Western Corridor NRL bid

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I would refrain from arguing with johnsy. He's not all there.

Irony

 

[docbrown]

Almost 100%???? That would depend on the schedule of games. The point (bolded) you are trying to make, you simply cannot without any factual basis.

Of course, but when you look back at the number of games previously aired during the season on F2A that involved two non-NSW teams the percentage varies around the 5% mark which is why I said 95%+

In essence the game draws in QLD viewers, not the club they are playing. This basic premise should make it abundantly clear why I chose to use the stats in a particular way. I am surprised you overlooked this point, or maybe it was just ignorance.

Well of course a large percentage of those QLD viewers will be the particular club's fans but as evidenced in the Brisbane metro market, Cowboys and Titans games also have a significant metro following and all three games have a strong regional following.

However, take away that QLD element from a game and you notice that the Queensland viewer base decreases. Now obviously this is the same for non-NSW clashes with NSW viewers - but as has been said repeatedly - NSW already gets around 95%+ airtime and would continue to do so even with QLD getting around 45%-50% airtime. This is why it is quite obviously a win-win scenario.

I would only recommend using the 2 out of 8 slots for QLD teams if there are 4 QLD teams in the 18 team comp - otherwise it would be unfair on the other 15 teams.

With approximately 2 games a week for most weeks with QLD teams involved that's around 44-50 F2A TV games a year (depending on derbies, byes etc). With 4 QLD teams in the comp there are 136 games a season to choose the QLD schedule from - more than enough to ensure a different match up for every game during the entire season.

Cheesie, what is to say that each weekend has 2 games of FTA featuring a QLD side. Apparently this is a must every weekend considering what some supporters of the 2nd QLD team have proposed. There is nothing to say that 3 games would not feature a QLD team

Incorrect - I have already said when a QLD derby game is shown there would only be 1 QLD game in those weeks (2 out of 8 slots filled - 25% representation).

I think you need go re-read what I'm proposing because you keep misquoting me.

There are too many possibilities to say with any accuracy that almost 100% of FTA games would feature a non QLD team

You're confusing the non-QLD % to the NSW %. These are not the same thing as non-QLD also include VIC, NZ and ACT %.

So you're incorrect.

It is about such a large chunk (minimum 50%) of FTA fixtures being handed to 25% market share QLD.

What does that even mean? It's not like QLD is taking away NSW's share or Victorias or ACT's or New Zealand's. With an 4th game with 2 extra slots, NSW can keep the same current share, VIC/ACT/NZ can double their share (8th slot) and QLD can go from 33% to 50%.

If a QLD team is playing a non QLD team in a FTA game &the game is being beamed live into QLD it is solely for the QLD market, no-one else.

That doesn't even make sense. They are playing against a NON-QLD side.

Guess what? That team represents a NON-QLD market.

So what you said is rubbish.

In this situation 44% of games (12+36/108*100) involve Queensland teams. 50% of televised games involving Queenslanders is a small bias, but hardly something to do too much complaining about.

Thank god someone else understand the combinations. The other way of looking at is 68 QLD involved games out of 153 combinations of games.

Yes 44% is the magic number with 4 QLD teams.

Have a few weeks where there's only 1 QLD derby game shown and guess what? You have about 44% F2A airtime!

 

[docbrown]

Oh and before anyone asks -

Currently the combos are 45 QLD involved game out of 136 combinations = 33% = 1 Game a week out of 3, which is what they get.

 

[dgsfan]

Johnsy just got owned!

 

[andrew057]

So has there been any more news regarding this bid? Do they have a website up? All seems very quiet.

...

 

[dgsfan]

Huh?

 

[bobmar28]

Leigh,

I think you'll find I acknowledged that fact some time ago.

Almost 100%???? That would depend on the schedule of games. The point (bolded) you are trying to make, you simply cannot without any factual basis. That cannot be done until a schedule is released. Then you can attribute an % of FTA games that have non QLD teams.

