Rank the Brisbane bids

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Brisbane 2 is definately the right choice for the next team and the derby it creates will be great, but 3 and 4 not so much at this point

What are you basing that on?

I'd give Brisbane 2 around 5, 10 or maybe 15 years to build their fanbase, then look at introducing Brisbane 3.

If Melbourne struggles in the player market as a result, stiff shit.

 

[greenBV4]

Suncorp pay to have their name plastered on the stand. It's still Lang Park.

Are the Eels 'Parramatta' or do we call them 'Aland' because their logo is plastered across their jersey?

I know lang park is the grounds name, but nearly every stadium in the country is referred to by the sponsored name. Do you call ANZ "stadium australia" in conversation? I don't see anyone calling aami Park "Melbourne rectangular stadium"

I was just pointing out how pointless and petty your correction was

Do you honestly think Victorian schools are going to open their doors to a sport that they associate with Sydney?

thats my point, if you want change in vic juniors the NRL needs to be aggressive like the AFL is

Melbournians are always trying to compete with Sydney in everything. Sydney's better by the way. Sydneysiders couldn't care less about the rivalry as they are 'big brother', whereas Melbourne is the little brat

Its funny that, because I hear how "sydney doesn't care and is so much better anyway" a lot more than I do melbourne saying they are better

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

so pretty much on par with sydney clubs?

what are you basing these averages off? the only non-heartland clubs currently in the comp are melbourne and NZ, both are at the higher end of club averages, and one off games taken to perth and adelaide are generally good.

Reds and Rams.

Last few games taken to Perth Oval, which will be the Pirates' home, drew poor crowds.

2017

2 games, average 8,846.

That's shit.

2016, average 12,126

Not much better.

https://afltables.com/rl/crowds/perth_o_vn.html

Hindmarsh Stadium, Adelaide

2009, 1 game 8,547
2006, 1 game 7,017

That's shit.

https://afltables.com/rl/crowds/hindmarsh_vn.html

 

[greenBV4]

What are you basing that on?

I'd give Brisbane 2 around 5, 10 or maybe 15 years to build their fanbase, then look at introducing Brisbane 3.

If Melbourne struggles in the player market as a result, stiff shit.

What am I basing what on?

Are you saying we should have a bye every round for 5,10,15 years?

I hope it does cause melbourne to look elsewhere, probably the pacific/nz, but hopefully inwards to victoria a bit more. The less qlders the better

 

[greenBV4]

Reds and Rams.

Last few games taken to Perth Oval, which will be the Pirates' home, drew poor crowds.

2017

2 games, average 8,846.

That's shit.

2016, average 12,126

Not much better.

https://afltables.com/rl/crowds/perth_o_vn.html

Hindmarsh Stadium, Adelaide

2009, 1 game 8,547
2006, 1 game 7,017

That's shit.

https://afltables.com/rl/crowds/hindmarsh_vn.html

Nice nitpicking, weren't those 2 perth games double headers? They always result in shit averages

And the more recent games to be played in Adelaide have been at AO

How many games at brookvale, cronulla, Penrith or anz have been sub 10k lately? Are you saying they don't deserve a club like Perth and adelaide?

 

[greenBV4]

Neither of those clubs get impressive numbers

You sure about that? Melbourne are the most watched club besides the Broncos, and how many of those numbers are from Melb are irrelevant, it just shows the club has national appeal, which is good because its supposed to be, you know, a "national" league

Imagine if there was one or two teams in Sydney - how small would be audience for most matches?
NRL realize this & have indicated next team will be in Brisbane. Media experts say priority should for Brisbane 3 before Perth.

agree to disagree, if we are talking less clubs from the beginning then the nrl suporting population would have less choice, and ultimately each club would end up with a bigger percentage of supporters.

And Vlandys biggest reason for not expanding into Perth seems to be "that's too much effort", and that lack of effort is very typical for nrl admin

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Do you call ANZ "stadium australia" in conversation?

