Rank the Brisbane bids

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I know my history just fine thank you.

For example I know that that "one stage RU wasn't even played" was called WW1, and that RL was actually struggling to gain a foothold in Qld (and NSW to a lesser extent) until RU decided to suspend their top competitions during it, and the impact of suspending their competition for so long was so damaging in Qld that the QRU was actually forced to dissolve in 1919.

I also know that history is written by the victors, and that the idea that RL was 'dominant' in Qld (or NSW BTW) from day one is a one sided telling of history that lionises the sport, when really RL didn't start to become truly dominant until after WWII, and RU was very competitive for decades after that.

Plenty of RU clubs jumped ship to RL right away in Queensland. They wanted to do it in 1908 but it was too late in the season, so they waited until 1909. By jumping ship they made RL the number one game in the state. RU had the advantage of being established in grammar schools and running stable competitions, but it became a dying sport during the 1910s.

You're the only person I've ever heard say RU was on equal footing with RL in Queensland and NSW until WWII. Every historian I've consulted has stated what I said.

Firstly, I never said Victorians haven't heard of RL, but considering my general experience on the wrong side of the "Barassi line" and how many people don't realise RL and RU are actually two different sports, I'd actually say that isn't that far fetched at all, especially if we are talking about 20 years ago before the Storm.

You created a silly hypothetical about some one ridiculing RL in Queensland during the 1910s, then tried to compare it with my comments about Victoria. RL didn't become a 13 man game until 1906, so when you referred to 'new game' you were referring to RL and insinuating that no one in that state had seen it before. You cannot compare a new game that had never been seen here before 1908 to modern day Victoria. Origins were taken to Melbourne in what, 1991, 1994, 1995 and 1997. The Storm have been around since 1998. Great Britain played a Test against Australia in Melbourne in the early 1990s. The game has been played there for at least 40 or 50 years. It was a really dumb example.

Secondly, "ramming it down their throats" is exactly what has been so successful for the Swans, and how American Football, and later basketball, took out "America's favorite past time", and the people you are trying to convert aren't the dyed in the wool AFL fans anyway.

Baseball only became popular in the US back in the 1800s because cricket closed itself off to aristocrats. If you weren't an aristocrat then you weren't allowed to play cricket in the US. Baseball marketed itself to everyone and became the national past time. At one stage cricket was set to become America's top sport. An American by the name of Bart King invented swing bowling. An American club featuring Bart King beat Australia back in 1893. That's how big the game was there. The first ever cricket international was between USA and Canada.

Baseball's decline has more to do with it being a drawn out game that's outdated in today's fast paced world. People just don't have the time to watch something so tedious when there are so many other forms of entertainment available. The same thing is happening with cricket, as can be witnessed by the decline of Tests and First Class attendances.

I don't think AwFuL has been as successful in Sydney as you make out. Most of the people who follow the Swans would be expats and people who never liked RL to begin with.

I
Finally, people said the exact same things about Sydney when the Swans relocated, and look at them now.

Their TV ratings are still abysmal and their fanbase is largely made up of expats. Same as the Lions in Brisbane.

I never said they would be a magical fix, it'd be a long slow process of building a fan base that will take generations to have significant impact, but once the work is done it'll pay dividends.

I agree with that and think it would be worthwhile in the long term. Where we disagree is on how to get there. You want new clubs for these regions. I reckon it would be better to provide a financial incentive to a couple of clubs to adopt these areas, similar to what Swans did in Sydney. I am not convinced a full time presence in these cities will work just yet, which is why I think the safe option of having Wests become the Western Tigers and taking six games to Perth, while still being based in Sydney, is the most feasible way of getting Perth onside. Souths could do something similar with Adelaide.

The Brisbane Bears were a new franchise and they failed miserably until they merged with Fitzroy.

I
Here's the thing though, putting more teams in Brisbane and to a lesser extent NZ (though NZ is more complex), won't be a magical fix either.
In fact the whole point of a second Brisbane team isn't to build a new fan base for the sport, it's to try and get people that are already fans more engaged with the NRL as a product, and to get that market to watch two games a week in large numbers instead of one. In other words it's all about a potential get rich quick scheme (most of the benefits of which will go to the broadcasters and not the sport mind you), and not actually about growing the sport in any significant way.

Brisbane is more complex than that. There are plenty of BRL fans still angry about the loss of their league. Even people who weren't old enough to witness life pre-1988 are upset about it. We grew up watching the remnants of the BRL, played juniors at these clubs and learnt about the history of the competiton and are pissed off that we never got to witness it during its glory years. Some of these people support Melbourne Storm as an FU to the Broncos.

I've shown you the TV ratings. In Brisbane people tune in for the Broncos (173k), Cowboys, Titans (157k), Storm (150k) and everyone else 107k. New teams in Brisbane will be a ratings winner for Ch 9.

It's also not as sure a bet as you, and many others, like to make out. One f**k up and you could end up with a redheaded stepchild of a club that totally fails to capture the imaginations of the people of Brisbane and ends up sucking up resources for generations just like many other expansion clubs would.

If the NRL follow your advice then it will fail. You and Perth Red don't want Brisbane 2. You want Broncos 2, which will just make the people who will support Brisbane 2 angrier as you're not giving us what we want.

Melbourne Storm sucked up $101,500,000 between 1998 and 2018.

Also you don't have a clue what Fox or Nine want, or why they may want it, so stop pretending that you do, and who f**king cares what Colin Smith thinks.
The guy only cares about what he thinks will increase the value of the next TV rights deals, he never thinks about the long term impacts, the impacts of TV being a dying medium, or even what the deal after that should look like, it's all about maximising income as much as possible in the short term.

Everyone on here knows what Ch9 and Foxtel want because it's been reported in the bloody paper ad nauseum!

Here's one example, from David Gyngel, when he ran Ch 9.

“I am 100 per cent in favour of a second team in Brisbane,” Gyngell said.

“I support any moves the NRL makes on this because we have been pushing for it now for several years. It does nobody any favours only having the Broncos in Brisbane.

“Our return is 100 cents in the dollar with the Broncos and only 40 cents elsewhere. The Broncos would not have missed the eight this season if they’d had another team there.

