Sydney relocations

[newman]

Happy to be proved wrong, can you give me a link to an article where it says it is a $43mill one off pay out? My recollection is this was over a long period but as it is your club I presume you will know the facts More than me and can point me to a reference?

It was only said by Keogh at the recent AGM to the small group of members in attendance. There are several articles from the Leader which talk about a $250 million development but the actual windfall has been kept hush hush.

 

[Perth Red]

No worries, that is massive for the Sharks then if that happens. Benefit is as much in having investment confidence as cash in bank. As a sharks fan do you think there is enough latent support for sharks to regularly get around 17k crowds and what would they need to do to make it happen, on field performance aside? I've been to shark park three times, once was a good experience when it was a warm sunny afternoon but the two night games in the rain were pretty miserable I have to say. Can you see it getting a new main stand at any time?

 

[newman]

A couple of years ago we averaged 16k, can't remember what year it was. Now with ASADA hanging over the club people in the shire are pretty fatigued and that will take a while to go away. FYI game day revenue was the highest of all time last year, where we averaged 13k. So with better cost management we did better with gates of 11k and 13k than we did with 15k and 17k and the higher operating costs that go with those "big" crowds. So crowd figures are not the be and end all in terms of success.

 

[georgesnmith]

Lol you just don't get it do you. It's about popularity and sustainability. Hull has two clubs because it can sustain two clubs in SL with no detriment to the growth of SL. Sydney has nine clubs and the situation of some of them is likely stunting the growth of the game. Understand?:crazy:

Gus gould mode < no no no no no >

Toulouse wont be in SL they could take Hull KRs spot.

 

[georgesnmith]

Mate it's just so nice after all these years to feel like we have our house in order. After being beat down, hopeless, poor, death ridden (and most of that all our own fault) it's so nice to see a light at the end of the tunnel approaching, and it's seemingly no false dawn.

i didnt actually think the development would be approved tbh and though the sharks were gone last year with the Asada thing

proved me wrong.

still go to build the thing but once its done the club will be massive.

and there are some ground improvements too arent there? extended the roof on the Leagues club side and some more small grand stand extensions.

 

[georgesnmith]

After all isn't that the whole point off a RL discussion board?

discussion involves listening to rival views.

you have just repeated the same thing ad nauseum.

in a few weeks time theres a good chance we could get two crowds over 30k in sydney and ill bet you wont change your mind with that.

 

[Perth Red]

Gus gould mode < no no no no no >

Toulouse wont be in SL they could take Hull KRs spot.

Hull kr are not keeping Toulouse out of SL lol.:crazy:

 

[Perth Red]

discussion involves listening to rival views.

you have just repeated the same thing ad nauseum.

in a few weeks time theres a good chance we could get two crowds over 30k in sydney and ill bet you wont change your mind with that.

No because it is not the 30k crowds that are the problem. Nor is it 75% of Sydney clubs that are the problem. It is clubs that are skint and attracting sub 15k crowds. Look the new clubs won't come in till 2017. By then hopefully clubs will be in much healthier positions. They have had a $1/2mill hand out, the option of another $400k advancement, an increase of $2million a year on the grant. If they can't make ends meet and be successful with that in three years then do something about it but don't stunt the expansion of the game because clubs are struggling now.

I actually think there is a heap of things that can be done to improve Sydney crowds and hopefully the sht crowds we've seen so far this year will get the NRL of its backside and do something.

 

[georgesnmith]

No because it is not the 30k crowds that are the problem. Nor is it 75% of Sydney clubs that are the problem. It is clubs that are skint and attracting sub 15k crowds. Look the new clubs won't come in till 2017. By then hopefully clubs will be in much healthier positions. They have had a $1/2mill hand out, the option of another $400k advancement, an increase of $2million a year on the grant. If they can't make ends meet and be successful with that in three years then do something about it but don't stunt the expansion of the game because clubs are struggling now.

I actually think there is a heap of things that can be done to improve Sydney crowds and hopefully the sht crowds we've seen so far this year will get the NRL of its backside and do something.

at least you acknowledge that things can improve.

on expansion in 2017, lets wait and see. the ARLC will be doing their review the end of this year.

by 2017 the finances of the sydney clubs shouldnt be an issue holding back expansion i would think

perhaps the ARLC are waiting to see if a sydney club fails and they do relocate them and if not then they will add teams.

