Rank the Brisbane bids

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The situation in the 90s is so vastly different from now that they're totally incomparable, and judging Perth or Adelaide based on what happened then is just a dumb thing to do.

Besides the exact same argument could be used about Brisbane and the Crushers, and I think you'd agree wholeheartedly that it's f**king stupid to judge expansion in Brisbane based on the Crushers failure.

Also if expansion were to fail anywhere it'd be damaging to the sport, yet to survive and thrive you need to grow. No risk no reward is just the nature of the beast.

The Crushers scenario was down to poor branding, sabotage from News Ltd and the Broncos, Super League turning diehard fans away from the game, including Broncos fans. The Crushers got their financial situation under control in 1997, but the ARL/News Ltd didn't want them.

Perth and Adelaide were not affected by the Super League War. Adelaide averaged 15,000 in Super League 1997 and almost half in NRL 1998. Reds got about 15,000 in ARL 1995 but dropped to 8,200 in ARL 1996, then rose to 8,900 in Super League 1997. People just weren't interested in Perth and Adelaide after their first seasons.

Participation numbers in WA in the 1990s were far higher than they are now and there was no pro RU team to compete against. That makes a new team in Perth 2020 a much harder sell. Add on inflation which has made the cost of living far more expensive today than in 1995. Adelaide now has two established and successful AwFuL clubs.

 

[The Great Dane]

The Crushers scenario was down to poor branding, sabotage from News Ltd and the Broncos, Super League turning diehard fans away from the game, including Broncos fans. The Crushers got their financial situation under control in 1997, but the ARL/News Ltd didn't want them.

That's just not true...

The Crushers were set up to fail, they had nowhere near enough start up funds to launch a team and were struggling financially from the get-go. It was so bad that they were asking for loans from the NSWRL to help save their business years before they had ever fielded a team.

I don't know where you got the idea that they got their financial situation under control by the end, but that's not true. When they were wrapped up and liquidated they were millions in debt and had no way of repaying it, and were easily one of the clubs that were the worst off financially.

Even if SL had never happened then odds are they would have gone broke in a few years anyway, and as such they never ever should have been given a license in the first place.

Perth and Adelaide were not affected by the Super League War. Adelaide averaged 15,000 in Super League 1997 and almost half in NRL 1998. Reds got about 15,000 in ARL 1995 but dropped to 8,200 in ARL 1996, then rose to 8,900 in Super League 1997. People just weren't interested in Perth and Adelaide after their first seasons.

LOL, you're not serious are you?

The Western Reds were set up to fail just like the Crushers, and just like the Crushers probably would have gone tits up with or without SL, but to suggest that their demise wasn't effected by SL is just insane (same is true of the Crushers BTW), and the Rams wouldn't have existed at all if not for SL, and their demise is intrinsically linked to the merger of the competitions, in other words it's even more insane to suggest that they weren't affected by SL...

Also almost every clubs' attendance tanked during that time, I mean look at the Crushers their numbers almost halved from 21,029 in 95 to 13,016 in 96, then almost halved again to 7,003 in 1997, which btw was less than both the Reds and Rams at their worst.

Participation numbers in WA in the 1990s were far higher than they are now and there was no pro RU team to compete against. That makes a new team in Perth 2020 a much harder sell. Add on inflation which has made the cost of living far more expensive today than in 1995. Adelaide now has two established and successful AwFuL clubs.

All of this is just excuse making, and totally inconsequential excuse making at that.

Participation numbers aren't a reflection of the potential consumer base and never have been, inflation is a universal problem, there's competition in every market and always has been, and basically all of these excuses could be used against every market including Brisbane.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

That's just not true...

The Crushers were set up to fail, they had nowhere near enough start up funds to launch a team and were struggling financially from the get-go. It was so bad that they were asking for loans from the NSWRL to help save their business years before they had ever fielded a team.

I don't know where you got the idea that they got their financial situation under control by the end, but that's not true. When they were wrapped up and liquidated they were millions in debt and had no way of repaying it, and were easily one of the clubs that were the worst off financially.

Even if SL had never happened then odds are they would have gone broke in a few years anyway, and as such they never ever should have been given a license in the first place.

LOL, you're not serious are you?

The Western Reds were set up to fail just like the Crushers, and just like the Crushers probably would have gone tits up with or without SL, but to suggest that their demise wasn't effected by SL is just insane (same is true of the Crushers BTW), and the Rams wouldn't have existed at all if not for SL, and their demise is intrinsically linked to the merger of the competitions, in other words it's even more insane to suggest that they weren't affected by SL...

