Sydney relocations

[georgesnmith]

Maybe it would have got $1.5billion with teams in Adelaide and Perth?

If I'm an Australian national company with no particular preference would I chose
1. Code A with clubs in 4 States
2. code B with clubs in all states

Be honest.

the code with the highest TV ratings

ie rugby league

Youve avoided the question i asked.

AFL has teams adeladide and perth, NRL doesnt

AFL has two teams in queensland and nsw.

AFL added has an extra game each week for broadcasters.

Given all the above, how / why did the NRL get the same media rights deals?

if expansion is needed to keep up with AFL we wouldnt have matched them would we?

answer the question thanks

 

[georgesnmith]

Take a look at the near empty ANZ and Alliance. That can't continue.

take a look at skilled park. gio stadium is worse.

AAMA stadium is under half full

and going by your criteria the broncos only average 65% of capacity at suncorp. 20k empty seats a game

KICK OUT THE BRONCOS

 

[georgesnmith]

By having consistently high rating programs, some of the those are among the top rating tv events in Australia for an average year (SOO, grand final), by having a spread of teams that have a direct exposure to the majority of the Australian population, the broadcaster most interested in our rights (Nine) is desperate for any high rating TV shows and is struggling to compete with other broadcasters due to a string of low rating shows and most importantly we were willing to bend over and take it in the arse to get a billion dollars.

It was the perfect mix of desperation, Nine was desperate to keep RL on it's channel, we were desperate to make a billion dollars off our TV rights and were willing to give almost all control over to the Broadcaster to get it and Fox happy as long as they still got their live games.

the fact we got that TV deal shows the current clubs we have are quite valuable

indeed it might also suggest we dont need clubs in perth or adelaide either

 

[georgesnmith]

I don't think that would be a good idea.

. We'd lose the only club in the ACT.

. The clubs stable and stands on it's own two feet.

. We provide a massive amount of juniors and it wouldn't be easy for another club to manage our juniors base on top of their own.

. Because of the clubs geographical distance from the other clubs it'd be hard for one of the other clubs to have a sustainable long term presences here.

. We'd be losing a nationally recognized brand (which is the case for every rationalization I admit).

. And of lesser concern but a concern non the less, removing the Raiders and not filling the hole left in the ACT-southern NSW market with another team would leave room for a GWS relocation to Canberra if they are forced to relocate, which could have terrible results on RL in the ACT and southern NSW and is a realistically possibility.

The only benefits that I can see from rationalizing the Raiders would be that we would get a club in a bigger market (with more sponsorship opportunities and everything that comes alone with that) and the new club would have more active fans.

So IMO the cons outweigh the pros for a Raiders relocation.

But if the sad day does ever come for the Raiders to be rationalized, I think we'd offer the Steelers a better deal and see if we could survive that way :lol:.

who cares if its the only club in the ACT, its a crap one?

only one club in the league averages less than 10k

thats in a city they share with no other league team.

its pathetic

they cant keep any of their players because they are bored down there.

surely if you want whats good for the game we should be kicking out the weakest clubs?

canberra would be first choice then?

 

[Perth Red]

the fact we got that TV deal shows the current clubs we have are quite valuable

indeed it might also suggest we dont need clubs in perth or adelaide either

Well that depends on if you believe the soul purpose of the NRL is to generate TV revenue. Personally I see it as the top of the game that should be driving growth in interest, participation and supporters for RL.

Re TV rights As I said maybe if we had the capital city presence of afl we would be dwarfing their deal? As you said we have slightly higher TV audiences so why did the TV aspects of the deal get less $'s than AFL? We have internationals and SOO marquee events they don't have yet the TV deal was less than just for their domestic comp. when you actually look at the detail, the afl media deal is well over $20mill a year more than ours. People forget the Telstra deal included competition sponsorship rights where as in afl it didn't and that is worth $10mill a year extra on its own.

Can you explain that?

Also waiting on a comment on the "big" Sydney clash last night and how this fits into your crowd growth comments George?

 

[georgesnmith]

on the poor crowd of last night, only a troll would pick one bad crowd to suit their agenda.

as ive posted before the average is 16k, that includes all the good and bad crowds combined

ive shown that sydney clubs crowds dont bring the average down

ive also stated that the sydney clubs generated the lions share of the TV revenue.

there is no logical reason to say relocation is a good thing

your vaunted AFL is smart enough not to weaken its strongest market in victoria

weve already had forced mergers and cullings in sydney, its taken 20 years to recover

now you want to repeat it?

the only way to expand succesfully is by having a strong heartland base to support it

let the sydney clubs keep growing the game and off their momentum expansion clubs will be funded.

