Sydney relocations

[Perth Red]

optimism without evidence is just delusion......

 

[georgesnmith]

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?

lol

why would you take out the NZ TV deal, NZ is part of the NRL

the irony here is the biggest thing favouring a perth nrl team is the sydney market.

thats all.

without the sydney viewing market perth wouldnt get a team on their own merits

:lol:

 

[georgesnmith]

union has a team in perth, its done nothing for them.

crowds have flopped and the ARU is bankrolling them

they get terrible TV ratings.

 

[newman]

lol

why would you take out the NZ TV deal, NZ is part of the NRL

the irony here is the biggest thing favouring a perth nrl team is the sydney market.

thats all.

without the sydney viewing market perth wouldnt get a team on their own merits

:lol:

Astute post. I thought it was funny that PR just took out NZ tv money to suit his argument but then "shook his head at the ignorance of RL fans" that don't agree with him.

 

[Perth Red]

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.

True, and that comes down to what the NRL thinks. At the moment they keep making negative noises that they have to consider the state of existing clubs, which brings us right back to if some of those existing clubs will ever be in a position to allow the game to grow or if they are a lost cause with little hope they can keep up due to overstauration of their market. There is no definitive answer, just opinion, and time will tell if it is a big enough sticking point for the NRL to decide not to invest in expansion and instead invest it in the failing clubs in the hope of making them sustainable.

Of course the NRL could just be playing games to make the existing clubs feel warm and fuzzy that they care about them and announce expansion anyway. Comes down to if the NRL wants to spend up around $20mill a year of its $50mill surplus on two new clubs and if they think they can recoup a significant amount of that in 2018 in the next TV deal.

 

[georgesnmith]

optimism without evidence is just delusion......

NRL media rights deal $1.2 billion
AFL media rights deal $1.25 billion

AFL has an extra game each week
AFL added new teams in expansion markets.
AFL has teams in adelaide and perth, NRL doesnt.

?????????


edit : we got the same dollars without having to add to crap teams we have to prop up. AFL is probably sinking in $30 million a year on its new teams, so in reality they were crazy to add them because its taking a bigger chunk out of their TV deals than they brought in

 

[Perth Red]

union has a team in perth, its done nothing for them.

crowds have flopped and the ARU is bankrolling them

they get terrible TV ratings.

Again your knowledge of the matter is seriously lacking. The Force have done a massive job in raising Union here from totally ignored to the second most popular and high profile code in perth. They have tripled playing numbers (at our expense I have to say), are the third best supported team in the city and have made a profit in 5 of their 7 years of existence. They get higher crowds than some NRL teams, have peaked at 16,000 members and biggest crowd was 32k. The WA media is very supportive (I have to put up with a "rugby" (sic) pull out in the West every week!) and you can;t drive down the road without seeing a Western Farce advert. Nobody watches union on TV, it isn;t just a Perth thing! An dall that on the back of one of the worse perfomring squads in the comp year on year. So yep I can see how you would consider them a failure lol.

Force will be praying the loudest the NRL don't decide to expand!

 

[georgesnmith]

True, and that comes down to what the NRL thinks. At the moment they keep making negative noises that they have to consider the state of existing clubs, which brings us right back to if some of those existing clubs will ever be in a position to allow the game to grow or if they are a lost cause with little hope they can keep up due to overstauration of their market. There is no definitive answer, just opinion, and time will tell if it is a big enough sticking point for the NRL to decide not to invest in expansion and instead invest it in the failing clubs in the hope of making them sustainable.

Of course the NRL could just be playing games to make the existing clubs feel warm and fuzzy that they care about them and announce expansion anyway. Comes down to if the NRL wants to spend up around $20mill a year of its $50mill surplus on two new clubs and if they think they can recoup a significant amount of that in 2018 in the next TV deal.

brisbane wont need any money from the ARLC so its just whatever perth needs.

they might not even be willing to pay it either, they might demand the club finds a backer with $10 million bank guarantee like tinkler did for the knights.

