Should there be 2 teams in Brisbane?

[Goddo]

Well, Gallop said expansion needs an 18 month lead in time, which if its 2015 as it now looks means a decision by mid 2013.

I have a growing suspicion that expansion won't be on the agenda in the first half of 2012 for the IC, and maybe not until towards the end of the year.

TV rights will consume most of the off field activity this year. Expansion will probably only come into it when the NRL says "what will you give us for a team here vs here?".

The actual calling for bids and picking a winner will come later.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Lol@Redcliffe

Upper middle class area not near any major centres of population or growth.

LOL........you have NFI what you're talking about.

Redcliffe is 28km from Brisbane's CBD .......1/2 drive. I know that may seem far for lazy Sydney RL fans but not so up here.

Redcliffe/Moreton Bay/Sunshine coast has experienced the 3rd highest population growth in the whole state of QLD.

Hate to agree with loud-merkin but "Brisbane City" is the last place QLD needs another NRL team.

Redcliffe / Sunshine Coast.....Ippy / Toowoomba,

Central QLD

plus existing clubs, Brisbane...Gold Coast & NQ would make six QLD teams in the NRL.

2015-2025......?

A long way towards giving young QLD RL players of the future a chance to stay in QLD, instead of being forced to live amongst the suburban squalor in cities like Sydney

& Melbourne.

 

[Haffa]

So by your logic where did those 20k Crushers fans come from in 95? Are you saying they were Broncos fans who decided to follow both teams and when the Crushers were culled went back to just following the Broncos?

I think it's safe to assume a large majority of them were made up of Broncos supporters and fans of other teams. The rest well they were at Lions games in the early 00's and are at Reds games now.

 

[Perth Red]

The next is just my opinion of how it will play, no one elses. Cronulla will be given a huge carrot to relocate to Perth. The WARL have said they are open to relocation and this would give a WA team NRL management experience plus a base and supporters in NSW, things they don't get with the Reds. ...

Sorry mate but this is wishful thinking on your part and I can assure you that there has been no such suggestion or plan put forward. It was a bit of a furphy at the time, journos asked the WARL "would you be open to a team relocating to Perth and John (WARL CEO) quite rightly said that it is not the plan or the preferred option but never say never. This got interpreted by the NSW hacks looking for a Sydney angled story as Sydney team to relocate to Perth and when Gallop was asked he replied in his usual bumbling way that IF a team could be convinced to move the NRL MAY support it, Freeman added the Cronulla angle.

The WARL and Reds bid team are 100% behind Perth having its own identity, if a Sydney team had come along 6 years ago then we could be looking at a different scenario, again lack of NRL vision, strategy and planning. When the GC got in they should have told the Bears to look at Brisbane or Perth for a partnership relocation.

 

[Perth Red]

Well, Gallop said expansion needs an 18 month lead in time, which if its 2015 as it now looks means a decision by mid 2013.

I have a growing suspicion that expansion won't be on the agenda in the first half of 2012 for the IC, and maybe not until towards the end of the year.

TV rights will consume most of the off field activity this year. Expansion will probably only come into it when the NRL says "what will you give us for a team here vs here?".

The actual calling for bids and picking a winner will come later.

What will be interesting is will expansion drive the TV bid or the TV bid outcome drive expansion?

By this I mean will the NRL be in a better position when negotiating the TV contract to use expansion as a further value add by announcing when and where OR will they wait to see what they get from the TV deal then decide if they have enough money to fund expansion. Every other code in the country has announced expansion prior to negotiations for a new TV deal, do they know something we don't?

If it is the former then expect expansion to be priority so they can include it in TV negotiations, if the latter we may not see any announcement before the end of the year, if at all (god forbid!).

 

[rednblack]

What will be interesting is will expansion drive the TV bid or the TV bid outcome drive expansion?

By this I mean will the NRL be in a better position when negotiating the TV contract to use expansion as a further value add by announcing when and where OR will they wait to see what they get from the TV deal then decide if they have enough money to fund expansion. Every other code in the country has announced expansion prior to negotiations for a new TV deal, do they know something we don't?

If it is the former then expect expansion to be priority so they can include it in TV negotiations, if the latter we may not see any announcement before the end of the year, if at all (god forbid!).

I agree.

I'd have thought that, in order to sell a product, we have to know what product we actually intend to sell! Sure, there could be clauses which stipulate how much extra the rights will be worth if an extra game is introduced each week, but this seems backwards to me.

