Peter Beatte NRL 360 - expansion

[Perth Red]

Expansion thread, not Superleague historic argument thread!

 

[tri_colours]

Expansion thread, not Superleague historic argument thread!

I think previous expansion should be relevant. Especially when its about what us 'dinosaurs' had already constructed 25 years ago.

 

[The Great Dane]

I didn't post in this section 6 months ago. Any rate isn't that how it works? you read posts and then you comment on them. I was unaware of any time limit? - or have you since changed your views ?

It's not a problem that you are responding to it, it's just random that you'd resurrect an ancient post that's completely detached from it's context...

Regardless of your point of view , and what you overlooked and what you made up, I found it simply amazing how you could so clearly predict what was going to happen years into the future.

What exactly did I overlook or make up?

Anyway it's not a difficult prediction to make, over three quarters of the clubs in the competition were broke and headed for bankruptcy.

Unless some of the clubs got really lucky and managed to find someone willing to wipe their debt or whatever (which maybe a couple of them would have found someone willing to do that, but not all of them, realistically not even a handful of them would have been so lucky) most of them were headed for receivership between roughly 1996 and 2005.

The NSWRL/ARL's MO in response to situations where clubs went broke is pretty well documented, they'd quickly sell the license on to a new local consortium offering the most money (whether or not their business plan was sustainable) to take the old clubs place, just like they did on the GC in facilitating the buyout of the Giants by the Seagulls and then the sale of the GC license to the Gladiators after the Seagulls pulled out.
The problem with that is what happens when you either don't have the time to or can't find someone willing to buy the license, which results in what happened next on the GC when the ARL didn't have time to find somebody to buy the Gladiators license before the start of the season: the Chargers that were owned an operated by the ARL it's self because it needed the club in the competition to meet it's broadcasting agreements.

Jumping back to those three quarters of the clubs that were all going to go bankrupt roughly between 96 and 05, it stands to reason that the ARL would follow their MO and try to sell those licenses on as quickly as possible to the highest bidder as those clubs folded, it also stands to reason that eventually they'd struggle to sell those licenses as more and more of the clubs fold as it'd become increasingly difficult to find investors as it becomes more and more obvious that owning an ARL club is an expensive and risky business, which would result in the ARL owning and operating more and more of the clubs themselves, which would then result in the ARL having higher and higher operating costs which would eventually chew into all that money that they had saved, eventually resulting in all of that $23mil dollars being spent on sustaining an unsustainable competition instead of siting in a bank earning interest...

If the game was in such a parlous state why did News go after it so strongly? And if the teams where in such a far gone condition, as you make out then why would Murdoch want to build a PTV network around them? why not the AFL?

Cause it was rip for picking... You couldn't have a better set of circumstances for a hostile takeover.

It was an incredibly popular sport with a huge market that through miss management was full of people desperate for capital because they were going broke. That made it easy for businesses like News that had the capital to reform the clubs and were interested in owning the leading product in that market cause they could just buy all the clubs desperate for capital, reform their business plans, and then own the leading product in that market. So instead of simply of bidding for the rights to broadcast the product from the organisation that owns the product, they'd be the organisation that owns the product.

This is over simplifying it, but putting it in your terms: If the ARL was going well then News would have had to partner with them to get the broadcasting rights, which would have meant sharing both control and profits, but because the ARL clubs were going so poorly there was an opportunity to wrestle control of the competition away from the ARL and thus completely own the competition and the control and profits that come along with it, which resulted in Super League, the attempt to buy the competition out from under the ARL...

 

[tri_colours]

It's not a problem that you are responding to it, it's just random that you'd resurrect an ancient post that's completely detached from it's context...

What exactly did I overlook or make up?

Anyway it's not a difficult prediction to make, over three quarters of the clubs in the competition were broke and headed for bankruptcy.