 

[georgesnmith]

Again your knowledge of the matter is seriously lacking. The Force have done a massive job in raising Union here from totally ignored to the second most popular and high profile code in perth. They have tripled playing numbers (at our expense I have to say), are the third best supported team in the city and have made a profit in 5 of their 7 years of existence. They get higher crowds than some NRL teams. The WA media is very supportive (I have to put up with a "rugby" (sic) pull out in the West every week!) and you can;t drive down the road without seeing a Western Farce advert. Nobody watches union on TV, it isn;t a Perth thing! An dall that on the back of one of the worse perfomring squads in the comp year on year.

Force will be praying the loudest the NRL don't decide to expand!

the ARU will be down to 2 or 3 Super teams quite soon.

perth will be the first punted, theyve been a massive failure for them.

it could well be that as the force are killed off or merged the ARLC will be adding a team to perth and we pick up the pieces.

 

[Perth Red]

NRL media rights deal $1.2 billion
AFL media rights deal $1.25 billion

AFL has an extra game each week
AFL added new teams in expansion markets.
AFL has teams in adelaide and perth, NRL doesnt.

?????????


edit : we got the same dollars without having to add to crap teams we have to prop up. AFL is probably sinking in $30 million a year on its new teams, so in reality they were crazy to add them because its taking a bigger chunk out of their TV deals than they brought in

Thanks you proved my point, they got more money (you can add another $50mill on top of that due the Telstra deal which included comp naming rights for us and didn;t for them) that's a total of nearly $250million cash more than we got and a much better deal in terms of outcomes for fans. Suddenly their $30mill a year investment doesn't look so expensive does it?

Again they are not short term thinkers, they are investing now for into the future, might be 20-30 years into the future but for them it is the last places for them to expand into (although if perth's population does tip 3.5mill and Eagles and dockers start selling out the new stadium i could see a thrid AFL team in 20-30 years time in perth)

They are already talking about the next deal, more than enough to cover their investments

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ould-be-worth-16b-in-2016-20140217-32wex.html

If we want more money next time we will have to offer something different, an extra game a week, a new audience in Australia's soon to be third biggest city, a new live tv slot option and a second Brisbane team for that market is what we will need if we want to overtake AFL. We are in a great position because we are not that far behind and have potential to offer more. We just need to realise that potential.

 

[Perth Red]

the ARU will be down to 2 or 3 Super teams quite soon.

perth will be the first punted, theyve been a massive failure for them.

it could well be that as the force are killed off or merged the ARLC will be adding a team to perth and we pick up the pieces.

Would be nice but can't see it sadly. Perth is critical to the ARU and as much as I hate Union they have done a great job in becoming a significant player in the WA sports scene. I just hope we get a team before they start winning!

 

[georgesnmith]

Thanks you proved my point, they got more money (you can add another $50mill on top of that due the Telstra deal which included comp naming rights for us and didn;t for them) that's a total of nearly $250million cash more than we got and a much better deal in terms of outcomes for fans. Suddenly their $30mill a year investment doesn't look so expensive does it?

Again they are not short term thinkers, they are investing now for into the future, might be 20-30 years into the future but for them it is the last places for them to expand into (although if perth's population does tip 3.5mill and Eagles and dockers start selling out the new stadium i could see a thrid AFL team in 20-30 years time in perth)

They are already talking about the next deal, more than enough to cover their investments

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ould-be-worth-16b-in-2016-20140217-32wex.html

If we want more money next time we will have to offer something different, an extra game a week, a new audience in Australia's soon to be third biggest city, a new live tv slot option and a second Brisbane team for that market is what we will need if we want to overtake AFL. We are in a great position because we are not that far behind and have potential to offer more. We just need to realise that potential.

well get more money than AFL next time simply because we outrate them easily.

getting rid of first and last rights mean its the first time we can truly market our rights in a competitive way.

we will get more than AFL next time, even without expansion.

 

[Perth Red]

Why? Just because we slightly outrate them? You think that alone is worth the $250mill cash we are currently behind? We outrated them last year, it didn't translate into a bigger deal. Until we increase our capital city viewing to well beyond them I doubt we will. We shall see in 4 years!