For instance, if the networks know when the new game will be introduced, they will then know how much "extra" they're up for over the course of their rights period. They (and the NRL) will also be in a better position to negotiate coverage. By this I mean that, the networks might more readily agree to live or near-live coverage in a place such as Perth if they know that there will be a team there. If there'sno team, they may be more reluctant to show live games into that market. The NRL will also be in a stronger position to demand such coverage if they have a team in that location, and can demonstrate that the support for the game exists.

I have to think that the two issues (rights negotiations and expansion) should be approached simultaneously. They go hand in hand with each other, and to treat them separately would be a very bad idea imo.

 

[Goddo]

I think the TV deal will be decided with a clause in it that gives a value for each location that the NRL might expand in 2015.

Something like Perth and Brisbane teams worth $30M a year each to the deal, CQ/CC worth $20M a year, PNG worth $10M. For example, not actual numbers.

Which means the NRL will need to call for nominations to bid during the TV negotiations, but not necissarily the bids themselves.

EDIT - if the nrl is smart about it, they would use expansion as a late talking point in negotiations to bump up bids.

 

[rednblack]

I think the TV deal will be decided with a clause in it that gives a value for each location that the NRL might expand in 2015.

Something like Perth and Brisbane teams worth $30M a year each to the deal, CQ/CC worth $20M a year, PNG worth $10M. For example, not actual numbers.

Which means the NRL will need to call for nominations to bid during the TV negotiations, but not necissarily the bids themselves.

When I approach a negotiation, or submit a tender (which is essentially what the networks will be asked to do), it is almost impossible to provide costings on unknowns.

And again, if the NRL knows that expansion will happen in, say, Perth in 2015, they will then be in a better position to demand live coverage, not only from 2015 onwards, but in the meantime (which will help garner support for the club before their actual appearance in the comp). Granted, live or near-live coverage should be a negotiated concern anyhow, but with a confirmed entrant, they will have a much stronger hand at the table.

The networks want to know what they're getting into, not just what the future possibilities might be. A call for "nominations to bid" does absolutely nothing to help in this regard, since those intending to bid are already widely known.

The strategic direction of the various networks could also be a factor. For instance, if a particular network already has their vision for, say, a much stronger AFL presence in Perth, it may be against their best interests to have a Perth NRL team (purely hypothetically). This may influence their bid for the rights, and is something they would need to know. I'm not saying this would be good for us, but letting the networks know our future plans ahead of time would help ensure we get the national exposure we deserve, and potentially mitigate any squabbles with the networks if/when expansion occurs. It is to noone's benefit if a network cancels their contract mid-term, just because they don't like where we've expanded to. Again, an example would be A network who really wants another Brisbane team. If somehow a CQ team got in, the network might not get the benefits they had hoped for, and try to get out of their contract with us. This might not be possible for them, but it would be well within their means to "sabotage" our code by poorly supporting us, or giving us bad press (sorta like the way we're currently being treated by both nine and news).

We don't need that bad blood, and in order to establish a good working relationship from the start, I think it is imperative that the expansion questions (if, where, who and when) need to be answered in conjunction with tv rights negotiations, not separately from or at a different time.

 

[bobmar28]

Whatever happens we need a team in Perth asap. I'm sick of hearing the AFL crowing about being a truly national football code.

 

[Beowulf]

Sorry mate but this is wishful thinking on your part and I can assure you that there has been no such suggestion or plan put forward. It was a bit of a furphy at the time, journos asked the WARL "would you be open to a team relocating to Perth and John (WARL CEO) quite rightly said that it is not the plan or the preferred option but never say never. This got interpreted by the NSW hacks looking for a Sydney angled story as Sydney team to relocate to Perth and when Gallop was asked he replied in his usual bumbling way that IF a team could be convinced to move the NRL MAY support it, Freeman added the Cronulla angle.

The WARL and Reds bid team are 100% behind Perth having its own identity, if a Sydney team had come along 6 years ago then we could be looking at a different scenario, again lack of NRL vision, strategy and planning. When the GC got in they should have told the Bears to look at Brisbane or Perth for a partnership relocation.

Fair enough, your opinion. I think WA will get a license through a different route, so all 3 leading areas bidding get a team which would be the best outcome for the NRL, thats all. To me, thats the outcome media would want also. Well see in 6 months!

 

[flippikat]

Fair enough, your opinion. I think WA will get a license through a different route, so all 3 leading areas bidding get a team which would be the best outcome for the NRL, thats all. To me, thats the outcome media would want also. Well see in 6 months!

If we discount a relocation to Perth, there are three other possibilities that could see all 3 bids come in:

1) A Sydney team goes broke & has their license revoked
While this could well happen, it's a horror scenario.