Yes. I also say Willows, Townsville Stadium, Endeavour, QSAC, Robina Stadium, SFS.

I don't see anyone calling aami Park "Melbourne rectangular stadium"

I call it that.

I was just pointing out how pointless and petty your correction was

Your English mate from Perth got all pissy once because I referred to Perth Oval as Perth Oval.

Those poms like to whinge you know.

thats my point, if you want change in vic juniors the NRL needs to be aggressive like the AFL is

I get that, but my point is RL is discriminated against in ways that no other sport in the world has ever been. The legups the media give AwFuL will never be handed to us.

RU was created in the 19th century by wealthy men, aristocrats, who had so much money they didn't have to work. They owned companies and other enterprises, but they weren't toiling away day and night for a living. They lived off the labour of servants. Sport to them was something to pass the time as there was no TV or radio, and was something they only wanted to do with other rich people so they could network.

RL was created by coal miners who were treated like shit by the RFU. The UK establishment blacklisted the RFL immediately, banning the game from being played in schools and the military until the 1990s. They've lifted the ban, but schools are still pro RU and anti RL as they are strongly linked to the establishment, which has always been strongly linked with RU.

In France, the Vichy regime banned RL in the 1930s, seized all of the Rench Rugby League's assets and gave them all to the French Rugby Union. The FRL have never been comdensated and were banned from using the name 'rugby' until the 1990s.

Shit like this has gone down in NZ.

Similar things happened in Italy and Serbia.

Fumbleball was created as a winter game to keep cricketers fit. Cricket was always aligned with the establishment and had a schism of its own.

Its funny that, because I hear how "sydney doesn't care and is so much better anyway" a lot more than I do melbourne saying they are better

I was mucking around. Both Sydney and Melbourne are great cities. Melbourne could improve itself by voting in someone sane.

 

[greenBV4]

RL has definately been through a lot more than most, if not any other, sport has had to

But the potential future looks much brighter and we can't just accept we are behind in some aspects and not do anything about it, the biggest benefits come from the biggest risks

End of the day not everyone is ever going to agree on expansion decisions, luckily most agree brisbane 2 is the clear choice for 17, after that there is much more debate

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Nice nitpicking, weren't those 2 perth games double headers? They always result in shit averages

No. They were held over separate rounds.

And the more recent games to be played in Adelaide have been at AO

Do people in Adelaide and Perth prefer ovals to rectangular stadiums?

How many games at brookvale, cronulla, Penrith or anz have been sub 10k lately? Are you saying they don't deserve a club like Perth and adelaide?

Their averages aren't under 10k. They also produce players from their local competitions.

Our mate from Perth is always death riding these clubs. Only fair that the same scrutiny is put on Adelaide and Perth.

 

[Pippen94]

You sure about that? Melbourne are the most watched club besides the Broncos, and how many of those numbers are from Melb are irrelevant, it just shows the club has national appeal, which is good because its supposed to be, you know, a "national" league

agree to disagree, if we are talking less clubs from the beginning then the nrl suporting population would have less choice, and ultimately each club would end up with a bigger percentage of supporters.

And Vlandys biggest reason for not expanding into Perth seems to be "that's too much effort", and that lack of effort is very typical for nrl admin

Wait, Brisbane won't create new fans but fact Melbourne don't watch Storm is irrelevant? Contradiction. New Brisbane teams will get big audience in 2nd biggest RL market - they'll increase ratings.
Dots on map are nice but if Melbourne team doesn't rate in Melbourne that's all you got.
Brisbane expansion = money. Perth will never work

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

RL has definately been through a lot more than most, if not any other, sport has had to

But the potential future looks much brighter and we can't just accept we are behind in some aspects and not do anything about it, the biggest benefits come from the biggest risks

End of the day not everyone is ever going to agree on expansion decisions, luckily most agree brisbane 2 is the clear choice for 17, after that there is much more debate

NZ2 could be 18th team, Bris 3 as 19th. 20th would be a fight between Bris 4, NZ3 and Perth. I'd go Bris 4.