 

[The Great Dane]

who cares if its the only club in the ACT, its a crap one?

Advertisers, sponsors and by extention broadcasters.

You lose the Raiders, you lose the direct link to the ACT and Southern NSW market.

only one club in the league averages less than 10k

I think this is the only valid point you've brought up in your list, congratulations you didn't go full genius.

Yeah we'd almost certainly get better crowds out of the new club if we removed the Raiders.

thats in a city they share with no other league team.

That's a reason not to relocate the Raiders.

There're no NRL (or RL in general) club's that could easily cover the hole that the Raiders would leave in the market down here. That means that something else would slide in to take hold of that share of the market and in doing so would probably squeeze RL out of the ACT for a long time.

its pathetic

Ahh OK whatever.

they cant keep any of their players because they are bored down there.

That's just well wrong.

That's the worst interpretation of the situation down here that has ever been spewed out, and even if it was true it wouldn't be a reason to rationalize any club, unless they were constantly failing to produce a team (which we are not).

surely if you want whats good for the game we should be kicking out the weakest clubs?

canberra would be first choice then?

Again you are just wrong!

Their are always going to be the week and the strong clubs no matter what we do, and the playing field will never be completely level.

What I want is for the clubs who have consistently shown that they cannot survive and the clubs that simply are unsustainable to be rationalized.

That doesn't even necessarily mean that they are merged, relocated or removed (though there're definitely clubs in the NRL that will face one of these futures), in some cases (such as Manly's) that could mean something as minor as a new business plan and a large area to expand into.

Rationalization has become a dirty word no reason, I mean the word does mean to make something rationally acceptable and all.

I don't propose kicking them out.But isn't the answer obvious?

The one team they have contributes less to the game than any Sydney team does.

They have been around for over 30 years, when will we see the up side?

They can't seem to keep or attract good players

I've been through these things a million times.

They play outdoors in a winter sport in one if the coldest places in Australia....

So f##kin what!

'Let's wrap up a club because I find it's home town to cold' :crazy::roll:

Scraping the very bottom of the barrel for that one aren't we.

 

[BuffaloRules]

So what is your reason for them being consistently the worst supported club then?

 

[georgesnmith]

Advertisers, sponsors and by extention broadcasters.

You lose the Raiders, you lose the direct link to the ACT and Southern NSW market.



I think this is the only valid point you've brought up in your list, congratulations you didn't go full genius.

Yeah we'd almost certainly get better crowds out of the new club if we removed the Raiders.



That's a reason not to relocate the Raiders.

There're no NRL (or RL in general) club's that could easily cover the hole that the Raiders would leave in the market down here. That means that something else would slide in to take hold of that share of the market and in doing so would probably squeeze RL out of the ACT for a long time.



Ahh OK whatever.



That's just well wrong.

That's the worst interpretation of the situation down here that has ever been spewed out, and even if it was true it wouldn't be a reason to rationalize any club, unless they were constantly failing to produce a team (which we are not).



Again you are just wrong!

Their are always going to be the week and the strong clubs no matter what we do, and the playing field will never be completely level.

What I want is for the clubs who have consistently shown that they cannot survive and the clubs that simply are unsustainable to be rationalized.

That doesn't even necessarily mean that they are merged, relocated or removed (though there're definitely clubs in the NRL that will face one of these futures), in some cases (such as Manly's) that could mean something as minor as a new business plan and a large area to expand into.

Rationalization has become a dirty word no reason, I mean the word does mean to make something rationally acceptable and all.



I've been through these things a million times.



So f##kin what!

'Let's wrap up a club because I find it's home town to cold' :crazy::roll:

Scraping the very bottom of the barrel for that one aren't we.

any club we lose offers potential to rival sports

if were are talking of kicking out clubs it should be on the basis of the weakest go.

and canberra most certainly cant keep their good players

right now they are a feeder club for either the roosters, broncos or whoever has money

whats hypocritical is people calling for sydney clubs to be axed when are fans of weaker clubs, or in JBs case no club at all :lol:

 

[20teamarl]

Advertisers, sponsors and by extention broadcasters.

You lose the Raiders, you lose the direct link to the ACT and Southern NSW market.



I think this is the only valid point you've brought up in your list, congratulations you didn't go full genius.

Yeah we'd almost certainly get better crowds out of the new club if we removed the Raiders.



