What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Prediction poll - who will get the 18th team?

Who will be the 18th NRL team?

  • Brisbane Firehawks

  • Brisbane Jets

  • Brisbane other bid (including merged Firehawks/Jets - please specify)

  • Perth

  • Wellington

  • Christchurch

  • The Bears

  • Other (Please specify)


Results are only viewable after voting.
Messages
6,018
They've f**ked their launch up so badly that it will probably take at least a generation (roughly 20 years) for them to build a strong fanbase, and unless it's pushed by outside socio-economic factors (like South's core audience moving west) they'll almost certainly never develop a significant fanbase outside of parts of Morton Bay, those with easy access to Suncorp/their home ground, and potentially parts of North Brisbane if they play their cards right. Their traditional model simply won't allow for that sort of city wide growth without alienating their core audience in Redcliffe and surrounding parts of Moreton Bay, which they, like all RL clubs, will be too timid to risk alienating.

They're almost certainly going to follow a similar path to the Titans (for different reasons and probably minus the money issues), where they'll be super popular for the first few seasons, then the novelty will wear off and they'll be reliant on on-field results to draw a crowd until either enough people have grown up supporting the club to build a reliable fanbase, or they have a golden period early in their history in the NRL where they build a dynasty and that success draws support (a la Storm or Raiders). Obviously the prior is the much more likely scenario.

Because of the way the Brisbane market has now been split chances are that Brisbane will have at least a third club long before the Dolphins are truly cemented in the market, and odds are that Brisbane will get their third long before Adelaide is even in the discussion, and potentially even before Perth get a real shot a license depending on politics at the ARLC, NRL, and broadcasters.

Then again, given the rate at which the NRL expands I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that it could be 2040 before the NRL adds the 19th and 20th licenses, which would be almost 20 years after the Dolphins joined the NRL, so who knows.
It would be good if one of the streaming platforms spent $40 million a year on a rebel rugby league competition to service the cities and regions that aren't covered by the NRL. That's enough to support an eight team competition with a salary cap of $5 million.

There's only a limited number of sporting leagues available and a lot of streaming companies who need content. Drama is expensive to produce and not guaranteed to draw ratings, hence the reason FTA no longer focuses on it.

I think Optus is spending $100 million a year for the EPL, which doesn't draw high ratings in this country. I'd laugh my guts out if Optus splashed this sort of money on a rebel league to draw customers away from Telstra/Foxtel, as it would be a reversal of what happened in the 90s.

A-League gets $40 million from Paramount+. Rugby Australia gets $33 million from STAN. NBL gets $15 million from ESPN. A rebel RL competition would draw more customers than any of those sporting leagues.

Spark Sport needs content. It would be great if they teamed up with Paramount+ or STAN Sport to create a rebel RL competition that has a couple of teams from NZ, a few from Queensland plus Adelaide and Perth. Invite the North Sydney Bears and a Central Coast team to compete and that's a decent competition.
 
Messages
6,018
Well arguably as,origin has all but killed international rl you could argue it was a sht call by qlnd lol
Test matches are not taken seriously because Australia has reigned supreme for almost 50 years. If we had strong teams from England and New Zealand beating us as much as we've beaten them since 1974 then people would be genuinely interested in watching Test match football.

The problem is RL is far more popular and better financed in Australia than in England and NZ, so it's not going to change any time soon.

We're sort of lucky that Polynesians have the perfect somatotype for our game and a decent sized population living over here, as it gives New Zealand, Tonga and Samoa a chance of fielding competitive teams made up of expatriates.

If the IRL and ARLC are smart they will focus on developing the game across the Pacific, with the aim of making it the sport of choice for the next generation of kids. Provide them with a direct pathway to the NRL and a chance to represent their country in Test football. Running an annual Pacific Nations featuring Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Papua New Guinea would give these smaller countries a chance to gain media attention in rich first world countries and, allow their players to become heroes at home.

England should focus more on competing with France and the other home nations.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
49,838
Unbelievable. What was the lunch and was it held in Perth?
It was a breakfast in perth where the WARL, media, govt etc were invited to listen to Grant present. It was just after hbf park had been upgraded and we all thought we were there to hear some exciting news about expansion. Let’s just say the atmosphere soured quickly And the faces of the WA govt reps there said it all!
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
49,838
And there’s the call that sums your thoughts up- State of Origin is a negative to Rugby League. Despite me having plenty of sympathy for your cause, you’ve really turned into a whinging, salty sook. Ditch the whiny, bitch facade and come back to the real world, or just stfu and stop bringing the tone of these threads down to your depressive level.
Lol I ever said it was a negative for rugby league, I said it was negative for international rugby league, which it is very hard to argue it hasn’t been given what’s happened In the last 25 years as origin has grown in prominence.