2013 afl avg per game on PTV 222k. V NRL PTV 240k
It is hardly massive on pay TV.

 

[georgesnmith]

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/23386/01front.pdf?sequence=1


"Specifically, the Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL) formed the central cases of analysis. The sample period spanned five seasons, from 2007 to 2011, and encapsulated a total of 2,297 fixtures. Television ratings data, incorporating an array of geographic and demographic variables, was originally sourced from research firms OzTAM and Regional TAM, while attendance data was created through in-house NRL reconciliation against stadium figures and publicly available information.

Results indicated a demarcation of viewer loyalty to each code based on geographic boundaries, consistent with the existing notion of "the Barassi line". Both codes were shown to be largely reliant on traditional markets for driving television viewership figures, with little evidence to suggest either code expanded its national reach during the period, despite vastly contrasting broadcast strategies. A gender imbalance in viewership was also identified. However, this was shown to be potentially smaller than the pre-existing academic and societal conception of a stereotypical football audience would suggest."

 

[georgesnmith]

/thread.

 

[Perth Red]

Why? Just because we slightly outrate them? You think that alone is worth the $250mill cash we are currently behind? We outrated them last year, it didn't translate into a bigger deal. Until we increase our capital city viewing to well beyond them I doubt we will. We shall see in 4 years!

2013 afl avg per game on PTV 222k. V NRL PTV 240k
It is hardly massive on pay TV.

Ironically one of our biggest potentials is the one thing you feel has no value, melbourne. The storm are doing massively better in the melbourne TV ratings than the swans or GWS do in Sydney. Most afl games in Perth not featuring a local team are lucky to get 100k, we could well rate better than afl does in WA if done well!

 

[Perth Red]

/thread.

So how do you explain the 900k peak audience in melbourne that tuned in to the 2012 GF? Or the continuing increase in SOO audience in melbourne? Or the WA SOO and gf audience that rates higher than some afl games here?

You do realise that without the melbourne audience we would be behind afl viewing figures don't you?

 

[CowboyFuriousFury]

WA/Brisbane 2 is a must to anyone who doesn't can't see out of there empty-seat suburban grounds which is the main culprit in holding the game back. These clubs had decades to get there house in order and to build fan support, the clubs can't even sell out a suburban ground despite all the history, tradition,etc.

Time to give new areas the same opportunity for once instead of constantly waiting decades and decades. The 16 clubs had tons of time (in particular NSW) to get there stuff together it's time for other clubs to enter the fray and have the opportunity to prove themselves in building a sustainable club in regards to membership, attendance, sponsorship,etc.

Enough is enough on 'heartland' this and that they had there time it's time to move on. Expand or be irrelevant.

 

[georgesnmith]

So how do you explain the 900k peak audience in melbourne that tuned in to the 2012 GF? Or the continuing increase in SOO audience in melbourne? Or the WA SOO and gf audience that rates higher than some afl games here?

You do realise that without the melbourne audience we would be behind afl viewing figures don't you?

you tell the guy that did his dissertation on the topic that you know more than he does

/ thread.

:lol:

 

[Perth Red]

I hope he failed. It makes no sense when you see the increase in veiwing figures for both codes outside their traditional heartland audiences.

Out of the top 50 pay tv audiences last year 5 of the 10 nrl games featured Melbourne, more than any other NRL team. This statement "with little evidence to suggest either code expanded its national reach during the period" isn't backed by the evidence I have seen over the last two years so either things have changed dramatically since 2011 or he is largely incorrect. Like I said how can you argue with 750k avg 900k Tv viewers watching the 2012 GF in Melbourne? compare that to how many people watched the RL GF in melbourne pre Storm.

In Sydney in 2005 teh Swans in the GF saw an audience of 991K avg 1.23mill peak in Sydney. It makes no sense to say either code isn't growing its audiences outside its heartlands. I guess it is true that you can get stats to tell you anyting if you ask the right question!