Unless some of the clubs got really lucky and managed to find someone willing to wipe their debt or whatever (which maybe a couple of them would have found someone willing to do that, but not all of them, realistically not even a handful of them would have been so lucky) most of them were headed for receivership between roughly 1996 and 2005.

The NSWRL/ARL's MO in response to situations where clubs went broke is pretty well documented, they'd quickly sell the license on to a new local consortium offering the most money (whether or not their business plan was sustainable) to take the old clubs place, just like they did on the GC in facilitating the buyout of the Giants by the Seagulls and then the sale of the GC license to the Gladiators after the Seagulls pulled out.
The problem with that is what happens when you either don't have the time to or can't find someone willing to buy the license, which results in what happened next on the GC when the ARL didn't have time to find somebody to buy the Gladiators license before the start of the season: the Chargers that were owned an operated by the ARL it's self because it needed the club in the competition to meet it's broadcasting agreements.

Jumping back to those three quarters of the clubs that were all going to go bankrupt roughly between 96 and 05, it stands to reason that the ARL would follow their MO and try to sell those licenses on as quickly as possible to the highest bidder as those clubs folded, it also stands to reason that eventually they'd struggle to sell those licenses as more and more of the clubs fold as it'd become increasingly difficult to find investors as it becomes more and more obvious that owning an ARL club is an expensive and risky business, which would result in the ARL owning and operating more and more of the clubs themselves, which would then result in the ARL having higher and higher operating costs which would eventually chew into all that money that they had saved, eventually resulting in all of that $23mil dollars being spent on sustaining an unsustainable competition instead of siting in a bank earning interest...



Cause it was rip for picking... You couldn't have a better set of circumstances for a hostile takeover.

It was an incredibly popular sport with a huge market that through miss management was full of people desperate for capital because they were going broke. That made it easy for businesses like News that had the capital to reform the clubs and were interested in owning the leading product in that market cause they could just buy all the clubs desperate for capital, reform their business plans, and then own the leading product in that market. So instead of simply of bidding for the rights to broadcast the product from the organisation that owns the product, they'd be the organisation that owns the product.

This is over simplifying it, but putting it in your terms: If the ARL was going well then News would have had to partner with them to get the broadcasting rights, which would have meant sharing both control and profits, but because the ARL clubs were going so poorly there was an opportunity to wrestle control of the competition away from the ARL and thus completely own the competition and the control and profits that come along with it, which resulted in Super League, the attempt to buy the competition out from under the ARL...

Financially South’s were probably in the worst state at that time. How are they going today?

As i said/asked earlier if the ARL were in such a poor state then why was News LTD , Packer and Optus all fighting so fiercely over it. Originally it had nothing to do with a hostile takeover. That was plan B. News only wanted to broadcast the game, under the control of the ARL. No different then what goes on today

The ARL were going better than at any other time in its history. And as the ARL grew so would the grants to the clubs and sponsorship dollars.

 

[The Great Dane]

Financially South’s were probably in the worst state at that time. How are they going today?

Do you even read the posts that you respond to?

They were one of the lucky ones that managed to find someone willing to bankroll them...

As i said/asked earlier if the ARL were in such a poor state then why was News LTD , Packer and Optus all fighting so fiercely over it.

Again, do you even read the posts that you respond to?

They all wanted the broadcasting rights because the Winfield cup rated well, really well.

That fact doesn't negate the fact that three quarters of the clubs in the competition were headed towards bankruptcy in the late 90s-early 00s.

Originally it had nothing to do with a hostile takeover. That was plan B. News only wanted to broadcast the game, under the control of the ARL. No different then what goes on today

Yeah that's simply not true.

The original plan was for News to buy the ARL and all it's assets, the ARL would still run RL in Australia but it'd be owned by News and News would have the final say on decisions so it was only really in name only.