 

[byrner]

On this point, you seem to be mixing the notion of population and popularity. It is evident from the lack of people attending games in Sydney that, whilst there is a big population, few of that population follow the game or a club strongly enough to commit to going to a game. Like was jokingly said if you are going on purely population we should be putting teams in Mumbai and Beijing. The formula comes down to a mix of population big enough to draw from and popularity in that population to support the club. Penrith at the weekend classic example, population of that region million plus, attendance 7,700. Tell me how your population theory actually makes any sense in the Penrith scenario. They've been there 50 years plus and still get crowds sub 10k.

East of hull has a population of around 140k, of that 8-9000 care enough about hull kr to turn out. If the same % of Sydney's population turned out to NRL games we would not be having this conversation.

How many sydney people watch on television? You always seem to forget this point. The reason we have a 1 billion dollar tv deal is because of all they sydney fans who are to lazy to go to games (my self included).

 

[byrner]

And population of penrith 1 million +? Where do u get that from?

 

[bobmar28]

Perth Red I want to know why you are equating expansion with relocation or cutting clubs? Relocation and or cutting clubs have barely if ever been mentioned by the ARLC. And if it was, they would be howled down by supporters, former players and celebrities associated with that club. None of your beloved codes who are flexing expansion models have recently relocated or cut clubs. Don't you remember the outcry that happened when Souths were outed? And that was when that club was the ugliest girl at the dance. What about the recurrent angst from bears supporters who are still mega pissed 15 years on?

Your argument seems to be "I want a club in Perth and Sydney crowds are bad so let's cut someone so I can have my wish". It's bullshit.

It's also patent bullshit that "Sydney people aren't interested in RL". Sure, there's a minor problem with crowds. But that was always on the cards when they sold the game away to a tv network and despite that there have been about 55,000 sydneysiders attend NRL matches so far this weekend. Sydney people love NRL. It dominates conversation, the news, tv programming and the general psyche of the population. It is the dominant winter sport in the biggest market.

Remember also when the NRL offered 8 million for sides to relocate. There wasn't a single administrator, player or fan who thought that an attractive proposition and the offer has been removed due to a lack of interest.
Cutting or relocating teams is madness and you should stop carrying on like its a real possibility.

Why would there be less interest in NRL if there were less teams in Sydney?

Nine NRL teams is way too many for any city.

 

[bobmar28]

You can imagine that with such bad weather the tv ratings would be through the roof.
And a great crowd at a "substandard" venue. Sydney people really don't like NRL do they?

12k is ok in the wet in AFL heartland. It will be tough for the Pirates but we have to take on AFL and beat them (in the TV ratings). 12k crowd is enough for that.

 

[newman]

Why would there be less interest in NRL if there were less teams in Sydney?

Nine NRL teams is way too many for any city.

Says who? There have been 9+ teams since year dot. Only Newtown folded due to financial issues. In 1983. The "there's too many teams in Sydney" is a MYTH perpetrated by IDIOTS.

The game has never been richer or healthier, and this is on the back of 9 sides in Sydney.

 

[georgesnmith]

Says who? There have been 9+ teams since year dot. Only Newtown folded due to financial issues. In 1983. The "there's too many teams in Sydney" is a MYTH perpetrated by IDIOTS.

The game has never been richer or healthier, and this is on the back of 9 sides in Sydney.

indeed the NRL easily outrates AFL now, without any new teams.

not that i support it but theres a case to say we dont need expansion at all, let the current clubs get all of the money.

people have to be realistic about expansion.

melbourne have added nothing meaningful to our TV deal, and theyve received $5 - $8 million a year being propped up since 1998

perth and adelaide will be small clubs. they will be lucky to average 15k

they will be lucky to get 100,000 viewers, more like 50,000.

they wont be shown in their home markets on the main FTA channels.

they wont produce a lot of players.

they will be good little clubs, and hopefully financially stable but i suspect the ARLC will have to bankroll them for a decade to get to that level

if your talking about maximising TV ratings you would never add adelaide.

and perth is only valuable due to the time slot giving live viewing in eastern markets.

you could put a team on an island off the coast off australia near perth and they would offer the same benefit

in terms of perth viewers they will add diddly squat to the TV deal.

