Should NRL expansion just be about TV $'s?

[CC_Roosters]

The Crushers, though, were a QRL-affiliated team. They had the right idea because their set-up had clear differentiation from the News Limited Broncos. If/ when more teams are added to Brisbane or the surrounding regions, this is the model that should be pursued. For mine, Redcliffe makes a lot of sense AND they will tap into the Northside/ Peninsula market.

I think drawing on the old BRL identities would be a great way to cement the games position in SEQ. Always thought something like north brisbane dolphins as a good idea, essentially a merger of redcliffe and norths devils, but the two could maintain seperate identities at q cup level.

 

[alien]

It is not like the Qld Government or Brisbane City Council are gonna stump up a couple of hundred million dollars to build a new stadium to house a second Brisbane NRL side now are they? :crazy:

did i say they would??? :crazy:

 

[BuffaloRules]

Has to be about more than just Winning games though, you can't win the comp every year. Look at parra and Knights, despite poor onfield, supporter wise they are doing well. Agree re teams that are going well on field and still drawing poor numbers they are a big worry. Warriors have the potential to be the biggest club in the NRL but seem to struggle to understand how to tap into that massive supporter base. Panthers at their very best have only ever drawn a 17k avg, likewise tigers. Titans have shown they can draw 20k+ if run well and respectable on field.

Can you elaborate on when you are saying the Titans were drawing 20K and were run well?

Hope it goes beyond the honeymoon first year.

And by "run well" can you confirm you mean on field results, because I'm not sure they have ever made any money off the field...

And Tigers have averaged over 18K 3 times.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Well.. I checked and They did average above 20K in their first 2 years...

Have declined each year since and now down to 11k...

Might need to get Searle back to run them I guess...

Searle is the reason they were "run well" originally right? How did that turn out again?

 

[BuffaloRules]

they should play 6 games in auckland, 3 games in wellington, 3 in christchurch

They need to be following the Wests Tigers lead and play out of 3 stadiums.

Obviously.

 

[alien]

They need to be following the Wests Tigers lead and play out of 3 stadiums.

Obviously.

the difference is the warriors are supposed to be representing the whole of nz

 

[BuffaloRules]

the difference is the warriors are supposed to be representing the whole of nz

They are not a national side, and playing out of three grounds doesn't help a club sell memberships...

Dragons struggling too with their multiple grounds...

Tigers looking to consolidate back to one ground- the way to go IMO..

 

[alien]

They are not a national side, and playing out of three grounds doesn't help a club sell memberships...

Dragons struggling too with their multiple grounds...

Tigers looking to consolidate back to one ground- the way to go IMO..

yeah i know they aren't the national side (kiwis), but when they changed their name to new zealand warriors from auckland warriors, that was an opportunity for them to become a national brand (not the national team). this should actually increase memberships. souths have a lot of supporters in queensland who get the queensland membership (for the game in cairns), and a lot of supporters in perth, who get the perth membership (for the game they play in perth), so playing out of 3 grounds can help a club sell memberships, along with merchandise.

wests tigers are struggling for other reasons, which i won't go into here

 

[Perth Red]

Ideally they'd play ten games in Auckland and one game innwellington and Christchurch/Dunedin then convince a coup,ex of teams to take their home games to those areas as well giving them 10 games in Auckland, 2 in Wellington and 2 in Christchurch/Dunedin. And market the hell out of memberships in those satellite cities.

 

[Perth Red]

Well.. I checked and They did average above 20K in their first 2 years...

Have declined each year since and now down to 11k...

Might need to get Searle back to run them I guess...

Searle is the reason they were "run well" originally right? How did that turn out again?

Like I said they have shown they can draw 20k crowds. And yes the first three years it appeared to the fans they were being well run. Then it went pear shaped and Searle was shown to be what he was and the fans responded accordingly. To say a team can't be uccesful on the Gold Coast is nonsense.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Like I said they have shown they can draw 20k crowds. And yes the first three years it appeared to the fans they were being well run. Then it went pear shaped and Searle was shown to be what he was and the fans responded accordingly. To say a team can't be uccesful on the Gold Coast is nonsense.

First 2 years.

And now they have to compete with the Suns,

 

[Perth Red]

Anything over a 17k avg in the NRL is decent and Titans managed that for a few years. There are 10k fans who started out with them who are not now attending, they need to re engage them and get them back to games. If they were an afl team the afl would be supporting them to be successful from day one. NRL just waits till clubs fall over before doing anything.

Hopefully if the NRL ever expands again they will have learnt some lessons.

 

[ucantseeme]

I don't think plonking another team in SE QLD is the right way to go when the Titans have been on the verge on collapse until the NRL through them a lifeline.

Great stadium, not so great crowds but I think there are other factors apart from ladder position such as accessibility, ticket prices, etc.

16 seems the right number for NRL. No need to follow the AFL just because Ch 9 says so. Also, look at what bringing a 2nd Melbourne team into the A-League did for Melbourne Victory crowds, they were cut in half!

Flick the panthers to WA and we are sweet IMO.

 

[Perth Red]

Tbf if you were going to use your first point as a barometer for expansion prospects then you would t be putting new teams anywhere.

 

[insert.pause]

Hope it's not Perth

BUZZ: You’ve got a crystal ball — look ahead 10 years. How many teams will we have and where will we be playing out of?

SMITH: In 10 years time I reckon we’ll have 18 teams. I think we’ll have a strong regional footprint, Pacific Islands in a second tier competition. We’ll have a very strong world club challenge. Instead of 5.8 million fans I think we’ll have eight million that are watching the game. Queensland is definitely worthy of another team and possibly Perth or New Zealand but you can’t do any of this until the 16 teams are strong.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/nr...ture-of-the-game/story-e6freuy9-1227562337800

 

[Perth Red]

Wow in ten years we MIGHT have two new teams. What a visionary! In the last ten years Union has added 6 New teams and look at how shite they are in Australia!

A ballsy CEO would be looking at 4 new teams and cutting some of the dead wood out. Waiting for 16 strong existing teams is like waiting for Father Christmas to deliver your Easter eggs!

 

[insert.pause]

Wow in ten years we MIGHT have two new teams. What a visionary! In the last ten years Union has added 6 New teams and look at how shite they are in Australia!

A ballsy CEO would be looking at 4 new teams and cutting some of the dead wood out. Waiting for 16 strong existing teams is like waiting for Father Christmas to deliver your Easter eggs!

Where's Border Force when you need them...

 

[Lockyer4President!]

but you can’t do any of this until the 16 teams are strong.

This is depressing.

 

[flippikat]

This is depressing.

Ahh.. but he doesn't go into detail as to HOW to get 16 strong teams.. relocations could be part of the solution to that problem if KPIs aren't met.

 

[TheRam]

What a useless leader this guy's turning out to be.

Jeez, have some balls mate. No vision needed here, just some mighty big balls. But I'm afraid, all this guys got is an empty shrivelled up sack.