Peter V'landys - New NRL/ARLC Chairman

[MugaB]

Nobody mentioned inventing capital cities either.



Unless something has occurred that Im not aware of Auckland isnt a capital city, it hasnt been since 1865. Wellington is the capital city of New Zealand. Its not even the capital of a province - provinces were abolished in 1876.

Touché....

So you're saying Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne are capital cities?
But Auckland isn't, coz their states arent like ours...
If we are being really knitpicky then, then only the NRL have one capital city, in Canberra, and ALF has none

Auckland was the founding capital city in NZ, before they moved it to Wellington in 1865.
Regardless of what we are defining as capitals, when really we are talking Metros.
Both codes are the same in amount,
Then we go to other areas like gold coast 1v1, then Newcastle in league, Vs Geelong on afl, not much differs in spread

 

[MugaB]

No one said this. No one.

Hahahahaha, but its how youve portrayed it...
Fkn numbnuts

 

[Maximus]

Hahahahaha, but its how youve portrayed it...
Fkn numbnuts

It's not really. He's using the NFL model. The hardcore fans who attend every game are irrelevant as whether there is 8 or 12 games home games, they are still attending every game. The point of limiting games and bumping up prices is to target the people who only attend a few games a season. Currently they can pick and choose what games they attend because most games don't sell out. With a limited amount of games, those fans are less spread out, so more games get closer to selling out. The ones who attend 6-10 games a year have FOMO and are then less likely to skip games because there is a risk future games are sold out and they miss out.

It's a nice idea in theory, but in practice, people don't want to turn up to shitty suburban grounds, they'd rather watch from the comfort of their loungeroom so it wouldn't work.

 

[Colk]

It's not really. He's using the NFL model. The hardcore fans who attend every game are irrelevant as whether there is 8 or 12 games home games, they are still attending every game. The point of limiting games and bumping up prices is to target the people who only attend a few games a season. Currently they can pick and choose what games they attend because most games don't sell out. With a limited amount of games, those fans are less spread out, so more games get closer to selling out. The ones who attend 6-10 games a year have FOMO and are then less likely to skip games because there is a risk future games are sold out and they miss out.

It's a nice idea in theory, but in practice, people don't want to turn up to shitty suburban grounds, they'd rather watch from the comfort of their loungeroom so it wouldn't work.

Pretty much. You’d have to have all Sydney clubs playing at modern stadium like Allianz and Commbank. A fair few can do that but there is going to be a couple of Sydney clubs you think that would find it difficult

 

[Canard]

No sports competition in the world is going to actively reduce their income to suit casual fans who don't engage with every match.

 

[Canard]

In defence of GROTD even if you don’t believe in reducing the season (I don’t particularly agree to 16 or 18 rounds for the record) what occurs when you add an 18th or even a 19th team and a 20th team and so on and so forth?

The season is now going to be now 27 weeks long plus finals plus rep fixtures. That’s a very long season getting towards more than 9 months. For a high contact sport like League, I don’t see how you can squeeze much more out of the lemon.

Also, another thing to consider, you can always have too much of something. Cricket is a current example of having too much content and fluff, where people are tuning off on certain formats or competitions - see the recent ODI series against England (which was hard to work out why it was on). There are other examples you can throw in wherein there is arguably too much content to the point where an individual match seems to have little meaning in a wider context.

Can you explain how you arrived at 27 weeks? Wouldn't the draw be some clubs playing other twice, and some only once to get the same number of weeks we have now?

Am I just missing something obvious here?

 

[Wb1234]

Touché....

So you're saying Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne are capital cities?
But Auckland isn't, coz their states arent like ours...
If we are being really knitpicky then, then only the NRL have one capital city, in Canberra, and ALF has none

Auckland was the founding capital city in NZ, before they moved it to Wellington in 1865.
Regardless of what we are defining as capitals, when really we are talking Metros.
Both codes are the same in amount,
Then we go to other areas like gold coast 1v1, then Newcastle in league, Vs Geelong on afl, not much differs in spread

Technically he’s correct

I made a blunder with Auckland as the capital over Wellington

point does remain that rugby league has more reach than afl based on nrl teams represented

 

[Wb1234]

No sports competition in the world is going to actively reduce their income to suit casual fans who don't engage with every match.

Even if you reduce the comp back to 12 teams your still going to get a big proportion of the games being duds

you can’t make every game appealing

with the amount of games on show people will pick and choose

based on the ratings rugby league has little to worry in regards to oversaturation

even trial games are beating afl and super rugby and some of the lower rating fumble ball games

 

[MugaB]

Technically he’s correct

I made a blunder with Auckland as the capital over Wellington

point does remain that rugby league has more reach than afl based on nrl teams represented

Technically he is not, sydney is not a capital, nor is any other city mentioned, other than Canberra and Wellington

 

[Wb1234]

Technically he is not, sydney is not a capital, nor is any other city mentioned, other than Canberra and Wellington

State capital

though afl not having a team in Australia’s capital puts a dent into their National claims

 

[The_Wookie]

Technically he is not, sydney is not a capital, nor is any other city mentioned, other than Canberra and Wellington

Its not even a question of technicalities. Canberra and Wellington are national capitals. State capitals are actually a thing here in Australia. New Zealand hasnt got states and hasnt officially had provinces since 1877.

Your point about major urban centres is well made though. I can agree with that.

 

[Colk]

Can you explain how you arrived at 27 weeks? Wouldn't the draw be some clubs playing other twice, and some only once to get the same number of weeks we have now?

Am I just missing something obvious here?

