Peter Beatte NRL 360 - expansion

[Stallion]

Fair enough, but now let’s say that hypothetically the NRL decides to expand and they decide they need another club in NS, but the Bears don’t want a license and don’t bid, but another consortium from NS comes along and they bid for the license, in your opinion in that situation where the Bears aren’t an option should the NRL accept that other bid or just move on from NS?

Given that situarion (highly inlikely) I would be conducting surveys gauging the local community support for such a team. If the demand is there it's feasible. Still think existing brands have a longevity advantage along with credibility like no other though!

 

[tri_colours]

But if Sydney clubs are running at a loss and always need to be bailed out, how can the NRL afford teams in new areas?

I think you exaggerate just how badly some of these Sydney clubs are going.

I read some where, not long back. that if Cronulla's investments come through they have the potential to be one of the wealthiest clubs in the game . West tigers made a small profit this year and has as many or more members than most.

 

[Stallion]

I think you exaggerate just how badly some of these Sydney clubs are going.

I read some where, not long back. that if Cronulla's investments come through they have the potential to be one of the wealthiest clubs in the game . West tigers made a small profit this year and has as many or more members than most.

Yes. And it's a sport. And most sports clubs run around at a loss. A critical factor is whether the impact to the code is poor? If it's a poor outcome for the code (local disinterest, lower junior numbers etc) then positive football administrators maintain the club into the future. A bit like when South Sydney were shafted. They were in trouble financially but their omission from.the competition was a bigger issue. The code and competition was going backwards and becoming very unpopular on the street. This changed with their re-establishment.

 

[The Great Dane]

Given that situarion (highly inlikely) I would be conducting surveys gauging the local community support for such a team. If the demand is there it's feasible. Still think existing brands have a longevity advantage along with credibility like no other though!

Agree that it’s highly unlikely, then again I think that it’s highly that even the NRL would be dumb enough to put another club in Sydney, however whether or not it’s likely isn’t the point of a hypothetical like this.

Anyhow, I’ve got another question, do you think that only Sydney is reliant on derbies (or in Sydney’s case a derby in every suburb) or should the goal be to get a (true) local derby for every club, for example does Newcastle, Canberra, or NQ need another club to truly capitalise on their markets.

 

[Stallion]

Agree that it’s highly unlikely, then again I think that it’s highly that even the NRL would be dumb enough to put another club in Sydney, however whether or not it’s likely isn’t the point of a hypothetical like this.

Anyhow, I’ve got another question, do you think that only Sydney is reliant on derbies (or in Sydney’s case a derby in every suburb) or should the goal be to get a (true) local derby for every club, for example does Newcastle, Canberra, or NQ need another club to truly capitalise on their markets.

Fair questions. Australia's geography and population density are at play in this scenario. NEWCASTLE should be welcoming a local.derby against the Central Coast (closest main rival area ). Brisbane should have a local derby within Brisbane area. (It's a shame this has not occured as its being blocked by the Broncos ) Canberra population doesn't bode well for a city based derby. Think their closest rivals are either St George Illawarra or Melbourne. (Saints at Illawarra & vice versa are their "derby I suggest). The tyranny of distance certainly impacts Nth Qld! So does population density. Another top flight club around that region is a worthy future consideration. There is more than just derbies involved in Sydney. It's a cultural and historical relevance as well. It's very rich in rivalry and tradition. And it's not every suburb with a derby. These areas have geographical and urban distinctions that create a difference and a belonging to a certain area of suburbs that happen to be the basis of the rivalries at play . It's complex and very parochial when at play. And extremely culturally relevant!

 

[tri_colours]

The Swans growth spurt also coincides with the start of them being a legitimate contender for the premiership after a down period, and doesn't really explode until they actually win the damn thing, and the AFL hasn't allowed them to fail since then (they learnt their lesson from the Lions).

Are you honestly saying that if the Swans are cellar dwellers or even just a bog average team over that same time period that they see anywhere near the same amounts of growth as they have had?

maybe just a coincidence. Maybe just a coincidence that Brisbane bears experienced a growth spout around the same time.

 

[tri_colours]

But if Sydney clubs are running at a loss and always need to be bailed out, how can the NRL afford teams in new areas?

Who bailing them out ? There League clubs and other investment they've set up over the years.

