Peter Beatte NRL 360 - expansion

[Diesel]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/06/how-nrl-squad-rules-pave-way-for-second-brisbane-team/

Its comin y'all
2 more teams, 3 conferences,
Less rounds (22), less load on players,
But more games in total with 198
Atleast the discussions are being made

Where’s @perthred

There’s definitely more chatter involving B2 and most likely WA

 

[The Great Dane]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/06/how-nrl-squad-rules-pave-way-for-second-brisbane-team/

Its comin y'all
2 more teams, 3 conferences,
Less rounds (22), less load on players,
But more games in total with 198
Atleast the discussions are being made

It really doesn't mean anything, every couple of years chatter about expansion suddenly increases.

The only difference now is that the NRL is actually doing a feasibility study on expansion this year (which should have happened in 2010-12 and multiple times since then...), but just as the response to Shane Richardson's report on development pathways shows that doesn't really mean anything. Until they actually announce the expansion process I wouldn't get too excited if I was you.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Mathematics and relativity are not your strengths. Their are millions more people in Australia now.

Correct, there are 39% more people in Australia now and there are 33% more people on average attending NRL games - not bad, certainly shows that the game has grown bigger than it was in 1996. Do you deny this?

Also, person offering no response with actual figures saying to someone that with actual figures showing growth that they have trouble with maths and reality - lol

Memberships did not exist!

lol - yes they did, I had a Broncos membership right throughout the 90's

Twenty clubs in 1996 is clearly more than 16 clubs in 2019.

True - but more isn't better otherwise we may as well have 100 clubs in the NRL. The game in WA for example has more clubs now than it had in the 90's when the Reds were in the ARL comp - let that sink in for a second - I would absolutely agree that we should have a team in Perth, but it goes to show that you don't need an NRL team in every region to grow the game, this same principle can be applied in Sydney

Male participants(genuine comparison) were also higher than current numbers. Like I have stated on many occasions compare on a per capita basis and a real picture is given .

Can I please have some actual figures, you've never provided any. You saying it doesn't make it true.

Also, why limit the figures to male participants? The women are legitimate participants, they have their own NRL, SuperLeage, State of Origin, Internationals and World Cup. Growing the game through women's participation is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to Government funding.

Unlike your fanciful illusion of success. And muted success at that. The game should be much more bigger and clearly number one in Australia now. But it's not. We differ on what and how we see success. I'll leave it at that.

I'm the only one providing figures here, so go get me some numbers and then we'll debate facts. At the moment you are just giving me feelings.

We don't disagree that the game should be bigger than it is, that's not what we are debating, we are debating whether or not it is bigger now than it was pre 1997.

I'll leave it at that.

Translate: I've got nothing of value to add and my posts lack substance so I'll tap out.

 

[Stallion]

Correct, there are 39% more people in Australia now and there are 33% more people on average attending NRL games - not bad, certainly shows that the game has grown bigger than it was in 1996. Do you deny this?

Also, person offering no response with actual figures saying to someone that with actual figures showing growth that they have trouble with maths and reality - lol



lol - yes they did, I had a Broncos membership right throughout the 90's



True - but more isn't better otherwise we may as well have 100 clubs in the NRL. The game in WA for example has more clubs now than it had in the 90's when the Reds were in the ARL comp - let that sink in for a second - I would absolutely agree that we should have a team in Perth, but it goes to show that you don't need an NRL team in every region to grow the game, this same principle can be applied in Sydney



Can I please have some actual figures, you've never provided any. You saying it doesn't make it true.

Also, why limit the figures to male participants? The women are legitimate participants, they have their own NRL, SuperLeage, State of Origin, Internationals and World Cup. Growing the game through women's participation is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to Government funding.



I'm the only one providing figures here, so go get me some numbers and then we'll debate facts. At the moment you are just giving me feelings.

We don't disagree that the game should be bigger than it is, that's not what we are debating, we are debating whether or not it is bigger now than it was pre 1997.



Translate: I've got nothing of value to add and my posts lack substance so I'll tap out.