There will be 27 rounds with every team playing 24 games.

So, taking into account byes (which nobody likes and rest periods of you will) the actual NRL season has been extended.

 

[MugaB]

Its not even a question of technicalities. Canberra and Wellington are national capitals. State capitals are actually a thing here in Australia. New Zealand hasnt got states and hasnt officially had provinces since 1877.

Your point about major urban centres is well made though. I can agree with that.

Thats what we were all in agreement, but to say Auckland aint no captital, when it litterally was before they went and moved it somewhere more central for the country, is just being moreso literal, the fact we in aus have states, and nz doesn't shouldn't mean any less, the fact is the nz population is highest in and around Auckland, and you're right but don't frame it so that they don't matter coz of the lack of label

 

[The_Wookie]

Thats what we were all in agreement, but to say Auckland aint no captital, when it litterally was before they went and moved it somewhere more central for the country

That would be a little like saying Melbourne should still be talked about as the National capital because it was until 1927.

, is just being moreso literal, the fact we in aus have states, and nz doesn't shouldn't mean any less, the fact is the nz population is highest in and around Auckland, and you're right but don't frame it so that they don't matter coz of the lack of label

I didnt mean to make it sound like it was any less, but there are capitals and then there are not capitals.

But its ok mate! I get the point.

I think at the end of the day we could have saved 25 pages of discussion if Id written

"things are good, but they could be better".

Instead of trying to just list the positives.

 

[MugaB]

That would be a little like saying Melbourne should still be talked about as the National capital because it was until 1927.



I didnt mean to make it sound like it was any less, but there are capitals and then there are not capitals.

But its ok mate! I get the point.

I think at the end of the day we could have saved 25 pages of discussion if Id written

"things are good, but they could be better".

Instead of trying to just list the positives.

Dont get me started on grotd

 

[Perth Red]

Dif

Touché....

So you're saying Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne are capital cities?
But Auckland isn't, coz their states arent like ours...
If we are being really knitpicky then, then only the NRL have one capital city, in Canberra, and ALF has none

Auckland was the founding capital city in NZ, before they moved it to Wellington in 1865.
Regardless of what we are defining as capitals, when really we are talking Metros.
Both codes are the same in amount,
Then we go to other areas like gold coast 1v1, then Newcastle in league, Vs Geelong on afl, not much differs in spread

Difference is 88% of Australian tv advertising is spent in those 5 metro capitals. At moment we only have three of them covered. Yes we have Auckland and that reaps us a nice return in our international rights. But in our Australian rights we need to adapt and grow With perth and Adelaide and eventually melbourne2.

Just one of the reasons we are so far behind in tv revenue.

 

[Perth Red]

No sports competition in the world is going to actively reduce their income to suit casual fans who don't engage with every match.

in my 20 team model you’d be reducing the number of home games you had to 9 or 10 each season but tv content would increase. It would be the best way I can think of to reduce the stress on players bodies, create more priority for fans to attend, reduce clubs running costs but still increase tv revenue and therefore clubs not losing out on3-4 games revenue.
It increases comp running costs for nrl and needs better grassroots funding to ensure depth of playing talent is available but you’d be aiming for increased revenue for the game to be more than covering it From a 10 game round and an extra magic weekend revenue.
perth team 18 2026 keep comp as is, new 4 year tv deal from 2028 covering the 9 games
2032 total comp restructure.
expansion to 20 teams 21 game reg season, 3 weekends rep footy
Adelaide team 19
Wellington team 20

thatd be my strat plan for the nrl!

 

[Canard]

Dif

Difference is 88% of Australian tv advertising is spent in those 5 metro capitals. At moment we only have three of them covered. Yes we have Auckland and that reaps us a nice return in our international rights. But in our Australian rights we need to adapt and grow With perth and Adelaide and eventually melbourne2.

Just one of the reasons we are so far behind in tv revenue.

How much of that 88% does Perth and Adelaide make up I wonder?

 

[Perth Red]

How much of that 88% does Perth and Adelaide make up I wonder?

I’m not sure it works in straight splits. Most big $ advertising is for national products and I’m guessing the more markets you reach the more they are willing to pay. But just guessing as don’t know how tv advertising works tbh.

im imagining its more valuable to sell advertising to national companies that reaches the 5 metro markets than for space in a program that only really reaches three.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The bickering in this thread sums up the division caused by V'landys' bullish rhetoric. V'landys is admired by passionate rugby league fans from Sydney who hate ARF and Melbourne because he uses his position to belittle the the game and city. When Greenberg asked Cronulla to explain why they should be kept in the competition V'landys came to their defence, which gave NSWRL fans the belief they have a staunch ally who will keep the status quo in Sydney.

Expansionists are up in arms because V'landys' rhetoric is alienating potential supporters in non-traditional cities. The comment about "we won't be wasting any money on rusted on AFL states" was very uncouth for a person in his position. His response to the WA GOV officials who attended Magic Round in Brisbane to enquire about expanding into Perth was "talk to the Bears", which shows he just doesn't have the vision, business acumen or diplomacy needed to expand our game beyond its borders and attract support from the high end of town. This weakness of his was exploited by Foxtel and Ch9 during the broadcast negotiations. He's managed to alienate the NSW GOV and NSWRL, too.

What we have on this thread is Sydney RL fans who yearn for a return to the NSWRL defending everything V'landys does because they see him as one of them. These are the same people who hate ARF and some of them dedicate most of their time on The Fight Club forum ridiculing it. They hate ARF more than they like RL. I'd argue V'landys hates ARF and Melbourne more than he likes RL.