The point was raised earlier (by an advocate of a 2nd QLD team which I agree with), that with FTA games, we should have two of the 4 FTA allocated to a QLD team. It was also produced by docbrown that any FTA game featuring a QLD team produce a spike in the ratings (regardless of who they play). In essence the game draws in QLD viewers, not the club they are playing. This basic premise should make it abundantly clear why I chose to use the stats in a particular way. I am surprised you overlooked this point, or maybe it was just ignorance.

I don't get your logic. Are you saying that Sydney NRL supporters won't tune in because their team is playing a QLD team?

 

[bobmar28]

Cheesie, what is to say that each weekend has 2 games of FTA featuring a QLD side. Apparently this is a must every weekend considering what some supporters of the 2nd QLD team have proposed.

Broncs play NQ, on Friday night. The new Brisbane side play the Titans on sunday. Both on FTA. On the weekends that the QLD teams do not play each other they still receive 2 FTA games featuring a QLD side.

For the remainder of the FTA games (6 games above with 2 byes = 8 weeks)

16 FTA games left, under the proposal requested a minimum of 1 QLD teams would play in one of the FTA games on Friday and Sunday. There is nothing to say that 3 games would not feature a QLD team. Eg Broncs V Dragons direct into QLD, Titans V Tigers direct into Sydney delayed into QLD. Then NQ playing a sunday FTA game.

There are too many possibilities to say with any accuracy that almost 100% of FTA games would feature a non QLD team. There may be a high percentage, but not almost 100%.


My point is not about the teams that are playing (I should have explained this clearly earlier). It is about such a large chunk (minimum 50%) of FTA fixtures being handed to 25% market share QLD. If a QLD team is playing a non QLD team in a FTA game &the game is being beamed live into QLD it is solely for the QLD market, no-one else.

I understand that stats can make it look not so one sided, but based of 4 FTA games if 2 involve a QLD team that is 50%of FTA games for the QLD market only.

That would mean 150% of the games are for the non QLD market. You're off your head.

How can a game played in Sydney featuring Bulldogs v Titans be for the QLD market only.

 

[Perth Red]

Don't know why people feel there should be equity. The TV companies are paying alot of money and want the best return on their investment. Clubs are being compensated to the tune of the NRL grant so not like they are suffering without compensation. If having a Q'land team on FTA every week brings in more $'s for EVERY team then I don't care about % equity of FTA coverage. I can see that the attraction of Perth to the TV companies is the extra late live spot for our home games so fully expect and accept that it is likely we will be mostly on Pay TV with a kick off time that suits the TV company, that is our worth to the comp and why we will be brought in.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Don't know why people feel there should be equity. The TV companies are paying alot of money and want the best return on their investment. Clubs are being compensated to the tune of the NRL grant so not like they are suffering without compensation. If having a Q'land team on FTA every week brings in more $'s for EVERY team then I don't care about % equity of FTA coverage.

Surely you realise that the benefit of having an equality is so that all teams have the same bargaining power to draw in sponsors.

Im in favour of having the first 18 rounds set and then the rest selected by TV networks.

 

[Perth Red]

Surely you realise that the benefit of having an equality is so that all teams have the same bargaining power to draw in sponsors.

Im in favour of having the first 18 rounds set and then the rest selected by TV networks.

I agree it is a disadvantage to a team not to be on FTA from a marketablility/sponsorship point of view but if we want the big TV $'s then we have to accept there is a trade off somewhere. If having more queensland teams on FTA means a $2-3mill increase on the NRL grant for EVERY NRL team then it s worth inequality imo.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I agree it is a disadvantage to a team not to be on FTA from a marketablility/sponsorship point of view but if we want the big TV $'s then we have to accept there is a trade off somewhere. If having more queensland teams on FTA means a $2-3mill increase on the NRL grant for EVERY NRL team then it s worth inequality imo.

Perhaps, but we dont know exact figures yet. If clubs can make up the difference of less of a grant with better income from sponsorships then im ok with a fully set draw.