“They need to compete and not be so complacent. We believe the market in Brisbane is more than ready for another team. My belief it that this is inevitable in the next few years.”​

https://www.brisbanebombers.com.au/channel-nine-boss-wants-another-team-in-brisbane/

Are you going to accuse David Gyngell of not knowing what he's talking about?

Colin Smith is an expert. You're not. No one cares about your pie in the sky plan, especially when all you do is insult anyone who doesn't agree with it. The only reason you don't like Colin Smith is because he's an expert who disagrees with your plan.

 

[reanimate]

Here's a classic example- With the help of the ACT gov they went around giving schools in the ACT free sets of new posts, here's the thing though a lot of schools in the ACT don't have ovals, so they just put them up on the rectangular fields.

I don't know for certain why they would do that, but I reckon they did it just because every time people see those posts they think about Aussie Rules and the AFL instead of the rectangular sports. . .

Because they were kind of useless on rectangular fields, and it was pretty silly, most of the schools that got them ended up replacing them pretty quickly, but there's still a school just around the corner from me that still has them up, and I'd bet there're still places across the ACT where it's the same.

There used to be some smart kids that would tie their jumpers together then tie them across the posts to make a cross bar as well, which I thought was pretty smart, and funny, but I have't seen the polyester crossbars for a while, but then again I can't remember the last time I walked past there and saw the kids using white balls, or running with the ball instead of bouncing it either... Let's put it this way 10-20 years from now all the rectangular sports are going to be hurting really bad if things don't change soon.

They've done similar things here in Sydney. As an example, the AFL paid for a brand new synthetic all-weather oval to be installed at Narrabeen Sports High complete with AFL posts. At the time, basically nobody played AFL in the local area and definitely not at Narrabeen Sports High, where the culture is (or at least was) highly intertwined with Rugby League and surfing. Just over the road is Lake Park where the Narrabeen Sharks RL club have solid numbers in all grades.

In the early days of the oval, it wasn't used for AFL whatsoever. The school put soccer goals in front of the AFL posts and used it purely for soccer, but the victory was something of a cultural/political one for the AFL- it was shoving their ability to get things done in the face of the local League and Union bodies and put the AFL in peoples' minds as they drove past the school (it's on the main road of the Northern Beaches). Eventually, they found a way for the oval to get used for actual AFL games- combined district AFL games would get played there, so the AFL games were still a rarity, but it was a way for them to show off AFL being played right across the road from a strong local League team and in an area where it had historically been looked down upon.

Most people don't give a second thought to any of that history, they'll drive past the oval, see it being used for AFL and think to themselves 'Wow, I guess AFL is on the up in the area'. It's basically a trick to make AFL seem more popular than it is, but it works. The AFL has also paid for posts to be installed on other visible ovals where people drive past a lot. They play the long game and they do it extremely well.

 

[greenBV4]

I didn't play it, but the Swans did visit my school and put on some AFL clinic in the 90s. You're right about the AFL coming to you, they're really good at constantly approaching schools with offers for programs and equipment and developing relationships with staff and school bodies.

We were given the option to kick a footy outside instead of being in class, so of course many jumped at the chance

AFL made itself more accessible than RL right in the middle of RL heartland. It didnt really convert anyone per se but it got kids picking up a sherrin and learning the rules, there was never similar clinics available for league, or union for that matter

and if thats the case up there I can imagine what it would be like in Victorian schools where the NRL doesn't give 2 hoots about development, its amazing anyone plays it at all

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The original WAFA clubs were Rugby Union clubs established in the 1870s and didn't switch codes until the 1890s. "mid-19th century", you talk a whole lot of shit in this regard.

My bad. I was thinking about Victoria and their 'codification' of fumbleball at the MCG to keep cricketers fit during the winter when I made the comment. I cannot remember exactly when fumbleball made its way to Adelaide and Perth, but it was some time during the 19th century and, at least 50 years before they were introduced to RL.

Wikipedia says it was the 1880s.

Organised football in the Perth/Fremantle region of Western Australia dates back to 1881. Back then though rugby union was the dominant football code. Only one senior club, "Unions", played Australian Rules.

In 1883 a second club, "Swans", emerged, but Australian Rules' growth remained much subdued compared to that of Victoria and South Australia.

However, in those days many young men of Perth's wealthier families were educated in Adelaide, the capital of South Australia.

On returning home from there they naturally wished to play the sport they'd grown up with and no doubt exerted some influence on their less affluent peers as to such. Coincidentally, the press at the time reported there was a growing dissatisfaction with rugby as a spectacle.

During the 1880s, the discoveries of gold, firstly in the Kimberley, Pilbara and Murchison regions, led to a dramatic increase in WA's population, including many players and supporters of Australian Rules from the eastern colonies.

In 1885 one of the leading rugby clubs, Fremantle, decided to change to Australian Rules. It was quickly joined by three other clubs - Rovers, Victorians, and a team of schoolboys from The High School. The schoolboy side lasted just two matches, but the three other sides went on to contest what in retrospect was viewed as the first ever official Western Australian Football Association (WAFA) premiership, won by Rovers. And virtually overnight Australian rules football became the dominant code for the spectator as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football_in_Western_Australia​

 

[The Great Dane]

You're the only person I've ever heard say RU was on equal footing with RL in Queensland and NSW until WWII. Every historian I've consulted has stated what I said.

I never said they were on equal footing and don't pretend you've ever "consulted" a historian.

You created a silly hypothetical about some one ridiculing RL in Queensland during the 1910s, then tried to compare it with my comments about Victoria. RL didn't become a 13 man game until 1906, so when you referred to 'new game' you were referring to RL and insinuating that no one in that state had seen it before. You cannot compare a new game that had never been seen here before 1908 to modern day Victoria. Origins were taken to Melbourne in what, 1991, 1994, 1995 and 1997. The Storm have been around since 1998. Great Britain played a Test against Australia in Melbourne in the early 1990s. The game has been played there for at least 40 or 50 years. It was a really dumb example.

I never ridiculed RL in Queensland, and RL was a new game to the mainstream Victorian culture when the Storm showed up, to suggest otherwise is either very ill informed or unbelievably dishonest.