 

[Garbler]

indeed the NRL easily outrates AFL now, without any new teams.

Out-rates the AFL in what?

melbourne have added nothing meaningful to our TV deal, and theyve received $5 - $8 million a year being propped up since 1998

so having the storm is completely unrelated to say a peak of 576,000 Victorians watching last years SOO decider?

they wont be shown in their home markets on the main FTA channels.

Says who? Are you clairvoyant? Head of Channel 9?

they wont produce a lot of players.

and the roosters, bulldogs do?

 

[Billythekid]

so having the storm is completely unrelated to say a peak of 576,000 Victorians watching last years SOO decider?

Ok someone beat me to this. I don't think this can be understated at all but so many seem to ignore it. The extra ratings we get for our big rep games and the GF are possibly the biggest advantage from moving into new markets.

indeed the NRL easily outrates AFL now, without any new teams.

Do we still? I'm not sure the ratings will favor us at the end of this year.

melbourne have added nothing meaningful to our TV deal, and theyve received $5 - $8 million a year being propped up since 1998

Citation needed. How do you know they have added nothing to the tv deal? The AFL have managed to get more money from their tv deals by adding new teams and their ratings have been f*cking awful for the lot of them. Companies advertising like to have a national audience.

perth and adelaide will be small clubs. they will be lucky to average 15k

Which right now would actually be pretty damn good. I think Perth have shown they an appetite for the game and the potential to grow their crowds. They have a good stadium and a seemingly strong base to build from. Considering the crowds of some of other NRL teams this is hardly a fair complaint.

they will be lucky to get 100,000 viewers, more like 50,000.

You've gotta start somewhere. It would still be a pretty decent boost to our overall ratings.

they wont be shown in their home markets on the main FTA channels.

If the NRL was competent at all then they would be. If they're not that says more about the NRL than it does about Perth or a future team.

they wont produce a lot of players.

In terms of juniors Perth are way ahead of where someone like Melbourne was. They will start producing juniors much, much faster. This is more of a long term investment but it's important nonetheless.

they will be good little clubs, and hopefully financially stable but i suspect the ARLC will have to bankroll them for a decade to get to that level

Why? If perth can come in and average around 15K they should be fine. They really should have no problem getting good sponsorship in that market. This is a completely different situation to what the storm were in.

and perth is only valuable due to the time slot giving live viewing in eastern markets.

you could put a team on an island off the coast off australia near perth and they would offer the same benefit

Except they wouldn't add the extra viewers from a Perth market and they wouldn't average 15K+ crowds at the gate. They also would offer no growth potential and would still leave us with no presence in one of Australias biggest markets.

in terms of perth viewers they will add diddly squat to the TV deal.

As the AFL have shown multiple times advertises like to have a more national reach. Even if the team doesn't bring that much in terms of ratings it still seems to work out positively in terms of tv money.

There is also the benefit to rep footy. Melbourne now gets some pretty damn good ratings for SOO, GF's and international footy. That can't be underestimated imo. A perth team should also hopefully give us a boost here and allow us to continue to rate ahead of the AFL with our biggest games.

Perth allow us a lot of freedom to work with timeslots whilst opening our game up to a very big market. I'm not saying they will be a huge success off the mark but they certainly won't be a basket case like say the GWS are.

With the amount of money the ARLC seem to be making at the moment it hardly even feels like a risk. We have a real chance of putting ourselves ahead of the AFL and cementing ourselves as the number 1 code in the country. Instead of supporting that we have people desperately trying to crawl back to old insular logic that has prevented the growth of our game.

Previously i could see how this would make sense but right now the game is in such a position of strength. It's the perfect chance for us to do this.

 

[Perth Red]

shakes his head at the ignorance of some RL fans in the world.......

Lets have some facts shall we:
The NRL TV deal is smaller than the AFL deal when you take out the NZ contribution and the competition sponsorship tie in for telstra (we got well shafted there)

We got dictated to by TV, unlike AFL, as part of accepting that deal. No decent covg outside of NSW&Qland, a fixture schedule that screws fans, poor quality of coverage etc etc Value goes beyond $'s and we lost big time to AFL in regards to this.