My fear for RL is it does not have the establishment on its side and never will. Expansion will require funding from small, medium and large businesses that associate with the game. Fumbleball and RU can do that as they have the establishment on their side. Promotion from the media is vital so people know the game exists. The big suits in London, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide aren't going to give us any favours there. They hate us.

 

[greenBV4]

Wait, Brisbane won't create new fans but fact Melbourne don't watch Storm is irrelevant? Contradiction. New Brisbane teams will get big audience in 2nd biggest RL market - they'll increase ratings.
Dots on map are nice but if Melbourne team doesn't rate in Melbourne that's all you got.
Brisbane expansion = money. Perth will never work

NZ2 could be 18th team, Bris 3 as 19th. 20th would be a fight between Bris 4, NZ3 and Perth. I'd go Bris 4.

My fear for RL is it does not have the establishment on its side and never will. Expansion will require funding from small, medium and large businesses that associate with the game. Fumbleball and RU can do that as they have the establishment on their side. Promotion from the media is vital so people know the game exists. The big suits in London, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide aren't going to give us any favours there. They hate us.

Melbournes rating in Melbourne are increasing and will continue to, its an added benefit they also have national appeal. It's also the second biggest economy, and second (soon to be first) biggest population centre, the NRL isn't going to ignore that

I just don't think there's many people in Brisbane that aren't already watching, Brisbane 2 would be a big benefit for weekly games and a derby, Brisbane 3 also would have its perks but so would NZ 2 or Perth, Brisbane 4 would also do well, but wouldn't bring all that much more when expansions slots are so limited, if we could sustainably go past 20 clubs then yeah sure, but that would require conferences and i dont think they could work in a fair way.

So Im not saying Brisbane 3 or 4 wouldnt work, they most definatly would, but the question is would we rather 2 or 3 super clubs, or 3 or 4 good clubs?

I'd love to see the NRL grow some balls and do something risky (ie: Perth or NZ2, adelaide is too risky at this point but should be look at in other ways for gradual development). It's a shame Vlandy's is so insular and wary of putting in the effort, because he comes across as the sort of person who accomplishes what he wants to, and if he wanted a team in perth he would pull his weight and make it happen - regardless of the "establishment"

 

[The Great Dane]

Wait, Brisbane won't create new fans but fact Melbourne don't watch Storm is irrelevant? Contradiction.

That's not a contradiction lol.

New Brisbane teams will get big audience in 2nd biggest RL market - they'll increase ratings.

Nobody said a second Brisbane team wouldn't be successful (though the wrong second Brisbane club could be a disaster), and nobody is arguing against a second Brisbane club.

The contention is with the idea of Brisbane having more than 2 clubs.

Dots on map are nice but if Melbourne team doesn't rate in Melbourne that's all you got.
Brisbane expansion = money. Perth will never work

Prove it!

Seriously you keep asserting these things, but you never provide any ration logic or evidence as to why you believe these things, and frankly your assertion isn't worth shit.

Also this idea that RL is a tv product and always will be a tv product is dumb. If anything the NRL should be doing everything in it's power to make it's self less reliant on broadcasters by increasing it's income in other areas.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Melbournes rating in Melbourne are increasing and will continue to, its an added benefit they also have national appeal. It's also the second biggest economy, and second (soon to be first) biggest population centre, the NRL isn't going to ignore that

I just don't think there's many people in Brisbane that aren't already watching, Brisbane 2 would be a big benefit for weekly games and a derby, Brisbane 3 also would have its perks but so would NZ 2 or Perth, Brisbane 4 would also do well, but wouldn't bring all that much more when expansions slots are so limited, if we could sustainably go past 20 clubs then yeah sure, but that would require conferences and i dont think they could work in a fair way.

So Im not saying Brisbane 3 or 4 wouldnt work, they most definatly would, but the question is would we rather 2 or 3 super clubs, or 3 or 4 good clubs?

