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!

Western Corridor NRL bid

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,401
The crazy thing is that a suburban team like sharks might have 200k followers, yet they ony get 10k to their game...

That means to other 190k watch it on TV so it doesnt matter whether the game is in Cronulla or in Brisbane or Perth.

Yet if the game was in Brisbane or Perth rather than Cronulla, we could be getting crowds of 20/30k rather than 10k


" They get 10,000 to a game" .Fair crack.They got 11,500 on a Thursday night ,when it had been pissing down rain, only stopped a couple of hours prior,againt the Broncos who brought no one.
The Broncos biggest crowds are against the Cows and Storm.Against the Sydney sides if they get 22,000 that's about it.This in a city of 2million.The heartland of rl.

Suggest you have look at Perth Reds crowds, they started off well and dribbled well down, 20-30,000 would be a LOL figure.And you wouldn't get the game live FTA on Perth TV.

I have no argument about a 2nd Brisbane team,I'm all for it.What you seem to forget apart from whatever the crowds attend the shark's home games, there are tens of thousands of Shark's fans (as evidenced by the G/F)who support them via merchandise sales and TV.
I have no problem with a Perth team.I have a problem with people who have not learnt one iota from the washout of the SL war.Since the SL war the game's foundations have been weakened.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,401
The people that go to these games arent some kind of natural AFL area. The AFL invested in these areas because they are they places they can get heaps of people to games...

These suburban sydney clubs have had decades to develop these fans, yet we are still stick at 10k per game. You cant compare that to a one-off game in a different location where a club just turns up for one week.

How about a club commits to this area, develops support and uses the superior transport and infintely better stadiums to grow crowds over a long period?

Or we can just stick with the run down suburban grounds in areas that arent designed for huge crowds and we can continue wondering why no one goes to games........


The facts are the bulk of the Swan's supporters whether they were nurtured or not live pretty close to the SCG stadium.That has been proven when they played games at ANZ.

You proved my point ,they invested in those areas because they are "close" to their stadium.In Sydney the way it is now, that is one hell of an advantage.They don't travel in Sydney because the transport is crap.



Your assuming these suburban clubs will do nothing to improve their stadiums in the future.That I doubt, speaking from a Shark's perspective where plans are for decent stadium improvements, including a Centre of Excellence which Govt throws in some grants.

I remember when on holidays deciding to catch a bus from Pacific Fair to Robina to watch a game .There is next to no parking, so public transport was the answer.Direct bus service packed though it was, but because of the lack of parking the crowd was a disappointment.A brand new ,you beaut stadium in Old.
People want to be able to access and get in and out reasonably quickly.If I could park,I would have driven there and got back to the unit at a decent time.

BTW wonder how many people the Broncos would attract on a Monday or Thursday night?They certainly brought no one to the Sharks game.
 
Last edited:

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,401
The SL war is a flawed example and you know it, how about looking at the effects that removing Newtown, Glebe, or Annandale had!?
But we don't talk about that because the removal of these small struggling clubs lead directly to immense growth in new larger markets such as St. George, Canterbury, etc and also opened up business opportunities for the clubs that were left behind.

And besides nobody has ever presented an even half decent case that Sydney clubs being dropped lead to a measurable direct rise in support for other sports clubs, it's just something that is asserted over and over.

And even if a Sydney club being dropped to the NSWcup did lead to a small generational rise in support for the Swans, Waratahs, or whoever, who gives a sh!t if you're replacing 20 thousand supporters with 40 thousand supporters in a new area.



Who gains?

The NRL, every club left in the competition, and RL as a whole in this country, because by replacing a small Sydney club with an interstate club we have taken pressure off the Sydney market, we have added an untapped market without diluting the talent pool further, which leads to more TV money, more advertising money, more sponsorship money, etc, etc, we've replaced a market with potential growth in the hundreds of thousands with a market with potential growth in the millions, we've grown the geographical footprint of the sport, we've added a new juniors area with a direct path to the NRL thus also growing the talent pool overtime, etc, etc, do I need to go on!?

And besides regulating a club isn't killing it! If hardcore Bears or Newtown fans still want to watch them, guess what, they still can! And it'd be exactly the same for any other team that is removed from the NRL.

Just because you're in the NRL doesn't mean you have a divine right to always be in the NRL, no club is bigger then the game, unfortunately at the moment a handful of powerful clubs have the powers that be convinced that they are and it's slowly strangling the game to death or fating it to obscurity.