Baseball's decline has more to do with it being a drawn out game that's outdated in today's fast paced world. People just don't have the time to watch something so tedious when there are so many other forms of entertainment available. The same thing is happening with cricket, as can be witnessed by the decline of Tests and First Class attendances.

Please stop talking about things you don't know a f**king thing about, honestly it just wastes everybodies time.

The average length of an MLB game in 2019 was 3 hours, 5 minutes, and 35 seconds, and that was a record length for the league.

Meanwhile in NFL land the average match takes 3 hours and 12 minutes, and NBA games normally take between 2.5 to 3 hours. Those are just the average lengths as well, I've dead set seen football games that have lasted the better part of a day (i.e. 4 or 5 hours).

All American sports are notorious for dragging on forever, and they don't seem to mind that at all. The thing that really did Baseball in was they got comfortable on top and the NFL (and AFL and other minor leagues) aggressively marketed their competitions as brutal and entertaining sports with constant action where anything could happen at any moment, and pretty quickly over the course of a couple of generations kids whose parents had idolised Babe Ruth were growing up adoring blokes like Jim Brown instead.

I don't think AwFuL has been as successful in Sydney as you make out. Most of the people who follow the Swans would be expats and people who never liked RL to begin with.

I think the facts that they are the largest and most profitable sports club in Sydney and that Aussie rules is the quickest growing football code in Sydney speak for themselves.

I also don't give a f**k what percentage of their fanbase are expats. Expats or not they are settled in Sydney now and they are contributing to a growing culture of Aussies Rules in Sydney.

Their TV ratings are still abysmal and their fanbase is largely made up of expats. Same as the Lions in Brisbane.

Abysmal, yet still on a steady upward trend...

I agree with that and think it would be worthwhile in the long term. Where we disagree is on how to get there. You want new clubs for these regions. I reckon it would be better to provide a financial incentive to a couple of clubs to adopt these areas, similar to what Swans did in Sydney. I am not convinced a full time presence in these cities will work just yet, which is why I think the safe option of having Wests become the Western Tigers and taking six games to Perth, while still being based in Sydney, is the most feasible way of getting Perth onside. Souths could do something similar with Adelaide.

Having a team that tries to represent two disparate markets is commercial suicide for a club, all you achieve is pissing off all of your potential customers.

Now there's an argument for relocation, if done right it can be very successful, but good luck getting any of the Sydney clubs to willingly relocate and the NRL doesn't have the balls to force it.

That leaves you with only one realistic option; expansion.

Brisbane is more complex than that. There are plenty of BRL fans still angry about the loss of their league. Even people who weren't old enough to witness life pre-1988 are upset about it. We grew up watching the remnants of the BRL, played juniors at these clubs and learnt about the history of the competiton and are pissed off that we never got to witness it during its glory years. Some of these people support Melbourne Storm as an FU to the Broncos.

BRL fans are a small and rapidly shrinking minority that it'd be impossible to unify. In other words they are a bad target audience that people only bring up all the time because of nostalgia and romanticisation.

Trying to recreate the past is a fools earned as it'll never truly be the same again, and it can't exist with the present, but even if you could you'd be recreating all the problems we have in Sydney in Brisbane which isn't sustainable or good for the sport in Brisbane or as a whole.

I've shown you the TV ratings. In Brisbane people tune in for the Broncos (173k), Cowboys, Titans (157k), Storm (150k) and everyone else 107k. New teams in Brisbane will be a ratings winner for Ch 9.

Only worrying about the TV ratings in one city is such a simplistic and one dimensional way of looking at things that it's insane. . . Honestly I just can't be bothered with that kind of stupid.

It's also built on an assumption that they will keep watching games in those numbers no matter how many new teams you add, which is a bad assumption. Balkanisation of the fan base would be inevitable as you add more and more teams, and that balkanisation would inevitably effect everything, even TV ratings.

If the NRL follow your advice then it will fail. You and Perth Red don't want Brisbane 2. You want Broncos 2, which will just make the people who will support Brisbane 2 angrier as you're not giving us what we want.

You don't know what I want, so don't pretend that you do.

If you'd like to know I'll tell you.

Everyone on here knows what Ch9 and Foxtel want because it's been reported in the bloody paper ad nauseum!

Here's one example, from David Gyngel, when he ran Ch 9.

“I am 100 per cent in favour of a second team in Brisbane,” Gyngell said.

“I support any moves the NRL makes on this because we have been pushing for it now for several years. It does nobody any favours only having the Broncos in Brisbane.

“Our return is 100 cents in the dollar with the Broncos and only 40 cents elsewhere. The Broncos would not have missed the eight this season if they’d had another team there.

“They need to compete and not be so complacent. We believe the market in Brisbane is more than ready for another team. My belief it that this is inevitable in the next few years.”​

https://www.brisbanebombers.com.au/channel-nine-boss-wants-another-team-in-brisbane/

Are you going to accuse David Gyngell of not knowing what he's talking about?

David Gyngell isn't at Nine anymore and the broadcasting industry has changed immensely since he left. What he wanted then, and why he wanted it, are certainly completely different from what Nine is thinking today and why they think it.

Also him saying he wants another Brisbane team 8 years ago, doesn't mean that he, or Nine, are against other expansion, or that they would support ridiculous ideas like having 5+ clubs from Brisbane.

Colin Smith is an expert. You're not. No one cares about your pie in the sky plan, especially when all you do is insult anyone who doesn't agree with it. The only reason you don't like Colin Smith is because he's an expert who disagrees with your plan.

Colin Smith is an expert in broadcasting rights, not RL or the NRL, or even the Australian pro-sports industry more generally, just broadcasting rights, and what's best for the next broadcasting rights deal and what is best for the sport as a whole are two vastly different things!

 

[The Great Dane]

We were given the option to kick a footy outside instead of being in class, so of course many jumped at the chance

AFL made itself more accessible than RL right in the middle of RL heartland. It didnt really convert anyone per se but it got kids picking up a sherrin and learning the rules, there was never similar clinics available for league, or union for that matter

and if thats the case up there I can imagine what it would be like in Victorian schools where the NRL doesn't give 2 hoots about development, its amazing anyone plays it at all

You don't have to go to Victoria to see places where the NRL's apathetic to the local sport and the AFL is exploiting that.