NRL tv viewing is not massively more than AFL, and is largely only slightly bigger due to the large population in regional NSW. Capital city it is neck and neck

Expansion is about the future not the present

100,000 extra viewers a game from perth equals in the region of 6million total a year, now that would blow AFL out of the park in capital city ratings. Actually get the games on main channel at a decent time in Perth and melbourne and we walk it.

Melbourne add massively to the Tv deal, the NRL aren't bank rolling them out of the goodness of their hearts! News ltd didn;t bankroll them for a decade as a charitable thing to do. The Storm featured games always rate some of the highest on pay TV and the Storm featured Gf rated avg of 750k in Melbourne. Surely worth something wouldn't you say? Last years all Sydney GF rated lower than the previous years GF featuring Melbourne. Without the 411K viewers watching the GF in Melbourne last year we would have got tonked by the AFL GF. Yep not worth anything......

I genuinely have no idea how big a club Perth will be. So many unknown factors. What we have is massive potential, if realised will come down to investment and quality of people running the club and quality of squad we put together. 20k turning up at games featuring neutral teams and paying $50 to do so would suggest there is potential. If we avg 15k we will be in the top 8 supported clubs in the NRL and better supported than six Sydney clubs (on 2013 avg's).

Adelaide is a totally different scenario to perth and shows your ignorance that you would even consider the two in the same way.

Every professional sports league in Australia has a Perth team in it EXCEPT NRL. Go figure, maybe others consider Perth, soon to be Australia's third biggest city, adding value?

 

[newman]

I don't think you can make a reasonable argument for Perth not being included, and no one with any sense would suggest as much. Cutting a team to accommodate them is the sticking point we are discussing here.

 

[georgesnmith]

Ok someone beat me to this. I don't think this can be understated at all but so many seem to ignore it. The extra ratings we get for our big rep games and the GF are possibly the biggest advantage from moving into new markets.



Do we still? I'm not sure the ratings will favor us at the end of this year.



Citation needed. How do you know they have added nothing to the tv deal? The AFL have managed to get more money from their tv deals by adding new teams and their ratings have been f*cking awful for the lot of them. Companies advertising like to have a national audience.



Which right now would actually be pretty damn good. I think Perth have shown they an appetite for the game and the potential to grow their crowds. They have a good stadium and a seemingly strong base to build from. Considering the crowds of some of other NRL teams this is hardly a fair complaint.



You've gotta start somewhere. It would still be a pretty decent boost to our overall ratings.



If the NRL was competent at all then they would be. If they're not that says more about the NRL than it does about Perth or a future team.



In terms of juniors Perth are way ahead of where someone like Melbourne was. They will start producing juniors much, much faster. This is more of a long term investment but it's important nonetheless.



Why? If perth can come in and average around 15K they should be fine. They really should have no problem getting good sponsorship in that market. This is a completely different situation to what the storm were in.



Except they wouldn't add the extra viewers from a Perth market and they wouldn't average 15K+ crowds at the gate. They also would offer no growth potential and would still leave us with no presence in one of Australias biggest markets.



As the AFL have shown multiple times advertises like to have a more national reach. Even if the team doesn't bring that much in terms of ratings it still seems to work out positively in terms of tv money.

There is also the benefit to rep footy. Melbourne now gets some pretty damn good ratings for SOO, GF's and international footy. That can't be underestimated imo. A perth team should also hopefully give us a boost here and allow us to continue to rate ahead of the AFL with our biggest games.

Perth allow us a lot of freedom to work with timeslots whilst opening our game up to a very big market. I'm not saying they will be a huge success off the mark but they certainly won't be a basket case like say the GWS are.

With the amount of money the ARLC seem to be making at the moment it hardly even feels like a risk. We have a real chance of putting ourselves ahead of the AFL and cementing ourselves as the number 1 code in the country. Instead of supporting that we have people desperately trying to crawl back to old insular logic that has prevented the growth of our game.

Previously i could see how this would make sense but right now the game is in such a position of strength. It's the perfect chance for us to do this.

as ive shown its not crucial we expand.

melbourne have added little so far and cost close to $100 million

on ratings yes the NRL is in front of AFL, even with the extra game.

so all melbourne and perth can add is a larger audience for origins and GF?

is that so worthwhile

i think were already ahead of AFL anyway, expansion or not our next TV deal will beat theirs.