It's not a flawed example to the clubs and their supporters who lost a team.have a chat to them.

Ah yes the old Annandale,Jets,Gelebe example.And how much in the way of competing codes around ATT.No Swans,no GWS,No A League ,no union.Rugby league dominated the Sydney scene by a country mile.That example is flawed .If you have SFA competition you can pretty much do as you please.

My experience with former North Sydney fans in a work environment, and the demise of their junior rl ,is more than a half decent case,As is the continued pressure by Bear's people to get the club back on track again.
As is the growth of AFL in that area.

You are a Canberra supporter living in a city with little real competition.A wishy washy small Gnats appearance a Brumbies that could be flicked, yet with all the publicity ,the excellent form they had displayed could not get over 16,000 on a fine day.When people were predicting 20,000 easy.Maybe that club should be relocated to Perth.The locals would accept the Raiders in a lower division.The Raiders don't get the TV viewing audiences.
The same logic can be applied to Canberra.

So we know who gains the friggin competition from other codes.


Correct no club is bigger than the game, and if a club is not performing on or off the field, that includes the Sharks,Broncos,Canberra,Titans then they should be sent to State Cups.You go along with that no doubt?
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,579
It's not a flawed example to the clubs and their supporters who lost a team.have a chat to them.

I'm one of those people that lost their club in the aftermath of the SL war!
And I can say with absolute certainty that I know/knew more people that have lost a club in the NRL then you do, considering that half my f##king family are/were Bears fans, most of whom unlike me didn't switch to the Raiders when they entered the competition in 82.

And all of their experiences, and my experiences, don't change the fact that using the SL war as an example is completely flawed under the current circumstances, because we don't currently have two giant mass media corporations and two 'governing bodies' of the sport using rationalisation as a route to try to save face for their monumental f##k ups as best they can by making it look like they won the 'war', and working completely in their own interest and not in the interest of the sport as a whole and it's fans.

Ah yes the old Annandale,Jets,Gelebe example.And how much in the way of competing codes around ATT.No Swans,no GWS,No A League ,no union.Rugby league dominated the Sydney scene by a country mile.That example is flawed .If you have SFA competition you can pretty much do as you please.

What a load of absolute BS.

Ever since modern organised sport was invented there has been competition for eyeballs and participants in Sydney and Australia at large.

RU, Soccer, and Cricket were all big sports in Sydney at the time that Annandale and Glebe went tits up, arguably both Soccer and RU had more influence on the Sydney market back then then they did now, and in fact Glebe used to be a RU club before jumping on the rebel code, and were much more successful in RU then they were in RL.

When the Jets were dropped their was even more competition in the Sydney market with the likes of AFL and basket ball having much larger presences in the market then they did back in Glebe and Annandales' day.

If mass exodus was a big problem with rationalisation like is claimed then we'd be able to look at it happening back then, yet nobody talks about it being an issue back then.

My experience with former North Sydney fans in a work environment, and the demise of their junior rl ,is more than a half decent case,As is the continued pressure by Bear's people to get the club back on track again.
As is the growth of AFL in that area.

Again I'm certain that I have more experience with Bears people then you do, and you know what? Their reactions to the Bears being dropped were completely different and completely unpredictable!
But none of that matters because it's completely anecdotal and using their plight is an emotional argument to boot.

The reasons that the Bears Juniors have struggled is because after the Bears were dropped there was no plan to keep them sustainable without the top grade team, and the Bears were allowed to continue running them and using them as a bargaining chip with the NRL and other NRL clubs (they are notorious for using their juniors to screw around with Manly in particular).

You are a Canberra supporter living in a city with little real competition.A wishy washy small Gnats appearance a Brumbies that could be flicked, yet with all the publicity ,the excellent form they had displayed could not get over 16,000 on a fine day.When people were predicting 20,000 easy.Maybe that club should be relocated to Perth.The locals would accept the Raiders in a lower division.The Raiders don't get the TV viewing audiences.
The same logic can be applied to Canberra.

Firstly, nobody outside of a couple of wishful thinkers on here were predicting 20k easy.

Secondly, the Raiders game in the last two rounds were the most watches games on fox, and we don't add much to free to air TV audiences because we've never been given a chance to do so on FTA, that's not our fault it's Nines and the NRL's.

Thirdly, we're a stable club that pays it's own way and is unlikely to face financial trouble anytime soon.