The Winfield cup would be replaced with a new national "super league" with less teams (I forget the number off the top of my head) representing all the major markets in the country and Sydney would be rationalised down to four new clubs (north, south, east, and west), each of the current Sydney clubs at the time would own shares in one of the new Sydney clubs and would become a feeder club to the new club that they owned a share in. There were other details, like that the clubs would be flushed with funds and resources by News, but they aren't important right now.

So yeah the original plan for Super League was a buyout, but when that buyout was refused it turned into a hostile takeover.

The ARL were going better than any other time in its history. And as the ARL grew so would the grants to the clubs and sponsorship dollars.

I mean by basically every measurable metric that simply isn't true.

Ratings, broadcasting rights value, sponsorship value, merchandise sales, playing numbers, government support, etc, etc, are all bigger now then they ever have been.

 

[tri_colours]

Do you even read the posts that you respond to?

They were one of the lucky ones that managed to find someone willing to bankroll them...

Again, do you even read the posts that you respond to?

They all wanted the broadcasting rights because the Winfield cup rated well, really well.

That fact doesn't negate the fact that three quarters of the clubs in the competition were headed towards bankruptcy in the late 90s-early 00s.

Yeah that's simply not true.

The original plan was for News to buy the ARL and all it's assets, the ARL would still run RL in Australia but it'd be owned by News and News would have the final say on decisions so it was only really in name only.

The Winfield cup would be replaced with a new national "super league" with less teams (I forget the number off the top of my head) representing all the major markets in the country and Sydney would be rationalised down to four new clubs (north, south, east, and west), each of the current Sydney clubs at the time would own shares in one of the new Sydney clubs and would become a feeder club to the new club that they owned a share in. There were other details, like that the clubs would be flushed with funds and resources by News, but they aren't important right now.

So yeah the original plan for Super League was a buyout, but when that buyout was refused it turned into a hostile takeover.

I mean by basically every measurable metric that simply isn't true.

Ratings, broadcasting rights value, sponsorship value, merchandise sales, playing numbers, government support, etc, etc, are all bigger now then they ever have been.

The NRL made a surplus of over $8m in 1991 and similar the following year. They had 7 of the top programs on TV . ie, they were very successful. And like all good businesses would have paid there workers - or the people who are making this wealth possible handsomely. So the clubs finances would have gone up not down.

News Ltd wanted PTV rights to drive their star up theret PTV network. only when they could get them they then did they resort to taking over the game.

The late 90's , meaning after the SL war had driven costs through the roof!

 

[Perth Red]

Can you please take the SuperLeage chat elsewhere!

Back to expansion. Greenberg rattling some cages today,


'We've got to change': NRL CEO Todd Greenberg pushes relocation to secure future of rugby league

TUNE IN TO 100% FOOTY ON CHANNEL 9 AT 10PM FOR THE FULL SEGMENT.

NRL CEO Todd Greenberg has floated the unpopular idea of relocating existing franchises in order to secure the future of rugby league in Australia.

Expansion of the code’s 16 teams has long been a suggested avenue to strengthen the game’s longevity but Greenberg asserted the tougher question of relocation had to be considered.


Speaking on Nine’s 100% Footy, the NRL chief insisted the game had to be “brave enough to change” and have an “adult conversation” about the very real possibility of a vastly different looking league within five years.

"If we’re going to grow we’ve got to change," Greenberg said.

“We need to play in more areas. The more areas you play in the more times you expose new people to the game, the more the game is going to grow.

“Whether it be expansion, or it could mean are we prepared to look at the geography and footprint of the sport?

I’m not sure if we’re going to have more teams, and if we have more teams we have to have, in my view, two more because we've got to create another game. Do we have the depth of talent to bring two more teams in? I’m not sure if i can answer that question.”

"And if it is the same number of 16, are they going to be in different parts of the country? I think to extract more value, they're going to have to be."

Greenberg hailed the decision to play an Origin fixture in Perth this season and hinted at a possible relocation plan in Brisbane that he claimed, along with other possibilities, was an avenue that was “open in my book” ahead of his submission to the ARLC in the next 12 months.