Your figures are based on averages which has and can be manipukated for a certain angle. Aggregate attendances and club numbers are far more important. Average attendance are relevant if the comparison is 10 games (1996 ) to 10 games (2019) This type of comparison is flawed if you base it on 8 games per round. You do realise that other codes are increasing in junior male participation and rugby-league is significantly down from 2 decades ago? As your base is flawed I don't waste my time with digging up such numbers. But it's common knowledge. Todd Greenberg has admitted male participation is down significantly. I'll take his word on it! Female participation is important but it's the boys that are the real issue! They are not playing in the numbers this code once enjoyed. Simple as that. Other codes like union, AFL and soccer are experiencing healthy growth numbers . Rugby league isn't. Take it from "Todd" not me!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Your figures are based on averages which has and can be manipukated for a certain angle.

How exactly can they be manipulated? The figures are the figures.

Aggregate attendances and club numbers are far more important. Average attendance are relevant if the comparison is 10 games (1996 ) to 10 games (2019) This type of comparison is flawed if you base it on 8 games per round.

Ok, I didn't want to have to embarrass you in your attempt to weasel out of the average attendance figures but you have forced my hand:

Aggregate attendance in 1996: 2,452,029
Aggregate attendance in 2019: 2,929,922

With 4 less clubs - give it up mate, the crowds are much bigger that they were in 1996 because the game has grown.

Also, just a side note, you do realise that averages take the aggregate and divide it by the number of games right? Just checking because your weird references to how average attendances are worked out don't suggest that you do.

You do realise that other codes are increasing in junior male participation and rugby-league is significantly down from 2 decades ago? As your base is flawed I don't waste my time with digging up such numbers. But it's common knowledge. Todd Greenberg has admitted male participation is down significantly. I'll take his word on it! Female participation is important but it's the boys that are the real issue! They are not playing in the numbers this code once enjoyed. Simple as that. Other codes like union, AFL and soccer are experiencing healthy growth numbers . Rugby league isn't. Take it from "Todd" not me!

Again, give me some figures. You saying it doesn't make it true. Here is a link from the NRL themselves talking about increased participation. I'd love to see the figures to back your claims and contradict this article.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/09/20/rugby-league-participation-up-in-2018/

Also, you still haven't address why including women's participation numbers in the figures isn't legitimate. Also, not surprisingly you haven't produced one stat or official article to back any of your claims, nonetheless the rediculous claim that the game was bigger before 1997 than it is now.

 

[c0c0nutz]

20 teams, each teams plays each other once. Top 2 teams play GF. Simple.

 

[Perth Red]

Another uninspiring interview with Greenberg on league life. He really doesn’t sound like he has any idea or vision for where the game should be in 5 years time. If I hear one more nrl “leader” say having a national footprint doesn’t require teams around the country!

 

[taipan]

Another uninspiring interview with Greenberg on league life. He really doesn’t sound like he has any idea or vision for where the game should be in 5 years time. If I hear one more nrl “leader” say having a national footprint doesn’t require teams around the country!

Um .He has been given the the task for the next 12months or so ,by the Commission, to look into all aspects of possible expansion.
Tv stations have been noncommittal on the number of games, they don't; even know what there financial position will be like in 2023,
Even White (the CEO of the Broncos)stated he has little idea of how to approach the matter,cept to say he believes only 16 teams is viable.
He noted also the AFL has the money to pour into Suns and GWS like a bottomless pit.

There is no AFL team domiciled in Tasmania or Canberra(ACT,)yet they call themselves national.Playing a couple of game there is tokenism.

There is a hell of a difference between a dreamer and a planner.
Every time Gallop opened his gob on expansion ,it sounded like a firm commitment.And he got pasted for it.Greenburger seems to have got that message.

 

[greenBV4]

Posted this in the Sydney Rationalisation thread but figured I'd pop it here too:
---

Heres a question I'm interested to see people's answers to

If a rugby league comp was being set up today, ignoring any history/past, and purely based off of population, demographics and money where would you put 16 teams? And then where would the next 2 expansions be?

I think I would go

01. North Queensland
02. Brisbane 1
03. Brisbane 2
04. Gold Coast
05. Newcastle
06. CC/North Syd
07. Inner/East Sydney
08. West Sydney
09. South/South-West Sydney
10. Wollongong/South Coast
11. Canberra
12. Melbourne
13. Adelaide
14. Perth
15. Auckland
16. Wellington/South Island

17. Melbourne 2
18. Pacific Islands

 

[Perth Red]

Um .He has been given the the task for the next 12months or so ,by the Commission, to look into all aspects of possible expansion.
Tv stations have been noncommittal on the number of games, they don't; even know what there financial position will be like in 2023,
Even White (the CEO of the Broncos)stated he has little idea of how to approach the matter,cept to say he believes only 16 teams is viable.
He noted also the AFL has the money to pour into Suns and GWS like a bottomless pit.