Finally and most importantly, any benefits you'd get by dropping the Raiders you'd get by dropping a Sydney club without the negatives of losing direct access to the Canberra market, and without risking losing the only thing holding juniors together in the region without somebody well placed to take over what the Raiders would leave behind.

I'll here a good argument to regulate or relocate the Raiders, yours isn't a good argument for that though.
That is also one of the main differences between you and me, I love the sport more then my club, and you love your club more then the sport.

So we know who gains the friggin competition from other codes.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Correct no club is bigger than the game, and if a club is not performing on or off the field, that includes the Sharks,Broncos,Canberra,Titans then they should be sent to State Cups.You go along with that no doubt?

If their is a replacement with better potential that is being held back by the existence of any club in the competition and it's in the best interest of the game, then yes I agree with that, even if the Raiders have to be dropped because of it.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,401
1.
I'm also one of those people whose club was in the firing line(probably a favourite) of the ARL prior to the SLwar,for possible relocation.Also a club that nearly went to the wall, on 3 prior occasions.Don;t tell me about clubs on the brink or walking on thin ice.

You may well know more Bear's fans than I do ,I doubt you know as many Dragon's fans(now a joint venture )as I do.My wife and her family and friends were staunch Dragon's supporters ,some have moved on when the merger came into existence.The thought of losing their individual identity was too much.My Brother in law played lower junior grade for the Dragons

I also note and I will bring in the SL war ,which you find distracting, when my club decided to go to SL,and I attended the special LC meeting with Ribot Mal Gow etc, some members of the club decided then to walk away .People have loyalties more to clubs than to the game..My loyalty is to the club and International rl.

The SL war outcome and peace deal showed exactly what happens when you manipulate or remove loyalties.South Sydney is a perfect example, and many South's fans,some high profile ATT,spoke out vowing not to follow rl.It drove many of their fans away.Have to report some to other codes, hardly a state secret.

You describe the SL war excuse as flawed,the then ARL didn't think so,the ARL clubs who stayed loyal didn't think so,the merger teams didn't think so,the removed teams didn't think so,the poor fans who had no say didn't think so.they were screwed big time.The irony the SL war outcome saved my club from extinction.

The only reason any talk of relocation is absent.all clubs are/will be being funded to the tune of 130% of the salary cap.If they can't make a go on that, they should be flicked.


2.That is utter bollocks.The sporting competition for eyeballs in the 90s onwards is far far greater than the early 1900s through to the 70s.Fulltime pro sport for all major football codes ,was scattered.Where was pro AFL/A league/Union in NSW then?Not even on the horizon.

There was no TV way back then, even though soccer was huge(I played it at junior level) ,there was no A league ,more an ethnic based club situation.Rugby league juniors had decent numbers in many areas, now in some cases they have to combine districts to form a comp.Rugby league was still doing well even up to 1994 on TV,jhence why Murdoch wanted a slice.
Union was amateur right up til 95,whilst Internationals got crowds, club comp was shI*t house.Then they became openly pro.
The fumbleball mob came in in 1982 thereabouts, struggled ,then SL came in circa 1995/1997.They got themselves a huge leg up as a result, and yes G/F.
Let's face it until the Brumbie cam along ,the Raiders had a clear passage in the ACT.

I've been around following union then tossed it in , and rugby league for a hell of a long time(decades in fact).I have more than an idea of what sporting competition is around now, than there was in the 60s-70s.The competition for young players from all codes, is plainly obvious.
Greenberg /Pulver for starters are fully aware of the competition for young talent.The competition for bums on seats and attendees.

3.Ricky and more than a few pundits were talking of 20,000 don't blame me.
I have no problem with the Raiders ,they have a great NRL team.My problem is with people who sit back like armchair generals throwing darts , saying this club should relocate ,never their own.

The Raiders have what, 3 licenced clubs to back them, they should be stable.
But sporting teams in the 21st Century should rely on gates/merchandise/TV income/sponsorship,rather than gambling.Look what has happened with the Dragons.


North Sydney had a small but active junior rl.How is it going now without a team?Ask who has filled part of the void.

4)The reality is whether you or I like it or not, relocate or sack a club, you lose fans, sponsors,juniors,and give other sports a leg up.To suggest many will remain lowly is fanciful and deluded.