Just look at the ACT, it's become a total after thought to the NRL at a grassroots level (most of country NSW has as well).

If a primary school is lucky in an average year they might get a visit from the Raiders, and that's it from RL.

In the same time they'll definitely be visited by GWS (or whichever team/s the AFL has bouncing around in Canberra at the time), they'll almost certainly participate in an Auskick program, there's a better than good chance that at least one of the away teams that play GWS will visit, and on top of that the school will have AFL reps offering to help them with free equipment and setting up Aussie Rules related programs at their school.

I remember back around 06, 07, 08, their was one year that all of my nieces and nephews of primary school age, whom were all spread across 4 or 5 different schools, were all visited by the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne Demons, and Sydney Swans, and all took part in an Auskick program.
In other words that year they were effectively visited by the AFL once a term in Canberra, not big markets like Sydney or Brisbane where they are really fighting for market share, but Canberra that's a bit of an after thought for them. That was over a decade ago as well, they've only stepped things up since GWS came around.

If they are putting those sorts of resources into Canberra (and surrounding regions) then imagine what they are sinking into places like Sydney and SEQ...

 

[Perth Red]

Hopefully the kids league stars program that Greenberg launched last year will start to address this, presuming it’s not part of Vlads cutbacks.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I never said they were on equal footing and don't pretend you've ever "consulted" a historian.

It's 'an historian'.

I never ridiculed RL in Queensland, and RL was a new game to the mainstream Victorian culture when the Storm showed up, to suggest otherwise is either very ill informed or unbelievably dishonest.

Enough big RL events had been played in Melbourne by 1998 for anyone who wasn't living under a rock the previous 10 years to know the game existed. Don't play stupid by claiming people wouldn't have known what it was. At least 4 Origins had been played in Melbourne until that point, so they would have seen snippets of it on TV at the very least.

Please stop talking about things you don't know a f**king thing about, honestly it just wastes everybodies time.

The average length of an MLB game in 2019 was 3 hours, 5 minutes, and 35 seconds, and that was a record length for the league.

Meanwhile in NFL land the average match takes 3 hours and 12 minutes, and NBA games normally take between 2.5 to 3 hours. Those are just the average lengths as well, I've dead set seen football games that have lasted the better part of a day (i.e. 4 or 5 hours).

All American sports are notorious for dragging on forever, and they don't seem to mind that at all. The thing that really did Baseball in was they got comfortable on top and the NFL (and AFL and other minor leagues) aggressively marketed their competitions as brutal and entertaining sports with constant action where anything could happen at any moment, and pretty quickly over the course of a couple of generations kids whose parents had idolised Babe Ruth were growing up adoring blokes like Jim Brown instead.

Baseball does drag on. Players stand around doing nothing most of the time. Not enough hits are made nor runs scored. Americans like scoring. One of the complaints Americans make about soccer is the lack of scoring. You even made my point for me when you said the other sports advertised themselves as being faster paced, which they are! A sport doesn't have to be played over an entire day to drag on, and you know it. People in Australia regularly complain about RU games being boring because they drag it out with line outs, scrums and kicks to touch and at goal. People, especially younger people, don't have the time or patience to watch tedious shit when they can watch fast paced action that keeps them on their toes.

Having a team that tries to represent two disparate markets is commercial suicide for a club, all you achieve is pissing off all of your potential customers.

So you reckon tre NRL should do away with the Dragons?

They're supported better in Wollongong than the Steelers ever were.

Now there's an argument for relocation, if done right it can be very successful, but good luck getting any of the Sydney clubs to willingly relocate and the NRL doesn't have the balls to force it.

That leaves you with only one realistic option; expansion.

How can expansion be 'realistic' when the bloke who runs the game said there will be no new teams in AFL states?

No team is going to willingly relocate full time. You said so yourself. That leaves Perth and Adelaide with no other option but to be a home away from home for a Sydney club looking to make some extra revenue. You can whinge and carry on like a two year old brat all you like whenever I bring up this cold hard reality, but it won't change the fact this ARLC administration, nor any of the ones prior to it, are remotely interested in adding new teams to Adelaide and Perth. The sooner you accept this the better.

BRL fans are a small and rapidly shrinking minority that it'd be impossible to unify. In other words they are a bad target audience that people only bring up all the time because of nostalgia and romanticisation.

Trying to recreate the past is a fools earned as it'll never truly be the same again, and it can't exist with the present, but even if you could you'd be recreating all the problems we have in Sydney in Brisbane which isn't sustainable or good for the sport in Brisbane or as a whole.

That's just your opinion. You're entitled to it. I won't get all pissy like you do when some one dares to disagree with you.

Only worrying about the TV ratings in one city is such a simplistic and one dimensional way of looking at things that it's insane. . . Honestly I just can't be bothered with that kind of stupid.

Back to insults, hey?

The reason I focus on the ratings for Brisbane is because Queenslanders have demonstrated that they prefer to watch Queensland teams. Sydney is less bothered about where the teams are from. The networks are well aware of this trend. It concerns them because the lower ratings in Brisbane when no Queensland team is playing costs them money. If you don't understand the importance of that then maybe you're the one that's insane and stupid.

It's also built on an assumption that they will keep watching games in those numbers no matter how many new teams you add, which is a bad assumption. Balkanisation of the fan base would be inevitable as you add more and more teams, and that balkanisation would inevitably effect everything, even TV ratings.

This is just speculation on your behalf and there's nothing to back it up.

The evidence points to Queenslanders wanting to watch Queedsland teams. The networks know this and have admitted as much.

You don't know what I want, so don't pretend that you do.

If you'd like to know I'll tell you.

Everyone knows what you want because you're very vocal. You reveal more than you realise in your long-winded diatribes.

David Gyngell isn't at Nine anymore and the broadcasting industry has changed immensely since he left. What he wanted then, and why he wanted it, are certainly completely different from what Nine is thinking today and why they think it.