 

[tri_colours]

But if we had 8 Sydney teams (instead of 9) and say 1 more NZ team or 1 Perth team, you admit that the networks would probably pay more?

We would still be selling 8 games, but we would be selling an audience in another Capital instead of just a Sydney Suburb with 8 other teams nearby.

A Perth team in its first 5+ years wont be making much money . And using the Storm as a guide , The NRL will need to put in plenty. So who's going to make up the shortfall?

Another NZ team might be popular in NZ, but not in Australia. When/if it is shown on FTA , 9 is always careful not to show them in any good time slots . And they get the poor time slots on PTV as well. Might be good for NZ viewers but not good for Australian, and I cant see too much of a price rise coming from SKY.

Some matches are worth more than others. The Networks will pay more for Sydney matches.

 

[Stallion]

A Perth team in its first 5+ years wont be making much money . And using the Storm as a guide , The NRL will need to put in plenty. So who's going make up the shortfall?

Another NZ team might be popular in NZ, but not in Australia. When/if shown on FTA , 9 is always careful not to show them in any good time slots . And they get the poor time slots on PTV as well. Might be good for NZ viewers but not good for Australian, and I cant see too much of a price rise coming from SKY.

Some matches are worth more than others. The Networks will pay more for Sydney matches.

Hopefully the networks will see value in some of the possible expansion areas. Really think another Brisbane team and WA are worthy . Gives the competition time flexibilities and scheduling options for tv and the comp.

 

[Perth Red]

"t no time did I or say or imply that AFL had taken over North Sydney.
Though they have become stronger in that area"



Swans crowds at the outset of the war,


1994:10k

95: 16k

96: 25k


Today: 34k

+ GWS



I don't know what else to tell you.

The SL war has nothing to do with the loss or merger of Sydney teams and some imaginary gain afl made in that process.

I noticed you failed to mention that in 86 they avg 25k and in 87 avg 21k, no SL or Sydney rl losses around then.

 

[Perth Red]

New clubs can and are able to generate new income as well as growing the code! Something you don't consider in your fanciful rants?!

You have zero evidence that the media are willing to pay $30mill plus a year extra for an extra game. The fact we haven’t expanded over two tv deals now would suggest they aren’t wouldnt you agree?

 

[The Great Dane]

Fair questions. Australia's geography and population density are at play in this scenario. NEWCASTLE should be welcoming a local.derby against the Central Coast (closest main rival area ). Brisbane should have a local derby within Brisbane area. (It's a shame this has not occured as its being blocked by the Broncos ) Canberra population doesn't bode well for a city based derby. Think their closest rivals are either St George Illawarra or Melbourne. (Saints at Illawarra & vice versa are their "derby I suggest). The tyranny of distance certainly impacts Nth Qld! So does population density. Another top flight club around that region is a worthy future consideration.

Ignoring Brisbane (as the question is really about the smaller regional markets and not big cities such as Brisbane) I wouldn't consider any of those true local derbies, I certainly don't consider Wollongong local to Canberra, Melbourne even less so lol. When I said local derbies I meant literally a second club within the city or the closest city over.

So remembering that this is a hypothetical where we are only interested in the philosophical reasoning behind our responses to the answers, if it was hypothetically possible do you think that it should be one of the NRL's goals to have each club have at least one true local derby?

 

[The Great Dane]

maybe just a coincidence. Maybe just a coincidence that Brisbane bears experienced a growth spout around the same time.

No they didn't, that's just blatantly untrue.

The Brisbane Bears average attendance fluctuated between 6-12k their whole existence except for their last year in 96, where they were drawing 18k, but 96 when they came third on the ladder was the most successful year in the Bears existence and only year in their existence that they were truly competitive on the field (it was the first year that a good part of the core of the Brisbane Lions team that would go on to win 3 premierships in a row from 01-03 came together) .

They did see a little jump to the higher end of their 6-12k average from 93, but that is because they moved their home games from the GC to Brisbane and not because they saw an actual jump in support.

The Lions did see a big growth spurt from 01 that peaked in 05 and has been slowly dying back ever since, but as I mentioned before 01 was the first year of their golden period of winning three premierships in a row, and their slow dying back is also directly related to them being absolute dog shit since those times.

 

[Stallion]

You have zero evidence that the media are willing to pay $30mill plus a year extra for an extra game. The fact we haven’t expanded over two tv deals now would suggest they aren’t wouldnt you agree?