Origin has killed internationals. It’s a great thing for Australian rl, it brings in sht loads of money and is a good vehicle for promoting the game in non rl states. That doesn’t change the fact that as it has grown the spotlight has moved off the kangaroos and representing your country is no longer seen as the pinnacle in australia

as for the rest of your rant, whatever.
 
Last edited:

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
49,838
Test matches are not taken seriously because Australia has reigned supreme for almost 50 years. If we had strong teams from England and New Zealand beating us as much as we've beaten them since 1974 then people would be genuinely interested in watching Test match football.

The problem is RL is far more popular and better financed in Australia than in England and NZ, so it's not going to change any time soon.

We're sort of lucky that Polynesians have the perfect somatotype for our game and a decent sized population living over here, as it gives New Zealand, Tonga and Samoa a chance of fielding competitive teams made up of expatriates.

If the IRL and ARLC are smart they will focus on developing the game across the Pacific, with the aim of making it the sport of choice for the next generation of kids. Provide them with a direct pathway to the NRL and a chance to represent their country in Test football. Running an annual Pacific Nations featuring Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Papua New Guinea would give these smaller countries a chance to gain media attention in rich first world countries and, allow their players to become heroes at home.

England should focus more on competing with France and the other home nations.
Dominance Doesn’t seem to have hurt the All blacks

haha e gland have dominated over francemore than australia has over nz.

Australia has a 20plus year dominance already in the 90’s but international,rl,was the pinnacle and filling places like wembley.

if the myopic Australian RL media gave half as much prominence to the kangaroos as they do origin we wouldn’t have the farcical arlc approach to internationals we currently have.
 
Messages
6,018
Dominance Doesn’t seem to have hurt the All blacks

haha e gland have dominated over francemore than australia has over nz.

Australia has a 20plus year dominance already in the 90’s but international,rl,was the pinnacle and filling places like wembley.

if the myopic Australian RL media gave half as much prominence to the kangaroos as they do origin we wouldn’t have the farcical arlc approach to internationals we currently have.
The Kangaroos dominating countries that don't really give a f**k about RL (England and New Zealand) or places that love it but are too poor to compete (PNG) doesn't instil pride into Australians. We prefer to see Aussies succeed in global pursuits that help elevate our profile in the eyes of global superpowers like America and China, but we only care at the time and go back to worrying about our club teams in NRL and AwFuL. We've started to lose interest in the soccer world cup and Olympics.

The All Blacks' dominance is important to New Zealanders because RU is a religion over there. New Zealand is much smaller than us and not a major player on the international political stage, so the success of the All Blacks provides New Zealanders with pride and a global profile that they wouldn't have if their team was shit like the Wallabies. New Zealand is to Australia what Canada is to USA and Scotland is to England. People know about it, but it's never put in the same category as America, England and Australia.

Australia doesn't rely on any particular sporting brand for national pride because it already has a global profile through its unique fauna, flora and luxurious climate. Russell Crowe is a Kiwi but everyone thinks he's an Aussie.

The fact that Australia is the world's only country that is both an island and a continent, with the most livable climate, gives us a status like Nike or iPhone, as there is no rival and everyone wants to be associated with it. We have people from England, America and Canada willing to give their left nut just to live here so they no longer have to worry about losing their right one to frost bite. I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard Australia referenced in TV dramas from England and America. It's more than any other country. The world's obsessed with us. I even hear references to Australia in European programs on Netflix.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,646
And there’s the call that sums your thoughts up- State of Origin is a negative to Rugby League. Despite me having plenty of sympathy for your cause, you’ve really turned into a whinging, salty sook. Ditch the whiny, bitch facade and come back to the real world, or just stfu and stop bringing the tone of these threads down to your depressive level.
Who are you to tell others how they should feel and act?!
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,646
Origin has killed internationals. It’s a great thing for Australian rl, it brings in sht loads of money and is a good vehicle for promoting the game in non rl states. That doesn’t change the fact that as it has grown the spotlight has moved off the kangaroos and representting your country is no longer the pinnacle in australia,

as for the rest of your rant, whatever.
BS.