You're just waffling and deflecting now because you know you're wrong but are too stubbtorn and shrill to admit it.

Just shut up and admit you're wrong. You argue for the sake of arguing. It is boring.

Also him saying he wants another Brisbane team 8 years ago, doesn't mean that he, or Nine, are against other expansion, or that they would support ridiculous ideas like having 5+ clubs from Brisbane.

No one suggested Brisbane have 5+ teams. I said Brisbane should have a total of 3 or 4 teams. You called this ludicrous and said Adelaide, Perth and NZ 2 are more valuable than Brisbane 3.

Pippen94 then tore you a new arsehole by quoting a news article showing an expert, Colin Smith, explaining why the NRL needed Brisbane 2, NZ2, Brisbane 3, Melbourne 2 and possibly PNG. The same bloke also said they should forget about Perth. All of that must have pissed you off to no end, as he's an expert who knows his stuff and you're just an internet troll with no credibility.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/v-...le-for-broadcast-dollars-20190915-p52rgu.html

If you truly think Nine is ever going to support your idea to put teams in Adelaide and Perth then you're stark raving mad.

Gyngell explained in simple English why another team in Brisbane is important. They get a return of 100 cents on the dollar when Broncos are on, 40 cents for everyone else. If you still don't get it, that means the Broncos are the only team not costing them money. Ch 9 is a business and will not make money from putting teams in Adelaide and Perth. Any reasonable person would accept that it's not in Ch9's best interests to put a team in Adelaide or Perth. If by some miracle they do get a team in Adelaide and Perth, Ch9 would air any match involving those teams into those markets on 9Gem. So yeah, I am willing to say Ch9 aren't pushing for a team in Adelaide and Perth. The fact you keep trying to argue that they might is pitiful and shows you take this shit way too seriously.

Colin Smith is an expert in broadcasting rights, not RL or the NRL, or even the Australian pro-sports industry more generally, just broadcasting rights, and what's best for the next broadcasting rights deal and what is best for the sport as a whole are two vastly different things!

The sport gets most of its money from broadcast deals. Players and clubs want money. They will go with whatever plan gets them the most money. They're not interested in taking a cut for 30 years to build the game in Adelaide and Perth.

What are you an expert in and why should anyone listen to you?

Serious question. You like to belittle other people and act as if your shit doesn't stink, so tell us why THE ARLC should do what you say?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I'll quote Colin Smith, via Roy Masters' article, just so The Great Dane can enjoy being wrong about everything. I'll highlight everything he's been wrong about.

"I anticipate the NRL will get less broadcast income in the next deal unless they can develop some competitive tension or offer a more attractive product such as a second Brisbane team. Queenslanders watch the Broncos No.1, followed by the Cowboys, the Storm and the Titans.

"The NRL future strategy must be predicated on growing and strengthening its footprint. He says this should entail the consideration of:

Retention of all existing clubs but, with clubs guaranteed annual grants of 130 per cent of the salary cap, "bailouts" must become only a last resort;
No relocations of existing teams;
Any new team must have the essence of tribal roots either by region or historic grouping;
Any regional expansion must not have any other professional sport clubs in their potential area
Immediate expansion to include another Brisbane team;
Longer term expansion of the NRL to 20 teams with two divisions of 10 teams;
Likely expansion, subject to a detailed review, must ensure growth in broadcast and club viability. The priority, in order, would be another team in NZ, a third team in Brisbane, another team in Melbourne and potentially a team in PNG;
An expansion of the international game, capitalising on the passion NRL players have to represent their country of heritage, such as Tonga, Fiji or Samoa.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/v-...le-for-broadcast-dollars-20190915-p52rgu.html

 

[mongoose]

Smith also says

"With the real and present cautionary future of the AFL that has solidified its base in Sydney with the Swans, its overall financial muscle and long-term thinking building a similar position for western Sydney, Gold Coast and Brisbane, the AFL by 2035-40 could be the national football code.

"This will push the NRL into a second-rung sport. It is a must for the NRL to have a comprehensive strategy that further strengthens and grows the sport on the eastern seaboard."

then goes on to say the NRL needs to create "Competitive tension" (what does that mean?) OR offer a more attractive product. So the AFL has turned itself in a national code with expansion into Sydney and QLD which to him is a good thing but the NRL shouldn't bother trying to do the same?

I am not sure what this guy is basing any of his suggestions on, they seem like ill-thought out throwaway comments to me...

 

[T-Boon]

if they had to renew the broncos would rank about 4th best new brisbane team

 

[greenBV4]

then goes on to say the NRL needs to create "Competitive tension" (what does that mean?) OR offer a more attractive product. So the AFL has turned itself in a national code with expansion into Sydney and QLD which to him is a good thing but the NRL shouldn't bother trying to do the same?

I am not sure what this guy is basing any of his suggestions on, they seem like ill-thought out throwaway comments to me...

who the f**k even is Colin Smith and what does he have to do with Rugby League? for all we know and based of his contradictory quotes above he could be an AFL sympathiser. If Nein have shown anything this year it's that their number 1 goal for the NRL is to retain it for chips and and thus do everything it can to bring it's value down. Broadcasters at the moment are the last people I would be listening to in regards to expansion.

The AFL doesn't ask its broadcaster, it creates the game and then sells it, no choice.

Likely expansion, subject to a detailed review, must ensure growth in broadcast and club viability. The priority, in order, would be another team in NZ, a third team in Brisbane, another team in Melbourne and potentially a team in PNG;

Considering your love affair of Colin Smith and your unhealthy addiction to to debating the viablity of the Storm I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

 

[Perth Red]

He thinks Melbourne2 and Png are better options than Perth and Adelaide lol. His credibility is shot at that point.

If Brisbane2 is so valuable to Ch9 why havent they pushed for their inclusion in either of the last two TV deals? especially the last one where they upped their contract value significantly. Surely if they were a must have they would have wanted them including befoe now. Peple often quote Gygnell as saying they are worth X$ to the NRL yet when he was in charge of Ch9 he did nothing about getting them included so obviously didnt see them as being that valuable to his station at the time.

