Removal of Gallop and expansion

[joshreading]

It would seem that the removal of Gallop (as a fairly conservative CEO/Manager) could well beckon a more aggressive stance by the ARLC.

As there are people here connected to bids, do you see this as a positive or negative?

I for one, would like to see a far more aggressive leader of the NRL, Gallop was far more conservative and managerial in his style. Whilst that was good for a while as the game got back on it's feet, the time to act protectionist and get scared of any significant risk has to end. If the game is going to ultimately take it's place as the indisputable leader in the football codes in Australia/Pacific a more positive expansionist policy must be clarified.

 

[woodyk2]

Gallop is super league. Piss off as fast as possible.

 

[Goddo]

Well, everything said about expansion pre-commission was dismissable before this, but now you can't drag up an old Gallop quote as an indication of what Gallop is thinking.

Expansion will be a logical, thought out process of selecting the best two bids FOR THE GAME (not for the bids).

 

[gyallop]

I doubt David enjoyed the change from leading the game to John Grant sharing that role.

John seems to have a real "whole of game" focus and not an "NRL focus" which David was forced to adopt by the clubs and News.

I think you will find the News backed NYC gone and replaced with a valid 2nd tier competition that is financially supported which automatically helps grass roots as the ISC clubs in Qld do most for real development presently with no support.

I think "expansion" will look harder at who will grow the game at grass roots than perhaps David may have and that the ARLC will contribute financially to expansion rather then parasitically sit back and let others fund the game as before.

I still think this leaves the Western Corridor and their enormous junior base backed by what TV says about its worth to them as favourites with Perth and CQ to battle for the 2nd spot.

 

[Spitty]

I think now you forget everything you thought you knew, all bets are off.

Everything we knew or though we knew about expansion came from Gallop's mouth. Even after the IC was in place the suggestion on these boards was that the IC would consider Gallop's opinion heavily.

Forget about that. Everything David Gallop has said means squat, every time David Gallop talked up a bid now means squat.

The circumstances of Gallop's exit suggest that Gallop and the IC do no agree on a number of things. Maybe expansions one of them. I guess we'll know in time. But what's clear is that anyone who wined and dined Gallop to try and get his vote, better reach into their pockets again.

 

[Perth Red]

Little changes for me. Grant and Gallop have both been singing from the same hymn book re expansion. I just hope they do decide to expand and do so with long term goals for the game in mind.

 

[BuffaloRules]

I guess those supposed assurances that the CC Bears bid team had from Gallop aren't worth much now....

I think expansion for 2015 might be slipping away.... Seems that there are too many other things on the go at the moment....

 

[Perth Red]

Ultimately will still all come down to the value TV places on a 9th game. Its frustrating that the growth of our game continues to be dominated by what tV execs want but that is the current reality due to the poor financial state of the clubs. If TV offer more money than it will cost to expand we will have expansion in 2015, if not I wouldn't be surprised if they put it off for another 5 years. Will be very frustrating if they do and I can only hope if that is the case they offer some significant funding opportunities for growing the game at the grass roots in WA so we don;t lose all the gains we have made over the last 5 years.

 

[Zigwaa]

It would good to see a vision plan for expansion from the ARLC. Where they want expansion teams, by when and how it will happen.

It will be better than having 6 bids working for the first 2 openings and no clarity or goalposts to work towards.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

No one took anything Gallop said seriously anyway.

But what his sac...I mean standing down means is that the IC can't claim that they are trying to maintain stability and all that bollocks, otherwise you don't show the CEO the door.

 

[Goddo]

I think now you forget everything you thought you knew, all bets are off.

Everything we knew or though we knew about expansion came from Gallop's mouth. Even after the IC was in place the suggestion on these boards was that the IC would consider Gallop's opinion heavily.

Forget about that. Everything David Gallop has said means squat, every time David Gallop talked up a bid now means squat.

The circumstances of Gallop's exit suggest that Gallop and the IC do no agree on a number of things. Maybe expansions one of them. I guess we'll know in time. But what's clear is that anyone who wined and dined Gallop to try and get his vote, better reach into their pockets again.

I think you are right about Gallop, but wrong about the ARLC.

Grant has said outright that he doesn't want bids spending money as the main driver in deciding wether/where to expand will be broadcast rights negotiations. He has said that a couple of times now (he said it again today in The Australian).

Also, the ARLC has investigated having the Oct test match in Perth, and discussed specifically a Brisbane side in TV rights negotiations (see TV rights thread for links) - so its pretty obvious where they are looking.

All the pre-Commission stuff Gallop has said should be forgotten. But some of the stuff he has said since (on direction from the ARLC) and everything the ARLC has said should be listened to.

 

[Perth Red]

There was an interesting bit in one of the articles suggestng that one of the tiffs between Grant and Gallop was around the test match with Grant wanting it to go to Perth and Gallop pushing for Townsville.

 

[woodyk2]

CC bears and Perth.Get on with it.

 

[dimitri]

test in perth
team in perth!

 

[WayneBennett]

3 sides, Bne 2, Perth and CC. And a bye in the draw that would encourage another bid to fill it

 

[gyallop]

I havent read anywhere where there is a support for a bye?

 

[Goddo]

3 sides, Bne 2, Perth and CC. And a bye in the draw that would encourage another bid to fill it

Those who follow this logic, what is the point in stretching the tallent pool/funds by 3 if you only grow the pie by 2?

I mean, if it were to specifically hit 3 important key markets it might be ok, but even still, it would have to be 3 really big markets to justify it. It would cost a lot to do.

It'd have to be places like Adelaide, Perth, NZ II, Brisbane II. I can't see why you would put the game under enormous stress to add a 11th NSW club.

(I'm not attacking the Bears here, just the logic of an 11th NSW side. I think over the next TV deal a fund should be put together to shift a struggling NSW club interstate to somewhere like Sunshine Coast if need be, and then the Bears can be brought in the next time the game expands.)

 

[WayneBennett]

Aren't we thinking on current funding levels? Isn't the new deal supposed to generate over a billion? Perth and Bne 2 are a landowners in terms of market, I see the cc bears as righting a wrong and bringing their supporters back to the game and possibly new ones... We hit one new market and consolidate 2? Another bye in the draw short term would help those niggles and long term we could relocate and admit nz2?

 

[WayneBennett]

... And not to mention Bears vs Manly derbies that would be full of spite and high shots?

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

Tv rights will decide, and anything prior to that is just speculation.

For me the order goes (my personal preference).

Perth
Brisbane 2
NZ 2

I think those places offer the most in terms of value and growth.

I doubt more than two teams will come in and wouldn't be surprised if they were staggered so no two teams were introduced in the same year.