Origin and internationals existed in harmony for the better part of 20 years before Internationals started taking a back seat in the late 90s, and there's no reason why they couldn't exist in harmony again.

What actually killed international RL was the formation of the Premier League causing a boom in soccer's popularity in the UK (and large parts of the world frankly), and club RL in the UK going exclusively behind a paywall in 96 and thus destroying the games exposure in the Uk for the next 25 years and counting.

Almost at once the biggest competitor in the market got a massive boost and RL cut it's self off from the broader audience, and within a generation you went from RL (and RU to a lesser extent) in the UK having household names to not being able to get a look in amongst all the soccer coverage.

At the same time as that was happening in the UK, Australian RL was quickly building back up after the SL war, and after about a decade it'd well and truly left UK RL behind in interest and value where a decade ago they were more or less peers.

Those happenings had massive knock on effects for international RL in that it basically murdered the value of the UK market as the only other major market for RL from the NRL's point of view, and thus made international RL an expensive and unpalatable prospect when compared to other local events.

It's basically exactly what killed RU in Australia BTW. It's truly fascinating how English RL's and Australian RU's fortunes mirror each other over the last 25 years.
haha e gland have dominated over france more than australia has over nz.
Yet for the exact same reasons as the NRL, traditionally the RFL have been loath to play them or the Home Nations.

Why? Because they aren't money spinners like playing the Kangaroos and more recently Kiwi's are.

It's the base hypocrisy of the RFL and English RL fans. Always going on and on about the good of the game and international growth, when if it was simply about the good of the game they'd be playing a whole host of annual internationals against British, European, American, and potentially other nations and the WCC would be against (e.g.) Elite 1 and potentially other clubs.

But they don't and won't play those games because it's not actually about "the greater good", it's about what benefits their bank balance the most.
if the myopic Australian RL media gave half as much prominence to the kangaroos as they do origin we wouldn’t have the farcical arlc approach to internationals we currently have.
They'll never do that for the exact same reasons that British media will never give the same prominence to the Socceroos as (e.g.) Brazil and push for more events involving Australia, despite what that would do for Australian soccer; they are for profit businesses and as such they are going to push the product that is the most profitable.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,542
And there’s the call that sums your thoughts up- State of Origin is a negative to Rugby League. Despite me having plenty of sympathy for your cause, you’ve really turned into a whinging, salty sook. Ditch the whiny, bitch facade and come back to the real world, or just stfu and stop bringing the tone of these threads down to your depressive level.
hes the forum joke , only a clown would think 3 sold out games & 10 million TV veiwers per year is bad for our game
 
Messages
2,542
Well arguably as,origin has all but killed international rl you could argue it was a sht call by qlnd lol
Nope

The lack of competition has & thats not our fault. The Poms & Kiwis were hopeless around 1980 & no one was watching tests here, The game here rightly went in a different direction to provide an alternative to club football which we've had since 1908 , & which proved to be a master stroke.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
49,838
The Kangaroos dominating countries that don't really give a f**k about RL (England and New Zealand) or places that love it but are too poor to compete (PNG) doesn't instil pride into Australians. We prefer to see Aussies succeed in global pursuits that help elevate our profile in the eyes of global superpowers like America and China, but we only care at the time and go back to worrying about our club teams in NRL and AwFuL. We've started to lose interest in the soccer world cup and Olympics.

The All Blacks' dominance is important to New Zealanders because RU is a religion over there. New Zealand is much smaller than us and not a major player on the international political stage, so the success of the All Blacks provides New Zealanders with pride and a global profile that they wouldn't have if their team was shit like the Wallabies. New Zealand is to Australia what Canada is to USA and Scotland is to England. People know about it, but it's never put in the same category as America, England and Australia.

Australia doesn't rely on any particular sporting brand for national pride because it already has a global profile through its unique fauna, flora and luxurious climate. Russell Crowe is a Kiwi but everyone thinks he's an Aussie.