The real value is in a ninth game to sell the extra content. Another Brisbane club brings hardly any new viewers in the grand scheme of it on their own (less than 3% increase on FTA viewing figures IF they put them on FTA EVERY week and IF they are as popular as the Broncos)

Out of interest what do people think is the growth potential in Sydney and Brisbane for the game? Will we see it get much bigger in terms of players and fans and tv audiences in those cities or are we close to saturation now?

 

[The Great Dane]

How can expansion be 'realistic' when the bloke who runs the game said there will be no new teams in AFL states?

Saying no new teams in AFL states doesn't necessarily mean he'll never put new teams in AFL states, just that he won't anytime soon. Besides, he won't be around forever and doesn't necessarily represent the thinking of the ARLC as a whole.

This is a consistent problem with you isn't it, you read something then claim it says or implies something that it doesn't. Just read the words that are there, don't try to twist them into what you want them to say.

Back to insults, hey?

The reason I focus on the ratings for Brisbane is because Queenslanders have demonstrated that they prefer to watch Queensland teams. Sydney is less bothered about where the teams are from. The networks are well aware of this trend. It concerns them because the lower ratings in Brisbane when no Queensland team is playing costs them money. If you don't understand the importance of that then maybe you're the one that's insane and stupid.

What words other than unbelievably f**king stupid is there for choosing to focus exclusively on one data point and ignore all the rest?
Seriously picking one data point at the expense of all other is like trying to appreciate a picture by looking exclusively at one pixel, it's a really, really, stupid mistake.

For example, have you ever stopped to think about the impact on ratings everywhere else that adding more Brisbane clubs will have?
What about the effects it'll have of other clubs fan bases and bottom lines?
How will interest in the sport outside of Brisbane be effected by playing suburban Brisbane clubs all the time?

Do you even care about the impacts outside of Brisbane?

The evidence points to Queenslanders wanting to watch Queedsland teams. The networks know this and have admitted as much.

Queensland isn't as important as the national market, what does the national market want to watch?

Everyone knows what you want because you're very vocal. You reveal more than you realise in your long-winded diatribes.

I honestly can't remember the last time I actually spoke about what I "want", it has to have been over a year now. But don't let me stop you oh wise one, tell me what I think!?

By the way your lack of self awareness is adorable in that kinda repugnant way... In 3 months you have racked up almost 800 post, it's taken me 8 years to get to 4k. In other words, over the same period of time you have been, way, way more vocal than I have, and you are just as long winded as I am.

You're just waffling and deflecting now because you know you're wrong but are too stubbtorn and shrill to admit it.

Just shut up and admit you're wrong. You argue for the sake of arguing. It is boring.

Except I'm not wrong, you are just massively full of shit and the most intellectually dishonest person I've met in a long time.

You said you know what Nine wants and that you know that they "couldn't be bothered with Perth or Adelaide" then you present David Gyngell quote from 2013 as evidence.

But David Gyngell doesn't represent Nine, and hasn't for a long time, he doesn't address Perth or Adelaide at all, and he made those remarks before streaming services had really taken off in Australia, in other words he made them before the TV industry was fundamentally changing because of a new competitor that is killing them.

So like always the quotes you source don't say what you claim they do or represent what you say that they represent, until now I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt of having bad comprehension, but really you're just lying to try and support your argument aren't you.

Honestly what would you say if I said I have proof that the NRL is interested in a Perth club then presented quotes from 2013 of David Smith saying that WA is ticking all the boxes, you'd think that was pretty silly and dishonest right, well that is exactly what you are doing with your Gyngell quotes, and pretty much all the other quotes you present.

No one suggested Brisbane have 5+ teams. I said Brisbane should have a total of 3 or 4 teams. You called this ludicrous and said Adelaide, Perth and NZ 2 are more valuable than Brisbane 3.

Oh you gonna play that stupid semantics game where you pretend you don't understand that metropolis and city are synonyms again.

Mate be real, you reckon "Brisbane" should have 4 teams, and that Ipswich, Logan, Morton Bay, etc, should all have one as well...

Pippen94 then tore you a new arsehole by quoting a news article showing an expert, Colin Smith, explaining why the NRL needed Brisbane 2, NZ2, Brisbane 3, Melbourne 2 and possibly PNG. The same bloke also said they should forget about Perth. All of that must have pissed you off to no end, as he's an expert who knows his stuff and you're just an internet troll with no credibility.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/v-...le-for-broadcast-dollars-20190915-p52rgu.html

Again your "expert" may be an expert, but he isn't an expert in the NRL or RL or what is best for them, he's only an expert in maximising the value of broadcasting rights contracts in a dying medium.

His opinion on expansion is about as informed, or valuable, as any other average Joe's.

The fact that he is bringing up PNG should be enough to show anyone with a brain that he is just talking out his arse.

BTW, Pippen94 literally was just a troll from Bigfooty, and he sucked you in hook, line and sinker!

If you truly think Nine is ever going to support your idea to put teams in Adelaide and Perth then you're stark raving mad.

I don't know what Nine thinks, nor do I really care either as they are the biggest bane on the sport's existence. The quicker we are rid of them the better.

I do however know that every sport that has gone national has seen massive undeniable benefits from it, and that I care a f**k ton more about what's best for the NRL and RL in general than I do about what is best for Nine.

Gyngell explained in simple English why another team in Brisbane is important. They get a return of 100 cents on the dollar when Broncos are on, 40 cents for everyone else. If you still don't get it, that means the Broncos are the only team not costing them money. Ch 9 is a business and will not make money from putting teams in Adelaide and Perth. Any reasonable person would accept that it's not in Ch9's best interests to put a team in Adelaide or Perth. If by some miracle they do get a team in Adelaide and Perth, Ch9 would air any match involving those teams into those markets on 9Gem. So yeah, I am willing to say Ch9 aren't pushing for a team in Adelaide and Perth. The fact you keep trying to argue that they might is pitiful and shows you take this shit way too seriously.

Why do you care about what is in Nine's best interest?

Nine's interests and the NRL's interests aren't, and never have been, the same thing!

The sport gets most of its money from broadcast deals. Players and clubs want money. They will go with whatever plan gets them the most money. They're not interested in taking a cut for 30 years to build the game in Adelaide and Perth.