“Why don’t we play more games in Perth? Is Brisbane ready for a game every weekend, not every second?”

“That either means another team in Brisbane, or we’re going to move someone to Brisbane, we’re going to open up a new franchise in Brisbane – these are all open questions in my book at the moment and I’m going to have to answer them in the next 12 months.

Greenberg also conceded that keeping children participating in traditional rugby league was the most pressing issue facing the game, and argued the league had to consider amalgamating non-contact versions of the game into its youth programs.

“It’s a massive challenge for us keeping kids, boys and girls, playing traditional rugby league,” he said.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/todd-g...dfe1-4d00-a483-2cb52c842cb9?ocid=Social-NRLFS

 

[flippikat]

He's really just openly stating the questions we've already been asking here for years.

Some concrete plan needs to be revealed by this time next year (preferably by the end of THIS year), or he needs to resign.

This kind of publicly speculating has happened before, and resulted in nothing more than a Gold Coast team that was a poorly branded knee-jerk reaction to AFL.

Admittedly he's gone into greater detail with his speculation than his predecessors, but it needs form, structure, details - like..

* Is expansion to 18 teams going to happen?

* If not, what's the criteria for relocation?

* whether it's expansion or relocation, what are the next 2-4 preferred markets to put NRL teams?

You know.. actual confirmed, concrete details of what's going to happen..not details of the questions he asks.

 

[juro]

Greenberg peers towards Perth on expansion front
March 18, 2019 — 11.00pm

NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg has given the strongest indication yet that expansion in Perth and Brisbane is firmly on the governing body’s agenda.

In an interview with Phil Gould on Nine’s 100% Footy on Monday night, Greenberg was pushed on how the game could best take the next step and grow in the near future. His response focused on playing more football in more areas of Australia – an item put on Greenberg’s agenda by the ARL Commission.

Whether expansion means relocation for two teams in the overpopulated Sydney market or simply awarding two new licences is what Greenberg must decide upon in the next 12 months. That is the timeline the ARLC have set the NRL boss as the governing body strives to grow the game.


‘‘This is the adult conversation we have to have,’’ he said. ‘‘I think we are starting that now – and I genuinely think we have to if we are going to consider ourselves a sport that wants to grow, we have to ambition and we have to think strategically.

‘‘I’m not sure if we are going to have more teams but if we are, in my view, we have to have two more because we have to create another game.

‘‘If we do add to the 16, are they going to be in different parts of the country? To extract more value, I think they are going to have to be.’’
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/gr...perth-on-expansion-front-20190318-p5159f.html

 

[axl rose]

This kind of publicly speculating has happened before, and resulted in nothing more than a Gold Coast team that was a poorly branded knee-jerk reaction to AFL.

.

Agree the branding is terrible (they initially had it right with the Dolphins name & colours) Though the AFL Suns were a knee-jerk reaction to the Titans, not the other way around.

 

[applesauce]

Agree the branding is terrible (they initially had it right with the Dolphins name & colours) Though the AFL Suns were a knee-jerk reaction to the Titans, not the other way around.

Not exactly, it seemed like N.Melbourne were going to get to the GC before any NRL team. It was only N.Melbourne that kept on bouncing around in their financial state preventing a AFL GC team sooner.

Then once the Titans got there and seemed viable, and North being relatively financially stable they created the Suns.

 

[T-Boon]

Weidler's explanation today for why expansion from 16 teams will not happen seems flawed.
Says it will not happen because the TV networks do not want an extra game (no room in schedule without going into prime time slots)

Okay, so Fox don't even have a prime time as far as I know and Nine might not want another game but so what? lets pitch it to Ten or Seven.

I think the real explanation is the Broncos don't want another Brisbane team and the other clubs don't want expansion either because they are just money grubs.

 

[Diesel]

I really hope those at the NRL realise they don’t have to sell all games to just one FTA organisation and only one PayTV/streaming service. I don’t think they’ve worked this out though.