5)Your last para shows I at least agree one one of your points.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,579
1.
I'm also one of those people whose club was in the firing line(probably a favourite) of the ARL prior to the SLwar,for possible relocation.Also a club that nearly went to the wall, on 3 prior occasions.Don;t tell me about clubs on the brink or walking on thin ice.

You may well know more Bear's fans than I do ,I doubt you know as many Dragon's fans(now a joint venture )as I do.My wife and her family and friends were staunch Dragon's supporters ,some have moved on when the merger came into existence.The thought of losing their individual identity was too much.My Brother in law played lower junior grade for the Dragons

I also note and I will bring in the SL war ,which you find distracting, when my club decided to go to SL,and I attended the special LC meeting with Ribot Mal Gow etc, some members of the club decided then to walk away .People have loyalties more to clubs than to the game..My loyalty is to the club and International rl.

The SL war outcome and peace deal showed exactly what happens when you manipulate or remove loyalties.South Sydney is a perfect example, and many South's fans,some high profile ATT,spoke out vowing not to follow rl.It drove many of their fans away.Have to report some to other codes, hardly a state secret.

You describe the SL war excuse as flawed,the then ARL didn't think so,the ARL clubs who stayed loyal didn't think so,the merger teams didn't think so,the removed teams didn't think so,the poor fans who had no say didn't think so.they were screwed big time.The irony the SL war outcome saved my club from extinction.

The only reason any talk of relocation is absent.all clubs are/will be being funded to the tune of 130% of the salary cap.If they can't make a go on that, they should be flicked.

None of that has any relevance to the argument at hand, it's just emotional BS with no real value to the happenings at the moment.

2.That is utter bollocks.The sporting competition for eyeballs in the 90s onwards is far far greater than the early 1900s through to the 70s.Fulltime pro sport for all major football codes ,was scattered.Where was pro AFL/A league/Union in NSW then?Not even on the horizon.

There was no TV way back then, even though soccer was huge(I played it at junior level) ,there was no A league ,more an ethnic based club situation.Rugby league juniors had decent numbers in many areas, now in some cases they have to combine districts to form a comp.Rugby league was still doing well even up to 1994 on TV,jhence why Murdoch wanted a slice.
Union was amateur right up til 95,whilst Internationals got crowds, club comp was shI*t house.Then they became openly pro.
The fumbleball mob came in in 1982 thereabouts, struggled ,then SL came in circa 1995/1997.They got themselves a huge leg up as a result, and yes G/F.
Let's face it until the Brumbie cam along ,the Raiders had a clear passage in the ACT.

I've been around following union then tossed it in , and rugby league for a hell of a long time(decades in fact).I have more than an idea of what sporting competition is around now, than there was in the 60s-70s.The competition for young players from all codes, is plainly obvious.
Greenberg /Pulver for starters are fully aware of the competition for young talent.The competition for bums on seats and attendees.

None of this really gets to my point at all, it's not even an argument really, just a rant.

BTW this line "Let's face it until the Brumbies came along ,the Raiders had a clear passage in the ACT." shows you know f##k all about the sporting landscape in the ACT.

Prior to the Raiders joining the NSWRL in 82 the ACT was a staunchly AFL and Union town, the Aussie rules came up with all the Melbourne public servants that moved to Canberra in the early days and Union was sustained by the private school system.
Soccer and League were here but in terms of popularity they were like what Soccer and Union are now on the national stage.

It wasn't until roughly 87-89 that Rugby League really took over from AFL as the biggest sport in Canberra, and that is only because of a once in a life time team creating a boom period for the sport. By 92-93 things were starting to even out again before another small boom after 94, however by 2000 things were well and truly settling out again and RL wasn't really that much further ahead of the others.

Then during the early 00s the Brumbies and RUWC caused a boom for RU and poor management and bad performances on the field by the Raiders lead to RL losing lots of ground over the next 10 -15 years, and now we are where we are.

Canberra has never been owned out and out by RL, and we're more hotly contested now then we ever have been.

3.Ricky and more than a few pundits were talking of 20,000 don't blame me.

Ricky called for 20k, he never suggested we'd get 20k, that was just a cheap publicity stunt to keep the Raiders on the back page in the lead up to the first home game.

I have no problem with the Raiders ,they have a great NRL team.My problem is with people who sit back like armchair generals throwing darts , saying this club should relocate ,never their own.