The biggest problem throughout RL's recent history (late 70s to now) has been it's over reliance on it's income from broadcasting.

Making it even more reliant on broadcasting isn't a good idea at the best of times, but it's an especially bad idea when TV is a fast dying medium.

What are you an expert in and why should anyone listen to you?

I don't really think it's any of your business, and I wouldn't say I'm an expert in anything, but I worked in corporate marketing at a relatively high level.

Serious question. You like to belittle other people and act as if your shit doesn't stink, so tell us why THE ARLC should do what you say?

They shouldn't do what I say, I don't have all the information necessary to make a truly informed decision.

However there are things that they definitely shouldn't do, and ignoring their national reach and splitting their customer base into smaller and smaller pieces are two things they definitely shouldn't do.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Saying no new teams in AFL states doesn't necessarily mean he'll never put new teams in AFL states, just that he won't anytime soon. Besides, he won't be around forever and doesn't necessarily represent the thinking of the ARLC as a whole.

You are delusional to the point of needing professional help.
PVL detailed why there will be no expansion into "rusted on AFL States". The reasons he gave aren't going to change any time soon within the next 100 years, are they?

You would have to be incredibly stupid to listen to PVL's comments and interpret them to mean he might put teams in Adelaide and Perth in a few years. No one else in the entire media came to your moronic conclusion. Just you.

This is a consistent problem with you isn't it, you read something then claim it says or implies something that it doesn't. Just read the words that are there, don't try to twist them into what you want them to say.

You just described yourself!

The sad thing is you're too narrow-minded and conceited to realise it. This obsession you have with Adelaide and Perth has sent you over the edge, to the point you hear PVL say "we will only go where the market is strong (Brisbane) and avoid rusted on AFL states" and "I like the idea of a bye, so no 18th team" and interpret it to mean Perth's a chance!

Get it through your skull, if there is expansion there will be just one team.

Are you so stupid you think the 16 clubs will ever say yes to expanding the game into Adelaide and Perth?

The articles I've shown you stated the clubs will only green light expansion if they benefit from it financially.

Teams in Adelaide and Perth will cost money!

That's why I speak against Adelaide and Perth. Not because I am against promoting the game, but because, as great as it would be to have teams there, at the end of the day there are too many forces conspiring against them that will prevent it from seeing the light of day. Instead of wasting my time pushing for something that will never happen, which is what you do, I focus on alternative ideas that might see the light of day. Your inability to understand this is mindboggling. Ideology is great, but at some stage you have to accept reality.

What words other than unbelievably f**king stupid is there for choosing to focus exclusively on one data point and ignore all the rest?
Seriously picking one data point at the expense of all other is like trying to appreciate a picture by looking exclusively at one pixel, it's a really, really, stupid mistake.

That's not what I've done and you know it. Stop with the lies.

I've weighed up all the data, as have the experts, and come to the LOGICAL AND SANE conclusion that the only way to get better ratings overall is to have more teams in Brisbane. The data shows the most watched teams in the country are Broncos, Storm and Cowboys. You either ignore this data or are too stupid to understand it, but the big suits at the NRL, Ch9 and Foxtel are aware of it.

For example, have you ever stopped to think about the impact on ratings everywhere else that adding more Brisbane clubs will have?
What about the effects it'll have of other clubs fan bases and bottom lines?
How will interest in the sport outside of Brisbane be effected by playing suburban Brisbane clubs all the time?

You have zero evidence that the overall ratings will tank or other clubs will be hurt by it. For all we know it could make the 3 current QLD teams stronger. Cowboys will bentfit from having 3 games in Brisbane and less travel. Ditto Titans. Broncos will definitely benefit from the local derbies.

I remember you were once stupid enough to claim that fans from the Broncos, Cowboys and Titans don't watch each others' games. The ratings prove that they do. You don't have a clue.

Do you even care about the impacts outside of Brisbane?

Prove that the impacts outside of Brisbane will be negative or STFU. Your baseless assertions are not facts.

Queensland isn't as important as the national market, what does the national market want to watch?

Queensland and NSW ARE the national market, and there's an overall increase in viewers across the country when the Broncos are playing. The loss of viewers in Brisbane when two Non-Queensland teams are playing is greater than the loss in Sydney when no Sydney team is playing.

The ratings from the other states are terrible. When the Storm aren't playing, RL games draw as low as 4k viewers in Melbourne on 9Gem. The networks are well aware of this. When Storm play they only average 35k on 9Gem in Melbourne.

Regional NSW and regional Queensland are BIGGER than all of WA and SA combined.

Except I'm not wrong, you are just massively full of shit and the most intellectually dishonest person I've met in a long time.

Once again you've described yourself and I will prove it when I respond to your lies about Gyngell, but first, let's highlight the crap you said.

You said you know what Nine wants and that you know that they "couldn't be bothered with Perth or Adelaide" then you present David Gyngell quote from 2013 as evidence.

But David Gyngell doesn't represent Nine, and hasn't for a long time, he doesn't address Perth or Adelaide at all, and he made those remarks before streaming services had really taken off in Australia, in other words he made them before the TV industry was fundamentally changing because of a new competitor that is killing them.

Are you this dumb?

Gyngell said "we", as in Ch 9, have wanted a second Brisbane team for many years, before he made that statement!

So stop pretending that Gyngell was the only person at the network who held that view.

Live sport is probably more important to FTA today than ever with all the streaming services competing against it for drama. It's the one thing they cannot afford to lose.

So like always the quotes you source don't say what you claim they do or represent what you say that they represent, until now I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt of having bad comprehension, but really you're just lying to try and support your argument aren't you.

Do you think everyone is too stupid to see through your manipulation?

You gaslight, lie and twist things around when you don't have an argument because you're too immature to admit you're wrong. Grow TF up!

Oh you gonna play that stupid semantics game where you pretend you don't understand that metropolis and city are synonyms again.

Mate be real, you reckon "Brisbane" should have 4 teams, and that Ipswich, Logan, Morton Bay, etc, should all have one as well...