 

[docbrown]

Well my approximate estimates would be:

9th game as the 6th game on Fox:
4.5 million extra annual viewers

9th game as the 4th F2A game on a stand alone Saturday night:
22 million extra annual viewers

9th game as the 4th F2A game as part of a Sunday double header (including the boost in the 2nd game):
30 million extra annual viewers

9th game as the 4th F2A game as part of a Sunday double header (with 1 QLD team featured) (including the boost in the 2nd game):
37 million extra annual viewers

Also consider that the current annual viewership is around the 110-120 million mark. Also keep in mind those numbers will increase by a few million more aif digital coverage in southern states comes into effect.

 

[bobmar28]

Surely you realise that the benefit of having an equality is so that all teams have the same bargaining power to draw in sponsors.

Im in favour of having the first 18 rounds set and then the rest selected by TV networks.

I'm in favour of whatever brings us that $ 1 billion payday we've all been waiting for.

 

[bobmar28]

Well my approximate estimates would be:

9th game as the 6th game on Fox:
4.5 million extra annual viewers

9th game as the 4th F2A game on a stand alone Saturday night:
22 million extra annual viewers

9th game as the 4th F2A game as part of a Sunday double header (including the boost in the 2nd game):
30 million extra annual viewers

9th game as the 4th F2A game as part of a Sunday double header (with 1 QLD team featured) (including the boost in the 2nd game):
37 million extra annual viewers

Also consider that the current annual viewership is around the 110-120 million mark. Also keep in mind those numbers will increase by a few million more aif digital coverage in southern states comes into effect.

I like the last option. 37 million sounds good.

 

[adamkungl]

Don't know why people feel there should be equity. The TV companies are paying alot of money and want the best return on their investment. Clubs are being compensated to the tune of the NRL grant so not like they are suffering without compensation. If having a Q'land team on FTA every week brings in more $'s for EVERY team then I don't care about % equity of FTA coverage. I can see that the attraction of Perth to the TV companies is the extra late live spot for our home games so fully expect and accept that it is likely we will be mostly on Pay TV with a kick off time that suits the TV company, that is our worth to the comp and why we will be brought in.

Firstly, clubs with less TV games suffer from the lack of sponsorship exposure. You might say 'fair enough, Cronulla play boring football anyway". But clubs like Canberra, no matter how successful or entertaining, struggle to get a FTA game.

Secondly, it's f**king boring seeing a different combination of Parra/Brisbane/St George every bloody week. Call me crazy, I want to see Canberra v New Zealand on TV in Sydney every once in a while. For people who like watching all RL and not just their own team, the repetition of certain teams gets frustrating.

These 2 points might not be as valuable to the TV networks, but imo there are some things more important than $$ (which on a side note is why I support the Bears even if a QLD team could arguably bring in more tv $) Fixed scheduling, guaranteed national coverage at a reasonable time (I'm sure you'll agree on this on PR!) and a chance to see every team play are worth a slightly lower TV deal for, imo.

Surely you realise that the benefit of having an equality is so that all teams have the same bargaining power to draw in sponsors.

Im in favour of having the first 18 rounds set and then the rest selected by TV networks.

Agree with this - is there any chance something like this is actually being considered?

 

[docbrown]

Agree with this - is there any chance something like this is actually being considered?

My concern with 100% fixed scheduling with 5 games on Foxtel is that after about Week 5, the majority of the top 8 clashes will end up on pay-tv (simply because the odds are with them).

This is partly why I'm in favour of a mixed system whereby 1 or 2 F2A games a week are locked in during the season draw (traditional derbies etc) and others are flexible so we can get as many Top 8 games on F2A as possible.

 

[Quidgybo]

My concern with 100% fixed scheduling with 5 games on Foxtel is that after about Week 5, the majority of the top 8 clashes will end up on pay-tv (simply because the odds are with them).

This is partly why I'm in favour of a mixed system whereby 1 or 2 F2A games a week are locked in during the season draw (traditional derbies etc) and others are flexible so we can get as many Top 8 games on F2A as possible.

You could schedule three on Friday night and three on Sunday each week with two FTA doubleheaders and the third match on Fox. That would allow a fixed draw where six out of nine matches were available for selection by FTA each week. Which network gets which matches wouldn't need to be decided until two to three weeks out. Fox still gets an exclusive lock on three matches each week allowing them a chance to get some of the best matches and FTA has the flexibility to pick and choose matches based on how teams are progressing throughout the season. All within a fixed draw.