I actually have called for the Raiders to relocate before.
From Queanbeyan to Canberra, which might not seem like a big deal now, but it was back in the day and just as hotly argued as the argument over the rationalisation of Sydney.

BTW I'm not really one for relocation anyway, I prefer regulation and replacement in most cases.

Besides it's pretty hard to bring the Raiders into an argument about rationalising Sydney considering that we're not in Sydney, but I'll here a good argument as to why the Raiders (or any team for that matter) should be relocated, but I honestly can't think of any for the Raiders so long as Sydney is in the state that it is, because any benefits that you'd get from relocating the Raiders you'd get from removing one of the Sydney clubs without as many of the negatives.

I have heard a few good arguments for splitting up the Broncos and the Storm before, we're not at that point yet though, and I've also heard a sound argument to move the Cowboys to Cairns in the long run as well.

The Raiders have what, 3 licenced clubs to back them, they should be stable.
But sporting teams in the 21st Century should rely on gates/merchandise/TV income/sponsorship,rather than gambling.Look what has happened with the Dragons.

We actually rely much more on real estate, but that's neither here nor there.

The Raiders are a strange case because we're owned by the Raiders group who exists only to grow and support RL in the ACT and surrounding regions, the Raiders group also owns the leagues clubs and a bunch of other businesses but they only do that so that they can fund RL in the region and not just the NRL club but pretty much everything connected to RL at some level or another.

The Raiders NRL club are really only the forefront of a little corporation, little but always growing, kind of scary actually because lets say that someone or a group of business men wanted to start a NSWcup team in Canberra that is independent from the Raiders they'd still have to go through the Raiders to get it done.

North Sydney had a small but active junior rl.How is it going now without a team?Ask who has filled part of the void.

Nobody has filled the void because the Bears have refused on multiple occasions to let others fill the void, and the NRL can't stop them for some reason or another, Manly, the Rabbits, and the Roosters I believe have all tried to the void and been blocked by the Bears who use their juniors as an anchor to the NRL.

It's a f##king disgrace, but it isn't because of the Bears dropping out of the NRL, it's because of the Bears themselves who are willing to see their juniors die before they see them under somebody elses' stewardship.

4)The reality is whether you or I like it or not, relocate or sack a club, you lose fans, sponsors,juniors,and give other sports a leg up.To suggest many will remain lowly is fanciful and deluded
.

The question isn't whether you lose fans, sponsors, etc, of course you will, it's whether you can replace those lost fans and then some by removing the club and replacing it with a new one in a different area!

5)Your last para shows I at least agree one one of your points.

Then why aren't you calling for the rationalisation of Sydney?
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,401
Nothings changed with your points and I disagree it happens. The irony in fact you brought up the emotional BS when you mentioned your club was flicked.Rugby league is an emotional game for followers,if you don't believe that you haven't been following it for long.

It's a waste of my valuable time debating with someone who ignores basic things like the impact of competition from other fully professional codes,compares the early 1900s with the 2000s,(like comparing a Vauxhall with Lexus,)implies the SL war had little impact on peoples' choices,worksd on the threadbare notion that removing a club with X number of supporters and replacing it with an another club with X number of supports is another area is therefore the answer(as the Titans has shown),ignores the fact that many people are club aligned and as such will look to be entertained elsewhere.To remove A to replaced by B.You likely end up with no more crowd increases, no increase in TV audience.You are back to square on.You have spread you game geographically, yes,but not bums one seats nor eye on the box.
Inceasing the number of teams, is a different matter.

I've already stated and you have not been paying attention in my earlier postings, if a club cannot function financially with the 130% salary cap monies, then by all means the clubs is under the threat of the knife, and that means any club from Raiders,Sharks and Broncos.

Why the hell should any Sydney club able to function financially,grow its membership, improve facilities
be relocated or chopped, just to put a pin on a map which may or may not be successful in any case.Not one thing you have stated changes my stance on that point.Many people wanted the Warriors,Titans,and Storm chopped at various stages ,the fact they remained and offered something to the game shows perseverance is worth it.

By all means increase the number of clubs, such as Brisbane 2 and Perth,but I repeat one more time not at the expense of any club financially viable.

North Sydney league had the money to underpin and grow their junior league,the fact it didn't happen is testimony to their lack of nouse.

NB if the Force get chopped by union,I see that as a tremendous opportunity to expand the NRL into Perth,and add Brisbane 2.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,579
Nothings changed with your points and I disagree it happens. The irony in fact you brought up the emotional BS when you mentioned your club was flicked.Rugby league is an emotional game for followers,if you don't believe that you haven't been following it for long.