There is no AFL team domiciled in Tasmania or Canberra(ACT,)yet they call themselves national.Playing a couple of game there is tokenism.

There is a hell of a difference between a dreamer and a planner.
Every time Gallop opened his gob on expansion ,it sounded like a firm commitment.And he got pasted for it.Greenburger seems to have got that message.

Afl has the money to sink because ten years ago it had the vision then the strategy to set up its systems to make expansion viable and largely pay its own way. They didnt wait for tv to agree, they expanded then told tv they had more product and wanted more money for it, and got it, afl knows small cities can’t sustain $40million afl teams it’s not that stupid.

We just made a $46million surplus, expansion would cost around $30million. Maybe witha ninth game to sell we would have made a bigger surplus?

We have been procrastinating for over a decade and our latest stalling tactic is to commission a report. Reality is we have about 12-18months to lock in a commitment to expansion if we want 18 clubs by time next tv deal is negotiated in around 2 -3 years time. Relocation chatter is a smoke screen, nrl doesn’t have the balls,

Great endeavours don’t begin with a report, they begin with a vision, then a commitment then finding a way to make it work.

 

[Perth Red]

Posted this in the Sydney Rationalisation thread but figured I'd pop it here too:
---

Heres a question I'm interested to see people's answers to

If a rugby league comp was being set up today, ignoring any history/past, and purely based off of population, demographics and money where would you put 16 teams? And then where would the next 2 expansions be?

I think I would go

01. North Queensland
02. Brisbane 1
03. Brisbane 2
04. Gold Coast
05. Newcastle
06. CC/North Syd
07. Inner/East Sydney
08. West Sydney
09. South/South-West Sydney
10. Wollongong/South Coast
11. Canberra
12. Melbourne
13. Adelaide
14. Perth
15. Auckland
16. Wellington/South Island

17. Melbourne 2
18. Pacific Islands

This debate already has its own thread!

 

[Miller was a legend]

Expansion doesn’t have to mean creating new teams in each state. Maybe we will never see a Perth based team

Just lots of games taken there so we can visit and get the hell out of there

 

[Perth Red]

You sound like toddles, we don’t need clubs in every city to expand the game. Yeh right Todd. But yeh your strategy might work, must be why we have so many nrl games being played in Perth this year!

 

[greenBV4]

This debate already has its own thread!

my bad, mind sending the link?

edit: dw, found it

 

[Perth Red]

We’ve been hearing the national footprint doesn’t need more clubs line for 6 years. The nrl’s stategy this visionary approach? Nothing other than taking marquee games IF the relevant State government is willing to pay.

NRL games in expansion cities are still at the whim of clubs if they can negotiate a deal with the state govt’s with zero support or strategy from nrl central, leading to sporadic and inconsistent exposure for the game in these cities. They don’t need a report to tell them that!

 

[taipan]

Afl has the money to sink because ten years ago it had the vision then the strategy to set up its systems to make expansion viable and largely pay its own way. They didnt wait for tv to agree, they expanded then told tv they had more product and wanted more money for it, and got it, afl knows small cities can’t sustain $40million afl teams it’s not that stupid.

We just made a $46million surplus, expansion would cost around $30million. Maybe witha ninth game to sell we would have made a bigger surplus?

We have been procrastinating for over a decade and our latest stalling tactic is to commission a report. Reality is we have about 12-18months to lock in a commitment to expansion if we want 18 clubs by time next tv deal is negotiated in around 2 -3 years time. Relocation chatter is a smoke screen, nrl doesn’t have the balls,

Great endeavours don’t begin with a report, they begin with a vision, then a commitment then finding a way to make it work.

AFL never had a Gallop.AFL never had a SL war which cleaned out an estimated $25m in reserves of the ARL.
You hav elite idea of what the AFL[s vision was ,just surmising.