You have zero evidence that they will not provide such funds! Given that rugby league is the most popular football product on Australian tv; I suggest it's a fair assumption! ?

 

[Stallion]

The SL war has nothing to do with the loss or merger of Sydney teams and some imaginary gain afl made in that process.

I noticed you failed to mention that in 86 they avg 25k and in 87 avg 21k, no SL or Sydney rl losses around then.

That's laughable! The "agreement" to go to 14 teams had everything to do with forced mergers and lost clubs! It was soon found out that the carve up was excessive and some desperate remedial strategic re-inclusions( South Sydney & Gold Coast ) had to occur.

 

[Stallion]

Ignoring Brisbane (as the question is really about the smaller regional markets and not big cities such as Brisbane) I wouldn't consider any of those true local derbies, I certainly don't consider Wollongong local to Canberra, Melbourne even less so lol. When I said local derbies I meant literally a second club within the city or the closest city over.

So remembering that this is a hypothetical where we are only interested in the philosophical reasoning behind our responses to the answers, if it was hypothetically possible do you think that it should be one of the NRL's goals to have each club have at least one true local derby?

Think you will find that the tyrrany of distance applies within this answer. I have referred to population density and distance. That's Australia's dilemma. It's a massive country with a relatively small population. The major cities hold most of the population. This is why the derbies and rivalries in cities such as Melbourne (*AFL ) & Sydney (NRL) are so important to the market place . The generational support is also an important factor in the value of these clubs with relatively close proximity to eachother. In Australia this matters greatly in the market place and the culture at play .

 

[madunit]

The SL war has nothing to do with the loss or merger of Sydney teams and some imaginary gain afl made in that process.

I noticed you failed to mention that in 86 they avg 25k and in 87 avg 21k, no SL or Sydney rl losses around then.

The SL war had everything to do with the loss/mergers of Sydney teams.

In December 1997 when the ARL and Super League agreed to reunite and form the NRL it was agreed that the competition had to be reduced to 14 teams by 2000.

That forced panicked mergers, culling of teams etc. Considering a Melbourne side had been accepted for 1998, they had to reduce 23 teams down to 14.

Hunter basically became Melbourne
Balmain and Wests Merged
Norths and Manly merged
St.George and Illawarra merged
Souths axed
Gold Coast axed
Perth axed
Adelaide axed
South Queensland axed

and that left 14 teams.

6 Sydney clubs, 5 of which were foundation clubs, the other almost was (at first grade level that is) were slashed.

 

[tri_colours]

The SL war has nothing to do with the loss or merger of Sydney teams and some imaginary gain afl made in that process.

I noticed you failed to mention that in 86 they avg 25k and in 87 avg 21k, no SL or Sydney rl losses around then.

Many people walked away from the game during that particular time. That's just a fact!

 

[The Great Dane]

Many people walked away from the game during that particular time. That's just a fact!

A "fact" that nobody has ever been a able to prove...

It's not a fact, its just an idea that has been repeated enough that it's become 'fact'.

 

[The Great Dane]

Think you will find that the tyrrany of distance applies within this answer. I have referred to population density and distance. That's Australia's dilemma. It's a massive country with a relatively small population.

The tyranny of distance really hasn't got a lot to do with whether or not e.g. Canberra can support one club or two... But that's beside the point.

Ignore all those factors, if in theory it was possible do you think that the NRL should have at least two clubs in each city to create a derby in each city?

The major cities hold most of the population. This is why the derbies and rivalries in cities such as Melbourne (*AFL ) & Sydney (NRL) are so important to the market place . The generational support is also an important factor in the value of these clubs with relatively close proximity to eachother. In Australia this matters greatly in the market place and the culture at play .

Stallion this is why people get annoyed with you and want to ban you from posting... We were talking about something unrelated and you've completely derailed the conversation by twisting it around to one of your talking points.

BTW, you're making the assumption that Sydney and Melbourne needed all those derbies and rivalries to build that generational support, when frankly there's no evidence that is the case... For example do you think that if the Roosters only had their derby against the Rabbits and didn't have all the others that they wouldn't have grown as big as they have!
Also don't you ever wonder why it is that the Broncos, Raiders, or Knights could build generational support without any local rivalries or derbies!

But this is a tangent let's leave it be for now.