The whole point of bringing up the fact that I'm a Bears fan was to show that all this talk of people being lost to the game is just emotional BS that is completely subjective to each person in their own personal situation and completely outside of our control, in other words your whole argument that can be pretty much summed up as 'but think of the fans that will leave the game like the Bears/whoevers fans did' is just an emotional appeal that is yet to be shown in any hard way as a serious problem, and completely misses the point, it's not whether or not you'll lose fans by moving/removing a club because you certainly will lose some maybe even a majority of that clubs fans, it's whether or not by moving/removing the club you can replace those lost fans and then some in the new location and mitigate the losses in the old region!

I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that over the long run (50-100 years time long run) that the small Sydney clubs have the same potential as a club based in Perth, Brisbane 2, etc, etc, in terms of growth in almost every regard. They (a Perth, Adelaide, or the like) have larger potential growth for the sport in regards as far as fans, sponsorship, broadcasting money, corporate support, prestige, etc, etc, then a Cronulla, Balmain, Bondi, whichever Sydney suburb does by themselves.

The competition should be looking at having 4 or 5 big Sydney clubs surrounded by big "interstate" clubs that have been given as much room to grow as possible in a hundred years time, not 9 small struggling Sydney suburban clubs holding back the potential growth of the sport as a whole in the Asia pacific.

What's better for the game- for it to grow as big as possible and to be as popular as possible, or for it to still grow but not nearly as much because a handful of people don't want it to happen at the expense of their club?

It's a waste of my valuable time debating with someone who ignores basic things like the impact of competition from other fully professional codes

I've never denied the competition from other codes, only you did that when you denied it's existence in Sydney before the 90's.

,compares the early 1900s with the 2000s,(like comparing a Vauxhall with Lexus,)

In many ways the happenings of the pre-1960s NSWRL are directly comparable to the place that the NRL finds it's self in now.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana.

implies the SL war had little impact on peoples' choices

Never said that, only that the SL war isn't comparable to what a modern rationalisation plan would be for many reasons, and that the NSWRLs' treatment of Glebe and Annandale is a better likeness to what a modern rationalisation plan would/should be.

worksd on the threadbare notion that removing a club with X number of supporters and replacing it with an another club with X number of supports is another area is therefore the answer(as the Titans has shown)

I've not a clue what that is supposed to mean.

ignores the fact that many people are club aligned and as such will look to be entertained elsewhere.

Sure there are club aligned people, their young children and yet unborn kids are not, their next door neighbors are not, etc, you are looking through a 5 - 10 year prism and that is simply far to short sighted to see the big picture.

Let me put it this way, how many descendants of Glebe or Annandale fans do you know that are refusing to watch the sport because their great grandfathers club was cut and they feel the injustice of that, I'll answer your question- not one!

If they are still in living in Sydney (or wherever in the RL world) and they are RL inclined they are watching whichever club they have taken a liking to and probably don't even know that Glebe or Annandale even existed let alone the that their great grandfathers club was one of the two.

The same has happen to the descendants of Jets fans and is rapidly happening to the Bears fans, go talk to a six year old about the North Sydney Bears and watch their reaction of "who", I've done it with my brothers and cousins kids, most of whoms' parents were Bears fans and all of whom don't really understand what the Bears where, and many of whom are fans of all sorts of NRL clubs from the Raiders, to the Tiger and Storm.

To remove A to replaced by B.You likely end up with no more crowd increases, no increase in TV audience.You are back to square one.You have spread you game geographically, yes,but not bums one seats nor eye on the box.
Inceasing the number of teams, is a different matter.

Over a short period of time this is true yes, because you have to give the club and the sport time to grow a culture in a new location, just look at the growth of the Swans in Sydney, they already bigger then South Melbourne ever was in only 30 years and they are still growing.
Obviously the Swans are a best case scenario given their very good management and how they are extremely good on the field, and the Lions are a worst case scenario, but that's why I argue for replacement with a local club instead of relocation.

I've already stated and you have not been paying attention in my earlier postings, if a club cannot function financially with the 130% salary cap monies, then by all means the clubs is under the threat of the knife, and that means any club from Raiders,Sharks and Broncos.