Also almost every clubs' attendance tanked during that time, I mean look at the Crushers their numbers almost halved from 21,029 in 95 to 13,016 in 96, then almost halved again to 7,003 in 1997, which btw was less than both the Reds and Rams at their worst.

All of this is just excuse making, and totally inconsequential excuse making at that.

Participation numbers aren't a reflection of the potential consumer base and never have been, inflation is a universal problem, there's competition in every market and always has been, and basically all of these excuses could be used against every market including Brisbane.

I will take your word about the Crushers' financial situation. I heard different elsewhere, but what you're saying sounds more plausible.

I think Arthurson and Quayle did set the Reds and Crushers up to fail. I am convinced those two idiots hated the fact the BRL embarrassed the NSWRL during the 1980s because it supplied the Queensland team with the bulk of the talent that dominated Origin during the decade.it produced the bwst players in the game feom that era. Combined Brisbane won the National Knock Out competition and Wynnum Manly were the best club in the world. An amazing feat considering our clubs didn't have poker machines to fall back on and were based in a far smaller city. It made the NSWRL look inept, so they killed the BRL out of spite.

You don't have any evidence that advertisers want a Perth or Adelaide team. We know that Ch9 and Foxtel want another Brisbane team.

Only 35,000 people in Melbourne watch the Storm on FTA. That is a terrible number and wouldn't impress the advertisers. They're not going to offer much to screen an ad on 9Gem in Melbourne during a Storm game when only 35,000 people are watching. They will pay big bucks to screen an ad in Brisbane on Ch9 for the 150,000 people up here who watch Storm games on FTA. It proves my point that Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth offer nothing to the game's commercial partners. The only saving grace for the Storm is Queensland has adopted them as its 4th team due to the club fielding iconic Queenslanders over the years and the market up here is underserviced. Every source I've seen that talks up the Storm's ratings around the country point out they are popular in Queensland because of Smith, Cronk, Slater, Inglis, Folau and Munster and the lack of Brisbane 2 and 3.

Can you honestly say thst Melbourne will remain as Queensland's adopted team once Brisbane 2 and 3 are introduced and, Storm's success dries up?

You don't seriously think a Perth and Adelaide team are going to be adopted by Queenslanders like the Storm, do you?

My point about Super League not affecting Adelaide and Perth still stands. It wasn't the Super League War that halved the Reds' crowds in 1996. Western Australians are known for being rusted on fumbleball fans who will support the Eagles and Dockwrs through thick and thin, but they will also get on the bandwagon of a local team from any sport if it is successful. The Reds were not a success story on the field. Look at crowds for the Perth Glory soccer team to see my point. When they were the glamour club of the NSL they got really strong clubs. Now thay they're a mediocre mid-table club in the A-League they're drawing similar to the Reds in 1997. Soccer is much more popular than RL in Perth.

 

[The Great Dane]

I will take your word about the Crushers' financial situation. I heard different elsewhere, but what you're saying sounds more plausible.

I think Arthurson and Quayle did set the Reds and Crushers up to fail.

I don't know if it was intentional, but it wasn't just the Reds and Crushers that were set up to fail.

The Giants, Newcastle, Warriors, and arguably the Cowboys and Steelers as well, were all built on varying levels of shaky ground. It's a minor miracle that the Knights and particularly the Warriors are still around, by rights neither should have made it to 2000.

There does seem to have been this attitude at the NSWRL, that was displayed best on the GC, that if an expansion club folds that they can just go through a revolving door of new owners until eventually something sticks, which is just bad business, as the GC proves.

You don't have any evidence that advertisers want a Perth or Adelaide team. We know that Ch9 and Foxtel want another Brisbane team.

Actually we have plenty of evidence that though there are exemptions, a lot of, if not most, advertisers and sponsors want national coverage over regional coverage, it's pretty straight forward as well; they'll pay more to advertise on products with national exposure than ones without it.

Just look at the AFL, they have roughly the same amount of eyeballs on them as the NRL, yet they have more blue chip sponsors spending more on average to be associated with them over the NRL. Why you ask, because if they sponsor the AFL their product gets exposure nationally, if they sponsor the NRL it only gets exposure in half the country. Also it's very rarely, if ever, that you hear about an AFL club struggling to find a major sponsor, yet all the time there are NRL clubs having to fight tooth and nail to find B list sponsors willing to sponsor them.

