restaurants fail for example, but that doesn't mean that restaurants can't be successful businesses.

Anybody with a brain can see that 99% of the stadiums in Australia either don't have enough tenants to be sustainable, aren't built to fit the needs of the market, are built in a bad location, or some mix of the three. Don't make those mistakes and live within your means and you could build a sustainable stadium business in Australia/NZ just like Docklands, the MCG, and stadiums all over the world have managed to do.

But again the value in the NRL owning a stadium would be in owning the land as an asset, not so much in the stadium it's self.

 

[The Great Dane]

I’d say that’s a game, set and match response!

The example of Docklands was game, set and match.

It's the living example of what was being suggested not only being possible, but being successful, and his saying "I'm right, you're wrong, na na nanana" over and over doesn't change that.

 

[T-Boon]

The NRL could buy North Sydney Oval and chip away at the government to relax the heritage listing then build big cheap grassed hills get the capacity to 30K. I would suggest Henson Park or Leichardt but they are such a crap locations for a stadium.

 

[Jamberoo]

Well excuse me for being totally bored with the discussion when the way it's gone is I say something, you say it's impossible, I say it's worked for other people so obviously it is possible, and you ignore that and just reassert that it's impossible because you made up some numbers and your mates said so.

It's lame argumentation made by a person who refuses to be open minded to possibilities that they hadn't considered.

You say most stadiums in Australia aren't profitable, so what!?
Any business that is poorly setup and/or poorly run is likely to fail. Most restaurants fail for example, but that doesn't mean that restaurants can't be successful businesses.

Anybody with a brain can see that 99% of the stadiums in Australia either don't have enough tenants to be sustainable, aren't built to fit the needs of the market, are built in a bad location, or some mix of the three. Don't make those mistakes and live within your means and you could build a sustainable stadium business in Australia/NZ just like Docklands, the MCG, and stadiums all over the world have managed to do.

But again the value in the NRL owning a stadium would be in owning the land as an asset, not so much in the stadium it's self.

I can’t believe you are still going with this.
Mate, I am a stadium nerd, i have been to just about every stadium in Australia and some in NZ. It would be awesome if the NZ government built a new mid sized rectangular one in Wellington. But they probably won’t, because it is not needed. I am all for new stadiums - but to suggest that building one in Wellington is a good use of borrowed money is totally insane. It is actually hard to believe that you are serious.

 

[Perth Red]

Bankwest stadium would have been the ideal investment for nrl. Good land value, benefits nrl clubs and enough tenants to make it work. If only the game had some vision and money!

 

[Jamberoo]

The example of Docklands was game, set and match.

It's the living example of what was being suggested not only being possible, but being successful, and his saying "I'm right, you're wrong, na na nanana" over and over doesn't change that.

Still going?
Ok. I will explain to e history of Docklands.
1. It was supposed to be a rectangular stadium.
2. The AFL was not happy and offered to put in some cash to help fund a bigger, oval stadium, in return for FREE ownership in 2025.
3. Deal was done at a time when the Kennett government was selling off most government assets, closing schools, etc.
4. When the deal was done Docklands was a wasteland, there was nothing there even though it is right next to the CBD.
5. AFL bought it early, for cheap.
6. The stadium is now surrounded by office buildings, it is a commercial hub, and the land alone is worth well over a billion. The stadium would cost at least a billion to build today.
7. Quite simply, the AFL was in the right place at the right time. The government were stupid. They got lucky.

By all means ask then NSW govt if the want to give the NRL some free land, or ANZ. Use the leverage of Grand Finals. But Wellington, come on.

 

[T-Boon]

how much would it cost to buy NSO?

 

[Perth Red]

how much would it cost to buy NSO?

its probably tied up in local council public use caveats like brookvale. Good luck getting a local council to sell lol

Perth would actually be a possibility if they put an nrl club here. 3 tenants, get the state govt to gift some decent space with land value (the tennis centre next to Optus stadium would be perfect) and nrl build a $250mill perth rectangular stadium. Nrl get a $500mill plus asset, new nrl club gets a great home and perth benefits from a new rectangular stadium where it should be.