I'd love to see the NRL grow some balls and do something risky (ie: Perth or NZ2, adelaide is too risky at this point but should be look at in other ways for gradual development). It's a shame Vlandy's is so insular and wary of putting in the effort, because he comes across as the sort of person who accomplishes what he wants to, and if he wanted a team in perth he would pull his weight and make it happen - regardless of the "establishment"

What we do know is the Brisbane metro average in 2019 when the Broncos played was 173k vs 107k when no Queensland team.

The largest audience for the Melbourne metro area last year was 68,000, and it was a game involving the Broncos in Rd 1. There wouldn't have been any AwFuL on that weekend. I don't know what Storm's average was for the year, but if their highest in Melbourne was 68,000 in Rd 1 when no fumbleball was in and, the difference when Broncos play vs no Queensland team in Brisbane metro is 66,000, we can say the Storm don't add much.

What will Melbourne's ratings be like when they drop down the ladder?

Despite all of Melbourne's success, the Broncos are the most watched team around the country.

Melbourne have a big audience in Queensland because of the lack of Bris 2, 3 and 4 and, because they have dominated the competition for years. If Parramatta were as dominant as Melbourne over the last 2 decades they would probably be just as popular around the country.

 

[The Great Dane]

My fear for RL is it does not have the establishment on its side and never will. Expansion will require funding from small, medium and large businesses that associate with the game. Fumbleball and RU can do that as they have the establishment on their side. Promotion from the media is vital so people know the game exists. The big suits in London, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide aren't going to give us any favours there. They hate us.

Stop blaming other people for our failures.

It is not the "big suits" fault that RL has totally failed to invest in the grassroots for decades, it's not the "big suits" fault that the Sydney market is over saturated, etc, etc.

Also how do you expect the to get the "big suits" onside if you refuse to give them teams in their cities...

 

[greenBV4]

What we do know is the Brisbane metro average in 2019 when the Broncos played was 173k vs 107k when no Queensland team.

The largest audience for the Melbourne metro area last year was 68,000, and it was a game involving the Broncos in Rd 1. There wouldn't have been any AwFuL on that weekend. I don't know what Storm's average was for the year, but if their highest in Melbourne was 68,000 in Rd 1 when no fumbleball was in and, the difference when Broncos play vs no Queensland team in Brisbane metro is 66,000, we can say the Storm don't add much.

Despite all of Melbourne's success, the Broncos are the most watched team around the country.

Melbourne have a big audience in Queensland because of the lack of Bris 2, 3 and 4 and, because they have dominated the competition for years. If Parramatta were as dominant as Melbourne over the last 2 decades they would probably be just as popular around the country.

Im not necessarily disagreeing with any of these points, I would love for NRL to be more popular down here, but just because its not doesn't mean the NRL should give up, at the end of the day is the club wasting the NRL money? no. they are one of the few profitable clubs that don't rely on gambling money.

and regardless, your bashing is pointless because like it or not just like the Broncos, the Storm aren't going anywhere, they are one of the NRL's biggest clubs, aren't run at a loss, provide a presence in the second largest ecomic and population centre, have healthy crowds when compared to NRL-standards, high memberships (also compared to nrl standard) and are growing every year.

It's also worth noting that the club is becoming less and less QLD-centric every year as players retire/move on, theres a large pacific/nz contingent, and the number of NSW players would almost balance the QLD players now, Bellamy was a NSW coach too. If the agreement with the Falcons were to expire it would be interesting to see what the club does RE their qld ties.

It's obvious the QLD support comes mostly from the big 3, but I'm also interested to know if any of it comes from the large number of Victorians that have migrated up there, particularly around the sunny coast, and if they are trying to fit in by following league and hence the picking the Storm? genuinly curious about that.

 

[The Great Dane]

What we do know is the Brisbane metro average in 2019 when the Broncos played was 173k vs 107k when no Queensland team.