2) A joint venture is formed which brings the NRL down to 15 teams, and allows all 3 bids to join & bring the competition back up to 18.

A bit better than option 1 - both partners stay represented in the competition, but issues of name, colours, home venues etc need to be well balanced so neither sets of fans feel short-changed. Also, it's to find two clubs in Sydney that make sense for a joint venture that aren't fierce rivals (Sharks & Roosters is the only option that keeps getting mentioned here - with Penrith-Parramatta a distant 2nd)

3) A Sydney team relocates to South-East Queensland, preferably in partnership with a bid team based locally.

The field of bids from SEQ is a mess at the moment - any number of potential bids are in various stages of forming, and none have emerged as the one clear frontrunner. So what if a canny bid team strikes a deal with one of the Sydney clubs and the NRL to move 4-5 home games to Brisbane per year, with an eye to move full-time in a couple of seasons?

Would Queenslanders reject a relocated Sydney team straight-out, or would they judge the team on how much it engages with it's new home?

Aside from that, on the whole question of expansion - that needs to be worked out with the TV deal. if the NRL stays so vague in negotiations, then TV channels have every right to say "You're not guaranteeing us anything new, so we'll only bid a shade over what we did last time - and only then because of the good ratings in well-established markets."

 

[Goddo]

When I approach a negotiation, or submit a tender (which is essentially what the networks will be asked to do), it is almost impossible to provide costings on unknowns.

And again, if the NRL knows that expansion will happen in, say, Perth in 2015, they will then be in a better position to demand live coverage, not only from 2015 onwards, but in the meantime (which will help garner support for the club before their actual appearance in the comp). Granted, live or near-live coverage should be a negotiated concern anyhow, but with a confirmed entrant, they will have a much stronger hand at the table.

The networks want to know what they're getting into, not just what the future possibilities might be. A call for "nominations to bid" does absolutely nothing to help in this regard, since those intending to bid are already widely known.

The strategic direction of the various networks could also be a factor. For instance, if a particular network already has their vision for, say, a much stronger AFL presence in Perth, it may be against their best interests to have a Perth NRL team (purely hypothetically). This may influence their bid for the rights, and is something they would need to know. I'm not saying this would be good for us, but letting the networks know our future plans ahead of time would help ensure we get the national exposure we deserve, and potentially mitigate any squabbles with the networks if/when expansion occurs. It is to noone's benefit if a network cancels their contract mid-term, just because they don't like where we've expanded to. Again, an example would be A network who really wants another Brisbane team. If somehow a CQ team got in, the network might not get the benefits they had hoped for, and try to get out of their contract with us. This might not be possible for them, but it would be well within their means to "sabotage" our code by poorly supporting us, or giving us bad press (sorta like the way we're currently being treated by both nine and news).

We don't need that bad blood, and in order to establish a good working relationship from the start, I think it is imperative that the expansion questions (if, where, who and when) need to be answered in conjunction with tv rights negotiations, not separately from or at a different time.

Well, its down to how badly a network wants a specific location really. What I outlined is a likely scenario - get a dollar figure in the contract based on specific locations. Advantage there is that the NRL know exactly what each bid is worth in real dollar terms to the game, so any bs in bid documents will be seen for what it is. Also, networks don't have to pay through the nose for things they don't really want.

But if the networks really really want a specific place in I can see it bringing expansion forward.

That said, expansion will likely be a side issue in 2012, at least in the first half of the year. TV rights will likely consume all.

 

[flippikat]

Well, its down to how badly a network wants a specific location really. What I outlined is a likely scenario - get a dollar figure in the contract based on specific locations. Advantage there is that the NRL know exactly what each bid is worth in real dollar terms to the game, so any bs in bid documents will be seen for what it is. Also, networks don't have to pay through the nose for things they don't really want.

But if the networks really really want a specific place in I can see it bringing expansion forward.

That said, expansion will likely be a side issue in 2012, at least in the first half of the year. TV rights will likely consume all.

They're inseparable, in my opinion - offering teams in new TV markets (or doubling the Brisbane metro exposure) will drive a bigger increase in the TV deal than "business as usual".

Getting a dollar value from each TV bidder for each expansion option is a huge part what's needed to make expansion decisions - the other side of the coin is what it'll cost to run each expansion club.

The real devil is sorting through the swarm of competing bids from South-East Queensland - which is not helped by having all the bids at various stages of preparedness.

 

[Goddo]

The first part of the TV rights negotiations will be the back and forth bidding for content, and different mediums fighting over the details of what they get.