It's more than that though, many blue chip companies will sponsor smaller competitions with larger national reach (NBL, A-league, etc) over bigger regional competitions like the NRL simply because they get better national coverage. In other words they'd rather pay less to advertise to less sets of eyes spread across a greater part of the country, then to pay more to get more eyes but most of them are from two states and one territory.

Only 35,000 people in Melbourne watch the Storm on FTA. That is a terrible number and wouldn't impress the advertisers. They're not going to offer much to screen an ad on 9Gem in Melbourne during a Storm game when only 35,000 people are watching. They will pay big bucks to screen an ad in Brisbane on Ch9 for the 150,000 people up here who watch Storm games on FTA. It proves my point that Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth offer nothing to the game's commercial partners.

You have to start somewhere.

It's beyond unreasonable to expect that what is effectively a new product in the market to be extremely popular overnight, and the only way you can built that fan base is to present the product to the people and build a following over time.

Now if the fan base in Melbourne wasn't growing then I'd be worried, but considering where the sport was in Melbourne (and Victoria more broadly) before the Storm, which was basically nothing, 35k and growing is huge growth and a great thing for the NRL.

It took the Swans the better part of 30 years to get anywhere near where they are now, and nobody in their right mind would say they have been a failure. Given time the Storm can have just as much growth and be just as successful.

The only saving grace for the Storm is Queensland has adopted them as its 4th team due to the club fielding iconic Queenslanders over the years and the market up here is underserviced. Every source I've seen that talks up the Storm's ratings around the country point out they are popular in Queensland because of Smith, Cronk, Slater, Inglis, Folau and Munster and the lack of Brisbane 2 and 3.

Can you honestly say thst Melbourne will remain as Queensland's adopted team once Brisbane 2 and 3 are introduced and, Storm's success dries up?

You don't seriously think a Perth and Adelaide team are going to be adopted by Queenslanders like the Storm, do you?

I honestly couldn't give less of a f**k whether Queenslanders drop the Storm like yesterdays news once they go through a rough patch, just like Queenslanders did to the Raiders before them.
I couldn't careless about whether or not Perth or Adelaide clubs may or may not be popular in Queensland either.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, not everything is about Queensland or Brisbane, and expansion in places like Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, etc, etc, is about slowly building a fan base for the sport in those places.

My point about Super League not affecting Adelaide and Perth still stands. It wasn't the Super League War that halved the Reds' crowds in 1996. Western Australians are known for being rusted on fumbleball fans who will support the Eagles and Dockwrs through thick and thin, but they will also get on the bandwagon of a local team from any sport if it is successful. The Reds were not a success story on the field. Look at crowds for the Perth Glory soccer team to see my point. When they were the glamour club of the NSL they got really strong clubs. Now thay they're a mediocre mid-table club in the A-League they're drawing similar to the Reds in 1997. Soccer is much more popular than RL in Perth.

Your point never stood because the only way you can make it is by special pleading (look it up), and again, basically all of the same arguments you've made there could be made about the Crushers or any club from the time...

To suggest that SL didn't have an impact on the Reds crowds in 1996 is just ridiculous, and I'll say it again, basically every clubs' attendance tanked in that time.

Also, literally every clubs attendance fluctuates with success, and how do you expect to build a fan base for the sport in places like Perth and Adelaide if you refuse to give them teams?

Imagine if McDonald's said that a particular town can't have a franchise because their burgers aren't already popular in the town, i.e. we won't sell them the product because they aren't already buying it, that is basically what you are saying about Perth and Adelaide.

 

[Perth Red]

Are you really still arguing with this cuckoo? SL didnt affect reds and rams? That’s some funny sht right there.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I don't know if it was intentional, but it wasn't just the Reds and Crushers that were set up to fail.

The Giants, Newcastle, Warriors, and arguably the Cowboys and Steelers as well, were all built on varying levels of shaky ground. It's a minor miracle that the Knights and particularly the Warriors are still around, by rights neither should have made it to 2000.

There does seem to have been this attitude at the NSWRL, that was displayed best on the GC, that if an expansion club folds that they can just go through a revolving door of new owners until eventually something sticks, which is just bad business, as the GC proves.

That's why the Cowboys, Warriors and Reds went with Super League. They had no future in the ARL. I remember Peter Jackson death riding the Cowboys as "money hungry" on the radio, but what else were they supposed to do?

Actually we have plenty of evidence that though there are exemptions, a lot of, if not most, advertisers and sponsors want national coverage over regional coverage, it's pretty straight forward as well; they'll pay more to advertise on products with national exposure than ones without it.