The largest audience for the Melbourne metro area last year was 68,000, and it was a game involving the Broncos in Rd 1. There wouldn't have been any AwFuL on that weekend. I don't know what Storm's average was for the year, but if their highest in Melbourne was 68,000 in Rd 1 when no fumbleball was in and, the difference when Broncos play vs no Queensland team in Brisbane metro is 66,000, we can say the Storm don't add much.

What will Melbourne's ratings be like when they drop down the ladder?

Despite all of Melbourne's success, the Broncos are the most watched team around the country.

Melbourne have a big audience in Queensland because of the lack of Bris 2, 3 and 4 and, because they have dominated the competition for years. If Parramatta were as dominant as Melbourne over the last 2 decades they would probably be just as popular around the country.

How do you expect to grow an audience in new markets, such as Melbourne, Perth, or Adelaide, if you won't give them clubs to support?

I mean using your standard the sport would never expand because you require overwhelming demand before you'll expand, but how can you create overwhelming demand in a new market if nobody in the market has ever heard of the product and you refuse to introduce them to it!?

It's insane logic.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Im not necessarily disagreeing with any of these points, I would love for NRL to be more popular down here, but just because its not doesn't mean the NRL should give up, at the end of the day is the club wasting the NRL money? no. they are one of the few profitable clubs that don't rely on gambling money.

and regardless, your bashing is pointless because like it or not just like the Broncos, the Storm aren't going anywhere, they are one of the NRL's biggest clubs, aren't run at a loss, provide a presence in the second largest ecomic and population centre, have healthy crowds when compared to NRL-standards, high memberships (also compared to nrl standard) and are growing every year.

It's also worth noting that the club is becoming less and less QLD-centric every year as players retire/move on, theres a large pacific/nz contingent, and the number of NSW players would almost balance the QLD players now, Bellamy was a NSW coach too. If the agreement with the Falcons were to expire it would be interesting to see what the club does RE their qld ties.

It's obvious the QLD support comes mostly from the big 3, but I'm also interested to know if any of it comes from the large number of Victorians that have migrated up there, particularly around the sunny coast, and if they are trying to fit in by following league and hence the picking the Storm? genuinly curious about that.

For years on end the Storm were propped up by News Ltd and the NRL. My fear is what will happen when the team become also rans.

We saw what happened to the Brisbane Lions.

Does the NRL have the money to bail out Melbourne in that scenario?

I don't know what can be done to make the game more popular in Melbourne. Just having the Storm in the top 4 every year isn't enough. It might take a few generations.

The Storm will stay as Melbourne is the second largest city. Perth and Adelaide are not. That's why V'Landys isn't interested.

"Greater Perth's population will be 3.700,000 to 4,300,000 in 2066."

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features102017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=


"Greater Brisbane will have 4,125,000 to 5,775,000 people in 2066."

"Queensland's population of 4.9 million people as at 30 June 2017 is projected to increase by between 0.8% and 1.5% per year, reaching a population between 7.5 million and 10.5 million in 2066. This is slightly higher than the average annual growth rate projected for Australia as a whole."

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features82017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=


"Queensland is projected to increase by between 0.7 million and 1 million people from 30 June 2017 to reach between 5.7 and 5.9 million people by 2027. Growth will be slower in Western Australia, reaching 2.9 million in 2027, and in South Australia which is projected to be between 1.8 million and 1.9 million in 2027."

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0

WA will have, at most, 5.9 million people by 2066. Queensland's population will be almost double that.
Keep the Titans where they are. Gold Coast will have 1,200,000 by that date. Central Queensland should be ready for a team.

 

[Perth Red]

RL has definately been through a lot more than most, if not any other, sport has had to

But the potential future looks much brighter and we can't just accept we are behind in some aspects and not do anything about it, the biggest benefits come from the biggest risks

End of the day not everyone is ever going to agree on expansion decisions, luckily most agree brisbane 2 is the clear choice for 17, after that there is much more debate

rl’s problems are largely of its own makings, mostly very poor administrators and unethical clubs coupled with no vision, no strategy and no balls.

 

[Perth Red]

It's insane logic.

sums him up nicely lol