Leigh.

 

[Smiley]

http://ipswich-news.whereilive.com....rl-hit-by-rival-bid-for-second-brisbane-team/

Ipswich Jets' bid under attack

THE Ipswich Jets remain focused on their bid to join the NRL despite a rival vying for a second Brisbane team.

Ipswich Jets chairman, and bid team leader, Steve Johnson said today that their bid remains strong and that the Brisbane bid was disrespectful to the Broncos.

The Jets had been up against bids from central Queensland, Perth and the NSW central coast to join the NRL in 2013 before the privately backed bid for a second Brisbane-based team.

“If the selection criteria, as I understand it, are correct, the bid has to bring a strong community benefit to the game,” he said.

“Our community based model is better than their privately based model.

“I believe a direct competitor to the Broncos would be disrespectful to them. They have done some amazing things for rugby league.

“We can complement the Broncos and Titans, not take away from them.

“The bid (from the second Brisbane-based team) was Brisbane’s worst kept secret and we are focusing on our own bid. Their plan has some fundamental flaws in it and we’re confident we have the successful criteria that the NRL is looking for.”

The Courier-Mail has reported that Thoroughbreds boss Craig Davison has resigned from his post to spearhead the fight for a second NRL team in Brisbane to rival the Broncos.

Davison, chairman of the group of high-powered businessmen which provides career mentoring to Broncos players, informed the organisation of his decision this morning.

A spokesman for the Thoroughbreds will publicly announce Davison’s departure this afternoon.

The 53-year-old, who was invited to join the Thoroughbreds by former coach Wayne Bennett eight years ago, said he would miss the Broncos but is relishing the prospect of bringing a second NRL team to Brisbane.

``It’s a decision I had to make,’’ he said.

``I suggested it to the Thoroughbreds that I do this, and they’ve accepted it.

``I think with the strength of the articles and the suggestion that I might be targeting Broncos players, it’s best for the club if I stand down. It would be difficult for Broncos people to talk to me when I’m out there doing this.

``I’ll still be supporting the Thoroughbreds 110 per cent.’‘

The Thoroughbreds have yet to appoint a successor to Davison, who has played a key role in the off-field development of several leading Broncos stars.

``I’ve had a fantastic time,’’ Davison said.

``It’s not just about supporting the players and helping the players.

I’ve been to their weddings and got to know them as friends. You don’t just talk football, you talk about life and fun. It’s a whole range of areas.

``I’ve had a special relationship with some Broncos players and it’s good to support them in some way.

Davison is one of three identities driving the Brisbane NRL expansion bid. The other two are Brisbane-based business tycoon Bill Rae and Nicholas Livermore, the son of Queensland Rugby League chief executive, Ross.

``We’re still waiting on the Independent Commission to make a decision on expansion,’’ he said.

``Hopefully they add two teams, but if they don’t we’ll put the bid in the bottom draw and keep on fighting. We have a lot of work to do still.’’

As revealed in The Courier-Mail this morning, the three-man consortium has begun due diligence into the formation of a second Brisbane team that would compete with the Broncos for the city’s sponsorship and supporter base.

“We’re dubbing it the Battle for Brisbane,” Davison said last night.

The consortium’s push for NRL inclusion is the most significant challenge to the Broncos’ flagship status since the birth of the South Queensland Crushers in 1995.

The Crushers suffered a quick death in 1997 amid the Super League bloodletting but NRL boss David Gallop said yesterday Brisbane’s population could easily sustain a second team.

The Brisbane NRL bid team has been investigating options since Christmas.

It is separate to the NRL bids from Ipswich and Central Queensland, which has been the most vocal in the race to become Queensland’s fourth team.

The Brisbane NRL consortium, which hopes to clinch a licence to play in the 2013 season, will formally announce its bid as early as tomorrow.

 

[adamkungl]

Looks like they won't be merging their bids then. "Disrespectful to the Broncos" :lol: f**k off!

Good news for CC, not so good news if you believe QLD needs another team.