Just look at the AFL, they have roughly the same amount of eyeballs on them as the NRL, yet they have more blue chip sponsors spending more on average to be associated with them over the NRL. Why you ask, because if they sponsor the AFL their product gets exposure nationally, if they sponsor the NRL it only gets exposure in half the country. Also it's very rarely, if ever, that you hear about an AFL club struggling to find a major sponsor, yet all the time there are NRL clubs having to fight tooth and nail to find B list sponsors willing to sponsor them.

It's more than that though, many blue chip companies will sponsor smaller competitions with larger national reach (NBL, A-league, etc) over bigger regional competitions like the NRL simply because they get better national coverage. In other words they'd rather pay less to advertise to less sets of eyes spread across a greater part of the country, then to pay more to get more eyes but most of them are from two states and one territory.

I agree with most of the stuff you say, but not this. Whether right or wrong, there's a perception among the big suits that RL is a game watched and played by the working class. The companies who sponsor our game tend to be the sort who cater towards the lower and middle class. The disparity you're describing has less to do with national reach and everything to do with who the advertisers think is watching.

How else can you explain RU clubs attracting support from high end companies when their footprint in Australia is no greater than ours?

You have to start somewhere.

It's beyond unreasonable to expect that what is effectively a new product in the market to be extremely popular overnight, and the only way you can built that fan base is to present the product to the people and build a following over time.

I don't expect a team in fumbleball land to draw massive crowds and TV ratings. I point out Perth's shortcomings because Perth Red is always heaping shit on Sydney. It's my way of letting him know that people would be more receptive to a Perth team if he stopped being so negative about the heartland.

The crux of the matter is putting a team in a city like Perth wouldn't be for commercial reasons, but to give kids there a reason to play RL. In the future there might be a strong enough base to provide a capital return on that investment, but for the first 30 years it would be about growing the participation base. That should be the one and only reason the ARLC expands to Perth.

The Storm have failed miserably in this regard. Only 3,500 people play the game in Victoria, despite the Storm being the most successful team in the country over the last 22 years. If a Perth-based team had that sort of success then I have no doubt far more people in Western Australia would be playing and watching the game by now. That's what angers me about the Storm. Their on-field success has not done anything good for the game off the field, but it has halted the game's growth in Perth and Adelaide.

Now if the fan base in Melbourne wasn't growing then I'd be worried, but considering where the sport was in Melbourne (and Victoria more broadly) before the Storm, which was basically nothing, 35k and growing is huge growth and a great thing for the NRL.

It took the Swans the better part of 30 years to get anywhere near where they are now, and nobody in their right mind would say they have been a failure. Given time the Storm can have just as much growth and be just as successful.

The Swans get more people watching on TV and attending at the game. More people play fumbleball in Sydney than RL in Melbourne. Only 3,500 people play RL in Victoria. Nothing much has come from all of the success the Storm has enjoyed on the field. If the Storm's success doesn't encourage Victorians to pick up a Steeden then nothing will.

Things are so bad in Victoria that Cameron Smith's own son, Jasper, runs around with a Sherrin instead of a Steeden. There's no hope for that state.

I honestly couldn't give less of a f**k whether Queenslanders drop the Storm like yesterdays news once they go through a rough patch, just like Queenslanders did to the Raiders before them.
I couldn't careless about whether or not Perth or Adelaide clubs may or may not be popular in Queensland either.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, not everything is about Queensland or Brisbane, and expansion in places like Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, etc, etc, is about slowly building a fan base for the sport in those places.

Whenever I bring up the Storm's poor TV ratings in Melbourne mongoose hits back by saying they're the second most watched club around the country, based on how well they rate in Queensland. I'm told all the time on here that the Storm add value to the TV deal by drawing high viewership across the country. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say the Storm are important because they draw good ratings around the country, especially in Queensland, then say not everything is about Queensland. If Queensland wasn't important then mongoose and co wouldn't point to the Storm's ratings in Queensland to justify their existence.

I agree that expansion into Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne is about growing the game in those areas. My concern with the Storm is they're not doing that. Only 3,500 people play the game across Victoria. It would be better to shift them to Perth as more people were playing the game in WA when the Reds were around.

Your point never stood because the only way you can make it is by special pleading (look it up), and again, basically all of the same arguments you've made there could be made about the Crushers or any club from the time...