EG, Telstra mobile content vs Foxtel exclusivity. Breaking up free to air into packages. 9 opposing simulcasting vs 7, 10 and Foxtel being pro simulcasting.

Expansion comes into the negotiations after that, bumping the negotiations along for a bit more cash. Sure, it might be discussed but probably not seriously until this stage. Hypotheticals and timeschedules for future teams towards the end of the next TV deal won't excite TV execs.

Expansion will be a big deal in the back end of 2012. I just can't see it being high on the agenda in the first 6 months.

 

[flippikat]

If we discount a relocation to Perth, there are three other possibilities that could see all 3 bids come in:

1) A Sydney team goes broke & has their license revoked
While this could well happen, it's a horror scenario.

2) A joint venture is formed which brings the NRL down to 15 teams, and allows all 3 bids to join & bring the competition back up to 18.

A bit better than option 1 - both partners stay represented in the competition, but issues of name, colours, home venues etc need to be well balanced so neither sets of fans feel short-changed. Also, it's tough to find two clubs in Sydney that make sense for a joint venture that aren't fierce rivals, or a merger that doesn't potentially compromise the NRL's presence in Western Sydney (Sharks & Roosters is the only option that keeps getting mentioned here - with Penrith-Parramatta a distant 2nd)

3) A Sydney team relocates to South-East Queensland, preferably in partnership with a bid team based locally.

The field of bids from SEQ is a mess at the moment - any number of potential bids are in various stages of forming, and none have emerged as the one clear frontrunner. So what if a canny bid team strikes a deal with one of the Sydney clubs and the NRL to move 4-5 home games to Brisbane per year, with an eye to move full-time in a couple of seasons?

Would Queenslanders reject a relocated Sydney team straight-out, or would they judge the team on how much it engages with it's new home?

Aside from that, on the whole question of expansion - that needs to be worked out with the TV deal. if the NRL stays so vague in negotiations, then TV channels have every right to say "You're not guaranteeing us anything new, so we'll only bid a shade over what we did last time - and only then because of the good ratings in well-established markets."

 

[rednblack]

The first part of the TV rights negotiations will be the back and forth bidding for content, and different mediums fighting over the details of what they get.

How can one make a bid on an unknown quantity? As I said, if we can't even stipulate the makeup of our competition, how exactly can we expect the various networks to make a bid for the content that hasn't yet been decided on? Doesn't make any sense!
The discussions about the number of games SHOULD get the execs excited, as only once these details are finalized can they make serious offers for the coverage rights!

 

[Goddo]

How can one make a bid on an unknown quantity? As I said, if we can't even stipulate the makeup of our competition, how exactly can we expect the various networks to make a bid for the content that hasn't yet been decided on? Doesn't make any sense!
The discussions about the number of games SHOULD get the execs excited, as only once these details are finalized can they make serious offers for the coverage rights!

:roll:
Went over your head I see.

The NRL will not expand until 2015 at this stage. So 3/5 years of the next TV deal will be exactly the same content on offer as currently.

Its only the final 2 years of the next TV deal that there will be the extra content.

Where the game expands isn't so obvious. But the fact that there will be an extra game to sell is certain.

So the easy thing to do is work out what each location is worth to the game as an add on to that 'extra game' value.

Then pick the winners with an informed finacial outlook.

How is that hard to understand? Oh right, Bears fan...

 

[Loudstrat]

Low crowds are only a problem in Sydney.

You really believe the drivel you post, dont you. I would have thought low crowds would have equally been a problem everywhere.

lol what? I never said any such thing, stop making crap up.

YOU are the one saying the Brissy 2 bid doesn't have a chance. I'M saying it does. Simple as that

You carried on like a religious nutter about how the Bombers were guaranteed of success because there were lots of people in Brisbane who didnt like the Broncos. This in response to my suggestion that three other alternatives from the Brisbane Metropolitan area were more viable. You made the point about Brisbane's population - but that point could easuly be made about Logan, Ipswitch or Redcliffe (I mention them because of their existing stature in the game up there and the fact that they are already up and running - despite the obvious cash injection into their home ground and corporate infrastructure). You ignored all but the Bombers bid.

Whatever happens we need a team in Perth asap. I'm sick of hearing the AFL crowing about being a truly national football code.

Great reason. Doesnt matter f no one goes to a game or not, as long as we join the dots..................


People forget that the only reason we are talking about expansion is that there are two former teams wanting in. The only reason we expanded to the Gold Coast is because Souths won a court case, and the NRL didnt want a bye. Also the QLD Govt weighted in with Robina, even though the Gold Coast City Council was stacked full of people pushing for AFL's return.

