WA BEARS

[Pippen94]

Have they really though? They may have lost money but has their revenue increased since they put a team in there and if so, by how much?

Yes they have

 

[jim_57]

Your comparing a rusted on rugby league state with a rusted on afl state that’s the problem

even if Perth population grows to 5 million it will only be able to support one club (at best, fingers crossed)

whereas as beisbane grows it can support more clubs

we all really hope Perth can come up with a financially viable rugby league team

they wouldn’t get support this time for a super league every other club is happy with the arlc

If the Broncos & Dolphins are selling out every week and then sure. Otherwise what’s the point in trying to replicate Sydney’s over saturation in Brisbane?

At most another team to “represent” South Brisbane/Logan/Ipswich/Western Corridor (even though Broncos already do). If someone lives in SEQ and doesn’t want to support one of the 3 existing teams then that’s a them problem not an NRL problem.

 

[Colk]

Why?!

Because societies change. Demographic shifts, population increases, socio-economic factors.

For example, would you nominally suggest that communities are the same as they were 20 years ago?

 

[Wb1234]

When you’ve got the money you can invest it.

Invest means have a positive roi

afl isn’t investing

they are gambling.

big time

 

[Pippen94]

I think the 200 million was just on junior spending. They have spent way more than that on gws. It’s closer to 500 million on them

That's amazing cause survey found less 1% play afl in western Sydney. This is model some are saying NRL should follow

 

[Wb1234]

If the Broncos & Dolphins are selling out every week and then sure. Otherwise what’s the point in trying to replicate Sydney’s over saturation in Brisbane?

At most another team to “represent” South Brisbane/Logan/Ipswich/Western Corridor (even though Broncos already do). If someone lives in SEQ and doesn’t want to support one of the 3 existing teams then that’s a them problem not an NRL problem.

Cause tv will pay for it and bc Brisbanes population is going to boom over the ten years

There were literally two very good bids according to the arlc which missed out

north and south west covers the two major growth coridoors in Brisbane

 

[Pippen94]

Because societies change. Demographic shifts, population increases, socio-economic factors.

For example, would you nominally suggest that communities are the same as they were 20 years ago?

Did they love afl there back then??

 

[Colk]

Yes they have

No they haven’t because that would mean that their revenue hasn’t increased.

They have spent $200 million on Western Sydney. Now I agree that it is probably hasn’t been worth it in terms of an investment but that is an investment question, not one of revenue

 

[Colk]

Did they love afl there back then??

What is your point?

 

[Perth Red]

means have a positive roi

afl isn’t investing

they are gambling.

big time

$300mill to $796mill a year since they went to 18 clubs. Seems a pretty good trajectory they are on?

 

[Pippen94]

$300mill to $796mill. Genius.

Ur so dishonest. If Perth added value fox & nine would've demanded team but they didn't. Brisbane2 tho..

 

[Perth Red]

No

That's amazing cause survey found less 1% play afl in western Sydney. This is model some are saying NRL should follow

no it didnt you’re being disingenuous again, it found it in parramatta region in a survey, not by getting actual registration figures.

 

[Perth Red]

Cause tv will pay for it and bc Brisbanes population is going to boom over the ten years

There were literally two very good bids according to the arlc which missed out

north and south west covers the two major growth coridoors in Brisbane

Like they did this time? Oh hang on…

 

[Wb1234]

$300mill to $796mill a year since they went to 18 clubs. Seems a pretty good trajectory they are on?

And you accuse pippen of trolling lol

the afls roi in nsw and qld is terrible. They’ve thrown close to a billion dollars for a very minor return

 

[Perth Red]

Ur so dishonest. If Perth added value fox & nine would've demanded team but they didn't. Brisbane2 tho..

So how much did nine pay for brisbane2?

 

[Pippen94]

No they haven’t because that would mean that their revenue hasn’t increased.

They have spent $200 million on Western Sydney. Now I agree that it is probably hasn’t been worth it in terms of an investment but that is an investment question, not one of revenue

Location of team was irrelevant. Broadcasters played for extra games. Afl choose location of a pit to pour into..

 

[jim_57]

Cause tv will pay for it and bc Brisbanes population is going to boom over the best ten years

There were literally two very good bids according to the arlc which missed out

So why not try and make Broncos, Dolphins & Titans for that matter massive clubs first? Instead of trying to split those fans over even more clubs?

Anyone who lives in SEQ can easily follow one of these clubs and attend games, if they aren’t maximising their audiences then why should we dilute the fan base?

 

[Pippen94]

So how much did nine pay for brisbane2?

Nothing yet, but brisbane3 looks good..
Nz2 will come with many sky TV moneys

 

[Colk]

Location of team was irrelevant. Broadcasters played for extra games. Afl choose location of a pit to pour into..

Were you privy to their negotiations were you?

 

[Perth Red]

And you accuse pippen of trolling lol

the afls roi in nsw and qld is terrible. They’ve thrown close to a billion dollars for a very minor return

Thing is neither you or I can say for sure what impact on revenue generation having 4 extra clubs has had, then If having those 4 extra clubs in major new markets has been a factor in their massive revenue increase or not. Sure they might still be the vfl with wa and sa clubs in it and still have reached $796mill a year with just 7 games to sell and just a presence in half the country, but somehow I doubt it.