The fact that Australia is the world's only country that is both an island and a continent, with the most livable climate, gives us a status like Nike or iPhone, as there is no rival and everyone wants to be associated with it. We have people from England, America and Canada willing to give their left nut just to live here so they no longer have to worry about losing their right one to frost bite. I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard Australia referenced in TV dramas from England and America. It's more than any other country. The world's obsessed with us. I even hear references to Australia in European programs on Netflix.
Rubbish, you’ll see when the RUWC is on here how much Aussies love to get behind their national teams In most sports. Cricket is another example, seems they don’t have problems getting interest in australia beating the likes of nz and England. Reality is people are sheep and will follow what they are told or influenced to follow, the 100% focus on origin over internationals is why a RLWC final couldn’t even fill Suncorp. I’m old enough to have attended internationals in the 90’s when there was massive buzz about test at matches and tours.

lol in your head only, as someone who came from England I can tell you I knew very little about australia as there is nothing other than neighbours and sport mentioned about the country. Having worked and Traveled the states in recent years the Americans are even more ignorant of Australia.
 

AdelaideSharky

Juniors
Messages
675
Yeh because we want to repeat Sydney's suburban mess lol. I mean that approach has worked so will in Sydney why wouldn't Brisbane copy it? 12k crowds in suburban stadiums, yipeee.
A bit like Super League then, ten teams in Yorkshire and Lancashire and two in France.

Most SL clubs grounds (bar Leeds, Wigan, St Helens & Hull) make the Sydney suburban grounds look world class in comparison.
 

Pippen94

Juniors
Messages
1,463
Driving force? A significant factor sure but driving force is a fairly big overstatement.
The use of driving force would suggest that there are no other factors, or that those other factors are fairly insignificant, which is patently false.

Check the clubs with the biggest viewerships and the biggest supporter bases. Besides a few like Parramatta or Souths, they aren’t in Sydney.

Suppprter base numbers are bullshit. Swans claim to be most supported team in country but draw 30k FTA viewers in Sydney same as a netball game.
Place where most ppl watch NRL is Sydney. Take out Sydney teams & you only have a few high rated games per week.
No mistake 3rd Brisbane team is favorite for next expansion. Maximizing 2nd biggest NRL market is financially best for sport.
 

Pippen94

Juniors
Messages
1,463
There're no similarities between the two aside from having dragon in the name, only hopeless mouth breathers would confuse the two.

Besides there're ways that you could carry the brand without calling the team "the Seadragons", thus avoiding having the Seadragons and Dragons in the same competition. You could call them Perth United RLFC for example and just use a seadragon as their mascot.

BTW, the Dragons don't have the most premierships in the NRL, and I highly doubt that they are the most recognisable RL brand either.

Dragons are highest drawing away team. When I say dragons I mean st George dragons not western Perth sea dragons!! That's marketing 101
 

Pippen94

Juniors
Messages
1,463
They've f**ked their launch up so badly that it will probably take at least a generation (roughly 20 years) for them to build a strong fanbase, and unless it's pushed by outside socio-economic factors (like South's core audience moving west) they'll almost certainly never develop a significant fanbase outside of parts of Morton Bay, those with easy access to Suncorp/their home ground, and potentially parts of North Brisbane if they play their cards right. Their traditional model simply won't allow for that sort of city wide growth without alienating their core audience in Redcliffe and surrounding parts of Moreton Bay, which they, like all RL clubs, will be too timid to risk alienating.

They're almost certainly going to follow a similar path to the Titans (for different reasons and probably minus the money issues), where they'll be super popular for the first few seasons, then the novelty will wear off and they'll be reliant on on-field results to draw a crowd until either enough people have grown up supporting the club to build a reliable fanbase, or they have a golden period early in their history in the NRL where they build a dynasty and that success draws support (a la Storm or Raiders). Obviously the prior is the much more likely scenario.

Because of the way the Brisbane market has now been split chances are that Brisbane will have at least a third club long before the Dolphins are truly cemented in the market, and odds are that Brisbane will get their third long before Adelaide is even in the discussion, and potentially even before Perth get a real shot a license depending on politics at the ARLC, NRL, and broadcasters.

Then again, given the rate at which the NRL expands I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that it could be 2040 before the NRL adds the 19th and 20th licenses, which would be almost 20 years after the Dolphins joined the NRL, so who knows.

If 3rd or 4th team in Brisbane means more money for game then that's the final story. Long term growth is bullshit. Sport in Australia is notoriously regional. Don't buy into the lions or swans when they make grand final. Hype dies soon after & games return to 7mate
 

Latest posts

Top