That's a reason not to relocate the Raiders.

There're no NRL (or RL in general) club's that could easily cover the hole that the Raiders would leave in the market down here. That means that something else would slide in to take hold of that share of the market and in doing so would probably squeeze RL out of the ACT for a long time.



Ahh OK whatever.



That's just well wrong.

That's the worst interpretation of the situation down here that has ever been spewed out, and even if it was true it wouldn't be a reason to rationalize any club, unless they were constantly failing to produce a team (which we are not).



Again you are just wrong!

Their are always going to be the week and the strong clubs no matter what we do, and the playing field will never be completely level.

What I want is for the clubs who have consistently shown that they cannot survive and the clubs that simply are unsustainable to be rationalized.

That doesn't even necessarily mean that they are merged, relocated or removed (though there're definitely clubs in the NRL that will face one of these futures), in some cases (such as Manly's) that could mean something as minor as a new business plan and a large area to expand into.

Rationalization has become a dirty word no reason, I mean the word does mean to make something rationally acceptable and all.



I've been through these things a million times.



So f##kin what!

'Let's wrap up a club because I find it's home town to cold' :crazy::roll:

Scraping the very bottom of the barrel for that one aren't we.

Are you that dense? He doesn't really want to cull the Raiders. He's just firing your argument back at you so you can realise how idiotic it is.

 

[Perth Red]

on the poor crowd of last night, only a troll would pick one bad crowd to suit their agenda.

as ive posted before the average is 16k, that includes all the good and bad crowds combined

ive shown that sydney clubs crowds dont bring the average down

ive also stated that the sydney clubs generated the lions share of the TV revenue.

there is no logical reason to say relocation is a good thing

your vaunted AFL is smart enough not to weaken its strongest market in victoria

weve already had forced mergers and cullings in sydney, its taken 20 years to recover

now you want to repeat it?

the only way to expand succesfully is by having a strong heartland base to support it

let the sydney clubs keep growing the game and off their momentum expansion clubs will be funded.

Only a trioll would be basing avg's on one or two games whilst ignoring that over the course a full season last year six of the seven worse supported clubs in the NRL were Sydney clubs.

Your kidding yourself if you think it is a one off crowd, what was today's crowd at cronulla?

Yes the game needs a strong two heartlands, Brisbane and Sydney, at the moment Sydney is not strong and is holding the game back as confirmed by Grant. The wait and see what happens approach hasn't worked so far has it?

 

[Perth Red]

George your Sydney clubs are not helping you this weekend, did you see the Penrith crowd? Our Aleague team would have been embarrassed by that!

 

[newman]

George your Sydney clubs are not helping you this weekend, did you see the Penrith crowd? Our Aleague team would have been embarrassed by that!

Relocate Penrith to Mumbai? There are heaps of people there.

 

[Perth Red]

You may have a idea, will they add to the TV deal?

 

[magpie4ever]

I think given the Western Force's sudden rise in Super Rugby that the Perth Pirates are dead in the water, again. Central Queensland and Central Coast for mine.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Western Force....

What have they done?

Won the comp?

I don't think the other three codes give two hoots what happens in Union at the moment!

 

[magpie4ever]

Western Force....

What have they done?

Won the comp?

I don't think the other three codes give two hoots what happens in Union at the moment!

Apparently, won 4 in a row. There is no room in Perth for two rugby codes, bye bye Pirates, hello Central Coast Bears.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Apparently, won 4 in a row. There is no room in Perth for two rugby codes, bye bye Pirates, hello Central Coast Bears.

Wow, they won 4 in a row....assume their ratings might be touching 50,000 on Fox now....

Your argument reminds me what those fleas like Fitzsimmons said about the Rebels being the death of the Storm when they joined the Super 15.....

The NRL won't be taking into account what some kick and giggle Super 15 team is doing when they are considering expansion

 

[CowboyFuriousFury]

Apparently, won 4 in a row. There is no room in Perth for two rugby codes, bye bye Pirates, hello Central Coast Bears.

If the afl/aru had magpie's mindset they would stay in there heartland with no expansion or forward progress. The nrl has magpie's mindset currently all about the heartland and inability to look outside to areas of potential eg wa. As a result the nrl is hindered by staying still while other codes had heart and balls to take a chance while the nrl is too scared to do so. Typical.

 

[magpie4ever]

Wow, I was trying to get a rise from the perth pom but I caught a few others on the line.

But, seriously Perth is a long way from supporting an NRL team, Gosford and Rocky for me.