Now I know you belong in the nut house. I have NEVER said that the City of Brisbane should have 4 teams with the other cities from the metropolitan area having 3 teams of their own. You came to that conclusion all on your own because you are stark raving mad. What I have said is there are plenty of options for the NRL in Brisbane that would work, but from day one I have said the total number of teams for the metro area should be 3 or 4 over the next 30 to 40 years. So add 2 or 3. When people discussed areas like Redcliffe I said it would be a good idea as it covers Moreton Bay and could serve Sunshine Coast. I would like Easts and Wynnum to merge and take in the eastern suburbs of City of Brisbane, City of Redland and City of Logan. I would like Norths, Wests and Souths to merge and create Brisbane Devils, wearing red and black. I know those mergers will never happen, I just think it would be good if they did.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Again your "expert" may be an expert, but he isn't an expert in the NRL or RL or what is best for them, he's only an expert in maximising the value of broadcasting rights contracts in a dying medium.

His opinion on expansion is about as informed, or valuable, as any other average Joe's.

The fact that he is bringing up PNG should be enough to show anyone with a brain that he is just talking out his arse.

Goddamn you are insufferable!

Your assertions and delusions are not facts.

I don't know what Nine thinks, nor do I really care either as they are the biggest bane on the sport's existence. The quicker we are rid of them the better.

Gyngell told you what Nine want. Don't pretend he was just talking for himself, as he said "we" and maintained it's a position they've held for years. So knock off your lies. The reasons he gave for Ch9 wanting a second team still exist, so their position would not have changed. You're just clutching at straws because you're crazy.


You'd have to be mad to think Nine would go to bat for a Perth or Adelaide based team. Neither side would rate on the main channel in their home market, so they would be relegated to 9Gem and be useless to Nine.

On what planet would Nine want that?

I do however know that every sport that has gone national has seen massive undeniable benefits from it, and that I care a f**k ton more about what's best for the NRL and RL in general than I do about what is best for Nine.

Why do you care about what is in Nine's best interest?

Nine's interests and the NRL's interests aren't, and never have been, the same thing!

The biggest problem throughout RL's recent history (late 70s to now) has been it's over reliance on it's income from broadcasting.

Making it even more reliant on broadcasting isn't a good idea at the best of times, but it's an especially bad idea when TV is a fast dying medium.

FTA will not die any time soon.

I don't care about Nine. My sole concern is seeing the game grow. Your stupid pie in the sky dream of having brand new teams in Adelaide and Perth will never be approved by an ARLC that is beholden to 16 NRL clubs that want more money for themselves. No team will voluntarily relocate full time like you want. So that leaves partial relocation as the only feasible way of representing these cities so kids can see RL live. It pduld be stupid to weaken Sydney when AwFuL is building its profile there, which is what you want to do.

I'm putting you back on ignore. This time for good. You're too toxic.

 

[reanimate]

PVL detailed why there will be no expansion into "rusted on AFL States". The reasons he gave aren't going to change any time soon within the next 100 years, are they?

You could come up with the same reasons for the AFL not bothering with northern expansion, yet they still went ahead with it and they're making it work.

Queensland and NSW ARE the national market, and there's an overall increase in viewers across the country when the Broncos are playing. The loss of viewers in Brisbane when two Non-Queensland teams are playing is greater than the loss in Sydney when no Sydney team is playing.

They're not the national market, that's the problem. They're both very big, very important markets, so I don't disagree with you that there needs to be at least one more team in Brisbane, but not adding teams to WA and SA is a mistake.

Say a big blue chip company from overseas wants to sponsor a sports league or team in Australia for country-wide exposure, what competition will they go for- the one with teams in every major state of Australia, or the one with teams only on the Eastern Seaboard? If they want their brand to be seen in every state, they're going to go for the AFL. Now the NRL can outflank the AFL here, if the NRL adds a team from SA, WA and a team in Wellington, that's all major Australian markets and a good chunk of New Zealand- that's pretty irresistible to a potential sponsor.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You could come up with the same reasons for the AFL not bothering with northern expansion, yet they still went ahead with it and they're making it work.

They're not the national market, that's the problem. They're both very big, very important markets, so I don't disagree with you that there needs to be at least one more team in Brisbane, but not adding teams to WA and SA is a mistake.

Say a big blue chip company from overseas wants to sponsor a sports league or team in Australia for country-wide exposure, what competition will they go for- the one with teams in every major state of Australia, or the one with teams only on the Eastern Seaboard? If they want their brand to be seen in every state, they're going to go for the AFL. Now the NRL can outflank the AFL here, if the NRL adds a team from SA, WA and a team in Wellington, that's all major Australian markets and a good chunk of New Zealand- that's pretty irresistible to a potential sponsor.

I don't disagree with your points about Perth and Adelaide adding credibility to the game's commercial profile. You make a lot of sense. I just cannot see the ARLC agreeing to it under its structure.

Doesn't the ARLC provide the NRL clubs, QRL and NSWRL with a lot of say over these matters?

In the eyes of the clubs and two main state bodies, any licence granter to a team from Perth or Adelaide takes money and power away from them.

I think RU will use its position with the corporate end of town to persuade major companies to avoid our game.

We also need to maximise our revenue from broadcast deals to prevent our best players from veing poached by RU. Adding teams in Perth and Adelaide will be costly and will lower the price of our broadcast deal, driving down the salary cap.

 

[The Great Dane]

Jesus Christ, and he had the gall to call me long winded!

I've got better things to do with my life then read all that, and what's the point anyway as he refuses to actually engage in a dialectic.

 

[The Great Dane]

who the f**k even is Colin Smith and what does he have to do with Rugby League? for all we know and based of his contradictory quotes above he could be an AFL sympathiser. If Nein have shown anything this year it's that their number 1 goal for the NRL is to retain it for chips and and thus do everything it can to bring it's value down. Broadcasters at the moment are the last people I would be listening to in regards to expansion.

He and his company advises sports leagues during TV broadcasting rights negotiations.

Who knows what that actually entails, or how involved he and his company actually is and in what way, but it tells you all you need to know about which angle the guy is coming from.

The actual goings on inside the company that he is advising is also adjacent to his expertise, and he wouldn't really have much more in depth knowledge on the subject than anybody else on the outside.