To suggest that SL didn't have an impact on the Reds crowds in 1996 is just ridiculous, and I'll say it again, basically every clubs' attendance tanked in that time.

Cowboys' attendances stood firm, despite being rooted at the foot of the ladder and being in a small regional city. Newcastle stood strong too. Adelaide's best year was during their season in Super League.

Your rant against Super League doesn't make sense either as it's the only reason the Reds were able to field a team in 1996. If it wasn't for News Ltd the Reds would have folded after 1995.

Also, literally every clubs attendance fluctuates with success, and how do you expect to build a fan base for the sport in places like Perth and Adelaide if you refuse to give them teams?

How do you explain the Cowboys having strong crowds despite being rooted at the foot of the ladder during their early days and being introduced in the middle of the Super League fiasco?

It goes against everything you're saying.

Imagine if McDonald's said that a particular town can't have a franchise because their burgers aren't already popular in the town, i.e. we won't sell them the product because they aren't already buying it, that is basically what you are saying about Perth and Adelaide.

What I'm saying about Adelaide and Perth is the interest for RL in these cities isn't large enough to warrant them having a team of their own. Even the AwFuL were wise enough to not give Sydney its own team. The Brisbane Bears were a failure and had to merge with Fitzroy. The best solution for Adelaide and Perth is for the NRL to pay Wests and Souths to change their name to Western Tigers and Southern Rabbitohs and take half of their home games Perth and Adelaide. Tigers would play six games at Perth Oval, six at Western Sydney Stadium/Campbelltown. Rabbitohs would play six at Adelaide Oval/Hindmash, the other six at Western Sydney Stadium. The agreement would prevent the clubs from abandoning these cities and would give them enough of an off-field advantage to prevent them from wanting to go back to their old ways. They're not getting their own team and aren't in a position to support one. This is the best they can hope for.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Woolworths went with W/BBL because of the national footprint of the comp and because they can create and use national advertising campaigns with degrees of regional variance. They also have a unified men’s and women’s comp, so can literally target men, women and children, cricket fan or not, in every city market in Australia. Plus they get their branding in to juniors and schools via CA programs.

If the NRL can’t see that Perth and Adelaide would add to the comp, then they’re silly duffers.

 

[taipan]

Woolworths went with W/BBL because of the national footprint of the comp and because they can create and use national advertising campaigns with degrees of regional variance. They also have a unified men’s and women’s comp, so can literally target men, women and children, cricket fan or not, in every city market in Australia. Plus they get their branding in to juniors and schools via CA programs.

If the NRL can’t see that Perth and Adelaide would add to the comp, then they’re silly duffers.

We had a Commonwealth Bank schoolboys televised comp.Continual brawls,led to the Bank pulling out.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

We had a Commonwealth Bank schoolboys televised comp.Continual brawls,led to the Bank pulling out.

Souths had NAB until Frog kicked JT down a flight of stairs on Mad Monday.

 

[taipan]

Souths had NAB until Frog kicked JT down a flight of stairs on Mad Monday.

I'd like $100 for every sponsor whose pulled out, because of a player being an absolute goose.
With the Sharks I'd make a few hundred alone.
Mad Monday should have been shoved years ago, in the late 90s.

 

[mongoose]

What I'm saying about Adelaide and Perth is the interest for RL in these cities isn't large enough to warrant them having a team of their own. Even the AwFuL were wise enough to not give Sydney its own team. The Brisbane Bears were a failure and had to merge with Fitzroy. The best solution for Adelaide and Perth is for the NRL to pay Wests and Souths to change their name to Western Tigers and Southern Rabbitohs and take half of their home games Perth and Adelaide. Tigers would play six games at Perth Oval, six at Western Sydney Stadium/Campbelltown. Rabbitohs would play six at Adelaide Oval/Hindmash, the other six at Western Sydney Stadium. The agreement would prevent the clubs from abandoning these cities and would give them enough of an off-field advantage to prevent them from wanting to go back to their old ways. They're not getting their own team and aren't in a position to support one. This is the best they can hope for.

the old chicken and egg scenario. You could argue the interest isn't there because those cities don't have their own teams to support.

I am not sure whats going on in Melbourne Re: juniors. It's odd because you would think that city would have a lot of PI heritage kids who are not suited to AFL who want to play League...

I have a conspiracy theory though that the NRL and its broadcast partners (which are one and the same thing really) don't want to invest in junior pathways outside of QLD/NSW as it will diminish State of Origin in the long run.