Gold Coast got in for the same reason there is a push for a 2nd Brisbane side. That is - the big SEQ population and only one team.

Look at it now. Struggling financially, struggling on field, huge admission fees forced by huge rent, and forcing crowd numbers down. The club is led well by an innovative CEO who looks to emboss with the community as well as any other club, it laid a great foundation and continues to recruit well without throwing truckloads of $ at mercenaries like other clubs. For whatever reason, the concrete that anchors clubs is more brittle in SEQ than anywhere else.

Central Coast have an excellent bid that has remained at the ready for years as it chases an ever dissapearing deadline. Perth has to be commended for making their grassroots strong and supporting a side in the QLD Cup, while slowly overcoming the layers of apathy embedded after their first attempt so spectacularly pissed all it's good work up against the wall, and nearly the whole code with it. Anyone with their eyes open admire their bid, glaringly genuine when compared to the void of nothingness coming out of Adelaide.

These two bids have singlehandedly kept the expansion discussion open since the Titans birth.

Yet now comes the same old argument that the Titans presence did not quelch - that is the still big population of Brisbane for one club.

Lots of arrows have been aimed at Sydney for such an insight, alarmingly ignoring the Broncos role in this dilemma. Yet for all the carry on over the decades about how SEQ is the "heatland" of RL, why the hell is there only one suitable NRL stadium up there? Every other expansion club since St George in 1921 was able to offer the code a suitable ground to call home that no one else was using. Some in Sydney such as Belmore were quite suitable but have fallen away due to their abandonment. Brisbane does have the old QEII - but apart from that, nothing.

So ironically, despite the obvious need/room for another Brisbane metropolitan side, that lack of a clear base means no one has a winning argument where to base it. Logan and Ipswich have identity, but no ground and no corporate muscle to tap into. Therefore, the third best bid on the table is the Central Queensland bid out of Browne Park in Rockhampton. Sadly, the numbers just dont stack up. People like Bobmar might ignore the need for humans in numbers to fund clubs by buying tickets, merchandise etc, but in reality the population just isnt there.

In short, Queensland has room for at least one more club. But it will never happen unless

• The NRL decides to expand
• A decent bid as credible at the Titans bid emerges
• A decent bid as credible as the Bears and Reds emerges
• One bid emerges to have strong community support
• It has a decent ground that is central to it's location
• It is immune from the inevitable destabilisation from the Broncos
• The addition of extra teams does not in any way have a negative effect on any other club

Finally it must be remembered that the big push to reduce club numbers came after an investigation was carried out at the top level post SL to work out what the game could afford. The conclusion was that the most efficient way to balance the total of the codes total income against its total expenditure was to have 14 teams.

We are now at 16 teams and unless that equation changes, I doubt if we'll get to 18 in a hurry. And even then SEQ's only hope is to have ONE STRONG BID, not competing dick pulling competitions like we have at the moment.

 

[docbrown]

Well, its down to how badly a network wants a specific location really.

Nine want another Brisbane team. 7 & 10 would also. LEK have already done a projection for it.

In my opinion Central Coast is the bid with its act together the most followed by Perth Reds.

When expansion comes up in the TV talks - and it will - I have said before that the NRL should consider approving the three bids if they all meet the criteria.

But if the Brisbane Bombers/Western Corridor/Redcliffe/Ipswich (and god knows who else in SEQ bids) are fizzing then I think the NRL should actually appoint a steering committee to develop a new Brisbane club itself, perhaps in conjunction with these parties who could claim a stake in it. The goal should be to create a team that divides Brisbane 50-50 rivalling the Broncos for support and making Rugby League the major sporting focus as a result.

 

[Knightmare]

That is my problem with the "We must get another Qld team no matter what!" brigade. Where in Qld? Brisbane, where there is big talk and promises from Craig Davison but 0 fans, where they are selling themselves on the idea that people who dislike the Broncos for being an artificial franchise will get behind........another artificial franchise.

Ipswich has no money or much in the way of public support, ditto Logan, and Central Queensland has a good bid and support, but no suitable ground ready to go, and their bid still has quite a bit of work to do on it before it's at the level of the Bears or the Reds.

But there are people on here who would back a pub side from Tiaro funded off chook raffles getting admitted into the NRL over a bid like the Bears, because there are "Too many Sydney teams/ NSW teams" (it changes from one to the other, depending on what suits their argument at the time).

Hopefully, the people who are left with making the decisions use a bit more logic and common sense...