In 1995 when Tina Turner and rugby league had expanded on a decent scale, the AFL were running in panic mode.Because the ARLC then had beaten them to the expansion draw.We know what happened after that.

Delays have been because of funds, problem clubs to name two.

Bridges are built by planning, takeovers ditto, political elections and expansion in sport.You only have to look at the Farce situation in Perth,the dramas with the a League to get some idea.

 

[Perth Red]

AFL never had a Gallop.AFL never had a SL war which cleaned out an estimated $25m in reserves of the ARL.
You hav elite idea of what the AFL[s vision was ,just surmising.

In 1995 when Tina Turner and rugby league had expanded on a decent scale, the AFL were running in panic mode.Because the ARLC then had beaten them to the expansion draw.We know what happened after that.

Delays have been because of funds, problem clubs to name two.

Bridges are built by planning, takeovers ditto, political elections and expansion in sport.You only have to look at the Farce situation in Perth,the dramas with the a League to get some idea.

Afl introduced a range of strategic decisions around funding of clubs in order to be ready to sustain the cost of expansion into long term important markets that they knew weren’t crying out for clubs years ago. That takes a long term vision for where you want to be. How many more decades we going to blame SL for the games procrastination and lack of leadership today? After two massive pay days the nrl still has no idea what footprint it wants and by when.

Re the Farce situation, that was caused as much by the only sports admin worse than the NRL’s! only union could have had a sustainable club in Perth AND tens of millions for jnr development if they had taken Twiggy’s offer andnturn it down for a club in Melbourne with little support. Only the Rugby codes could refuse to capatilise on such opportunities.

Re the a league, they just sold two expansion spots for $32million whilst we Could only get $3mill for established clubs.

 

[taipan]

AFL had the money ,it was not extinguished by any sort of internal war or by outside influence.The AFL panicked when the ARL did expansion in the 1995 and prior Tina Turner years.The AFL did not have a partner for more than a decade ripping 50% of profits out of the system.

It's pretty easy to have an expansion strategy, when your opponent is either ripping itself apart, has a part owner, and has little if any money in the Bank.And the AFL does not spend money on international tests, or PMs13 or pay for Pacific teams to come here or pay for prize money.Most of them probably wouldn't;t know what a visa or passport looked like.

The ARL had a strategy to expand the game which they did in 1995, and of which Perth was a beneficiary, but decided to go to SL.And perhaps if they hadn't gone to SL ,ditto Auckland, ditto Broncos ,Perth may well be in the NRL and not the Sharks.
The NRL was not involved in the f*ckup with the Titans on the GC which sucked dollars out of the system, nor Newcastle getting into financial trouble

As White from the broncos clearly enunciated on Wednesday night, the Suns and the GWS are a big black monetary hole which the AFL is pouring in .
And in the case of the Suns it is looking very iffy.
GWS whilst making a small impact, if it has bad years good luck.

LOL Your'e citing A League clubs ,where wealthy individuals/owners who are passionate soccer fans ,are prepared to pay big bikkies and lose it year after year after year.I mean the CC Mariners are getting huge crowds for the revenue stream, ditto Reds ,and even WSW must be feeling the financial pinch.
The A league is concerned with falling crowds and TV ratings on an already small base.If you're an administrator or owner, worth his commercial salt, you;d be worried big time.

How many of these huge financial barons, are going to put money into an NRL club in a non heartland area.Brisbane I can understand, but then again it's a consortium.

I seem to have fond expansion memories of the A league into Nth Queensland and the Gold Coast.How successful was that Mr Palmer? Are you gonna take it? I've had bigger crowds at my Christmas BBQs with family, than the numbers who showed up on the GC for Palmer's pretenders.

If any proper rationalisation of Sydney clubs ,it should have been done prior to the 95 expansion.The angst and effect would have been nowhere near as great.
Sydney's population has grown immensely since and continues to grow, creating opportunities for opposition codes and other entertainment.The bigger the city, the bigger the vacuum with removal.And we are not the USA.

 

[Perth Red]

Non of which excuses the nrl’s lack of vision, strategy or action for expansion. Oh I know let’s commission a report.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Non of which excuses the nrl’s lack of vision, strategy or action for expansion. Oh I know let’s commission a report.

It’s like holding a plebiscite into an already widely supported belief. Lol