10 via CBS would be looking for some sports content for sure

 

[TheEroticGamer]

Of course Fox and Nine will act apathetic towards expansion.

If they act desperate for it the NRL would drive the TV rights price up.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Weidler's explanation today for why expansion from 16 teams will not happen seems flawed.
Says it will not happen because the TV networks do not want an extra game (no room in schedule without going into prime time slots)

Okay, so Fox don't even have a prime time as far as I know and Nine might not want another game but so what? lets pitch it to Ten or Seven.

I think the real explanation is the Broncos don't want another Brisbane team and the other clubs don't want expansion either because they are just money grubs.

I would say the same if I were channel 9. An extra game either means that 9 have to pay even more for the rights next time or they can't fit it in their schedule and lose the extra game to 7 or 10. Of course they don't want it.

Would 10 take it? Of course, the NRL is a high rating TV product at a time when TV viewership is falling, they would fall over themselves to get it. Just expand, create the extra game and then go and sell it.

 

[Cdd]

Of course Fox and Nine will act apathetic towards expansion.

If they act desperate for it the NRL would drive the TV rights price up.

That’s not quite how it works. It’s down to the NRL to forge a vision for the competition and present something worth more than what we currently get.

If the NRL package it right with teams in the right places then the TV companies will see the value.

It’s expansion teams which offer the most value to broadcasters currently so it’ll be the same when they make the offer of new teams coming in.

 

[TheEroticGamer]

There's no doubt a new tv deal that includes a second Brisbane team will rake in the money as a former boss of Nine said it would increase the deal by around $200 million. A team in Perth expands Rugby League's reach, adds a brand new timeslot, shares a timezone with big Asian countries and adds a ninth game.

The NRL and broadcasters aren't stupid. They know expansion would be great for both of them if done right. Neither are coming out and declaring they want it done otherwise they'll be the ones who'll have to compromise on the tv deal. It's all about maximising profit.

The NRL would have told Beattie to shut up after his first press conference because of this. Hence the stand off we are currently having, something that'll be resolved some time next year.

 

[Cdd]

There's no doubt a new tv deal that includes a second Brisbane team will rake in the money as a former boss of Nine said it would increase the deal by around $200 million. A team in Perth expands Rugby League's reach, adds a brand new timeslot, shares a timezone with big Asian countries and adds a ninth game.

The NRL and broadcasters aren't stupid. They know expansion would be great for both of them if done right. Neither are coming out and declaring they want it done otherwise they'll be the ones who'll have to compromise on the tv deal. It's all about maximising profit.

The NRL would have told Beattie to shut up after his first press conference because of this. Hence the stand off we are currently having, something that'll be resolved some time next year.

Need to do what the AFL have done and commit to the untapped areas for the long term.

Perth
Adelaide
NZ 2
Brisbane 2

Watch the money role in.

 

[TheEroticGamer]

Need to do what the AFL have done and commit to the untapped areas for the long term.

Perth
Adelaide
NZ 2
Brisbane 2

Watch the money role in.

100% mate! More rivalries, derbies and areas covered! The best part is it's not impossible in the near future as Origin will be a sell out in Perth and you feel it will be the same in Adelaide!

I can understand the argument that it is because of it being Origin to an extent but let's face it. If there's an amazing rivalry between two top chess players, that's nice and all, but they ain't getting 60,000 people to watch! They must like the sport a tad.

Australia's too much of a sports loving country to just be for the AFL. There's so much potential for it to be a truly national game! Let's get it!

 

[tri_colours]

Need to do what the AFL have done and commit to the untapped areas for the long term.

Perth
Adelaide
NZ 2
Brisbane 2

Watch the money role in.

And as you can see from the AFL committing to untapped areas costs millions and millions of dollars . Where's the money going to come from ? Especially if you start cutting Sydney clubs