 

[greenBV4]

I have a conspiracy theory though that the NRL and its broadcast partners (which are one and the same thing really) don't want to invest in junior pathways outside of QLD/NSW as it will diminish State of Origin in the long run.

Regardless of if its a conspiracy or not, the funding is next to zero, and would be loose change compared to what the AFL is spending on development in NSW/QLD

 

[The Great Dane]

Woolworths went with W/BBL because of the national footprint of the comp and because they can create and use national advertising campaigns with degrees of regional variance. They also have a unified men’s and women’s comp, so can literally target men, women and children, cricket fan or not, in every city market in Australia. Plus they get their branding in to juniors and schools via CA programs.

If the NRL can’t see that Perth and Adelaide would add to the comp, then they’re silly duffers.

Hungary Jacks does effectively the same thing through their sponsorship of the NBL and ESPN's coverage of the NBA and WNBA.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Hungary Jacks does effectively the same thing through their sponsorship of the NBL and ESPN's coverage of the NBA and WNBA.

Maccas wants in on the W/BBL action too.

 

[Perth Red]

It always amazed me that NRL and its players are so rarely seen i national advertising campaigns of big companies compared to other sports. The lack of national reach for the game would have to be the main reason. Not like Maccas or HJ's are high brow companies!

 

[The Great Dane]

Maccas wants in on the W/BBL action too.

McDonald's sponsors almost everyone to varying degrees though. Seriously it's hard to find a major league that Ronald hasn't got some interest in, or at least hasn't sponsored/partnered with in the past.

It'd be interesting to see them be a major sponsor of a local competition though, because it's not often that they do that.

 

[Perth Red]

McDonald's sponsors almost everyone to varying degrees though. Seriously it's hard to find a major league that Ronald hasn't got some interest in, or at least hasn't sponsored/partnered with in the past.

It'd be interesting to see them be a major sponsor of a local competition though, because it's not often that they do that.

I thought KFC was a major sponsor of BBL? Certainly at the game I've been too they were very prominent in their marketing throughout the game.

At a more local level the State Govt will often not give funding to jnr sports etc if Maccas (or any fast food) are a sponsor. Its been an on going thing with NRLWA as one of the supporters of the game here is a millionaire from Maccas franchises he owns but to get Healthways funding they cant be sponsored by him.

 

[The Great Dane]

It always amazed me that NRL and its players are so rarely seen i national advertising campaigns of big companies compared to other sports. The lack of national reach for the game would have to be the main reason. Not like Maccas or HJ's are high brow companies!

That's probably the most telling thing isn't it...

The Raiders are constantly part of local campaigns whether that be for Toyota dealerships, mental health charities, and of course the Milk, and I'm sure the same is true of a lot of NRL clubs in their local regions, but rarely if ever will you see the NRL as part of a national advertising campaign like the AFL and CA are constantly with their sponsors.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I thought KFC was a major sponsor of BBL? Certainly at the game I've been too they were very prominent in their marketing throughout the game.

At a more local level the State Govt will often not give funding to jnr sports etc if Maccas (or any fast food) are a sponsor. Its been an on going thing with NRLWA as one of the supporters of the game here is a millionaire from Maccas franchises he owns but to get Healthways funding they cant be sponsored by him.

KFC do and have.

But Maccas have recently made their intentions known that they want in.

 

[The Great Dane]

I thought KFC was a major sponsor of BBL? Certainly at the game I've been too they were very prominent in their marketing throughout the game.

KFC has sponsored Cricket Australia for decades now, that doesn't necessarily mean that CA can't work with other people as well, or that they couldn't be usurped for the right price.

Besides Mad Hatter said Macca's wants to be the BBL's sponsor, not that they are the BBL's sponsor.

At a more local level the State Govt will often not give funding to jnr sports etc if Maccas (or any fast food) are a sponsor. Its been an on going thing with NRLWA as one of the supporters of the game here is a millionaire from Maccas franchises he owns but to get Healthways funding they cant be sponsored by him.

Yes the degradation of our society into a massive nanny state where nobody has the freedom to make their own choices is a serious problem.

Similar things have been tried in Canberra where people have tried to get the Raiders and other local sports clubs in trouble for their fast food (and gambling, alcohol, etc) sponsorship, but there's not much you can do about busybody morality police, they've existed since time immemorial and unfortunately sometimes they are going to win the fight.

As soon as cigarette sponsorship was banned the precedent was set, so there's no going back now.

They are cutting there nose's off to spite there face's though aren't they. . .