What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Welcome to the comp, Redcliffe.

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,942
@The Great Dane

No meaningful growth in Brisbane? lol
You can keep being performatively stupid and continue to pretend you don't understand the point if you like, but yes, the Dolphins admission into the NRL hasn't resulted in any genuine market growth for the sport or league at all.

Selling more of the product to the same pre-existing customer base isn't, and never will be, the same as attracting new customers.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,942
I'd like to hear @Perth Red, @Colk, @mongoose and @The Great Dane explain why they believe Brisbane Tigers shouldn't get an NRL licence, despite the two richest clubs in the NRL being from Brisbane!
Every new club you add in Brisbane/SEQ is simply more competition in the marketplace.

In other words they're not adding anything substantive, they're just another competitor for the pre-existing customer base. At which point you're just splitting the pie between more and more entities until sooner or later you hit a saturation point where it isn't sustainable anymore.

What'd inevitably happen if you went down that path in Brisbane/SEQ is you'd end up with two, maybe three on occasion, big successful clubs and a bunch of spares that effectively squat on licenses and suck up resources.

You also have to take into consideration the needs of the league as a whole and other markets. In the NRL's case there's limited space in the competition unless they're willing to radically restructure of the league (which is probably inevitable in the long term if we assume continuous growth, but that discussion is adjacent to the current one), so adding another team in SEQ necessitates another team/market, which would brings it's own individual benefits to the league, missing out on a spot for at least the foreseeable future.
 
Messages
14,822
Every new club you add in Brisbane/SEQ is simply more competition in the marketplace.

In other words they're not adding anything substantive, they're just another competitor for the pre-existing customer base. At which point you're just splitting the pie between more and more entities until sooner or later you hit a saturation point where it isn't sustainable anymore.

What'd inevitably happen if you went down that path in Brisbane/SEQ is you'd end up with two, maybe three on occasion, big successful clubs and a bunch of spares that effectively squat on licenses and suck up resources.

You also have to take into consideration the needs of the league as a whole and other markets. In the NRL's case there's limited space in the competition unless they're willing to radically restructure of the league (which is probably inevitable in the long term if we assume continuous growth, but that discussion is adjacent to the current one), so adding another team in SEQ necessitates another team/market, which would brings it's own individual benefits to the league, missing out on a spot for at least the foreseeable future.
Is there another market in Australia capable of supporting an NRL club without assiatance?

Perth needs a new stadium and a high performance training centre. The bloke running their bid is a pawnbroker. Technology is sending pawnbrokers out of business.

Adelaide has no interest in joining the NRL.

Melbourne 2 has zero chance before 2050.
 
Top