Lol.
Using that logic we should cut everybody but the Broncos because in a few years every club bar the Broncos will still be losing money despite the increase in funds, the problem is the culture of football first business second in the game (every sport in the country has this problem to varying degrees), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't lead to well run businesses.

Why the hell should any Sydney club able to function financially,grow its membership, improve facilities
be relocated or chopped, just to put a pin on a map which may or may not be successful in any case.Not one thing you have stated changes my stance on that point.Many people wanted the Warriors,Titans,and Storm chopped at various stages ,the fact they remained and offered something to the game shows perseverance is worth it..

It's pretty bloody simple, because even at their very best in a perfect world the Sydney clubs will never grow as big as a Perth or Brisbane 2 can grow! So long as they are fighting for space in an over saturated market that is.

We could have 4 or 5 really big Sydney clubs and a cornucopia of big "interstate" clubs or we could have 9 Sydney clubs unable to reach their full potential due to over saturation and not enough room in the competition to expand to all those other places that could support clubs that could grow bigger then the small Sydney clubs.

By all means increase the number of clubs, such as Brisbane 2 and Perth,but I repeat one more time not at the expense of any club financially viable.

You can only expand the competition so much before you water down the talent so much that the quality of the competition suffers.

North Sydney league had the money to underpin and grow their junior league,the fact it didn't happen is testimony to their lack of nouse.

North Sydney run their juniors like it's 1994, they have a dead end once it gets to first grade, and they refuse to allow a well placed club to take over.

They are killing their juniors either for ego or for the fanciful dream that they'll get back in the comp, either way they should have handed them over to either Manly or maybe the Roosters 15 years ago.

It's also arguable whether they really do have the cash at the moment as well.

NB if the Force get chopped by union,I see that as a tremendous opportunity to expand the NRL into Perth,and add Brisbane 2.

We had plenty of tremendous opportunities to expand to Perth during the last mining boom and didn't take them, we've had ample opportunity to expand into Brisbane since 2000 yet we haven't. So I'm not optimistic that the NRL will expand even if the Force goes tits up, nor am I confident that the Force going tits up would be a good thing for a Perth based NRL team.

The real shame is that the Crushers and the Reds (and Rams for that matter) were allowed to die after the war in the first place.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,523
What describes a oversaturated market ?

If you use the 400-500k population base Sydney can house over 10 teams
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
64,597
What describes a oversaturated market ?

If you use the 400-500k population base Sydney can house over 10 teams

Problem is clubs like Cronulla, Penrith, manly don't have a 400-500k reach. They are closers to 200-300k. Clubs like parra, Souths, Bulldogs, Wests have the city wide reach and are less restricted geographically. Add in Sydney does not seem to love nrl as much as some other places and you have our current 12-14k crowds and sub 20k memberships. Of course ko time, stadia and weather also play bigbparts in that
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
What describes a oversaturated market ?

If you use the 400-500k population base Sydney can house over 10 teams

That assumes every single person in sydney loves the game and it assumes every team carries an equal share in theres of fan engagement.

Id predict that the bigger sydney clubs would connect with as many as 5x the people the suburban teams do.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
scabs at it again

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...e/news-story/195621f26620381e157a522250ca980d

Gillon McLachlan to meet with Queensland government over new Brisbane Lions base
Andrew Hamilton, The Courier-Mail
May 9, 2017 6:17pm

AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan will meet with State Government ministers on Wednesday to push the case for a boutique stadium at Springfield.

The AFL want the Government to contribute $15 million towards the stadium, which would incorporate the Brisbane Lions new training and administration base.

McLachlan has a scheduled meeting with sports minister Mick de Brenni. He is also hoping for the opportunity to personally assure Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk of the AFL’s commitment to the sport in Queensland and its intention to make a major financial contribution to the new development.

It is the first time McLachlan has personally entered the fray with the Palaszczuk government in the Lions’ long-running battle to find a new home.

Sources say the club has never been closer to striking a deal.

It is understood Brisbane have secured a funding package from the AFL and Ipswich City Council worth $15 million for their new headquarters and have been offered a peppercorn lease on the land from the Springfield Land Corporation.

The AFL is desperate to get a venue suitable for the successful AFLW competition and also pre-season JLT matches.

Brisbane’s long-term agreement with the Gabba restricts its access to its home ground until the first AFL premiership match of the season.

The Lions have taken home pre-season games to regional Queensland and Burpengary in recent years and the women’s side played their home-and-away fixtures at Brendale.

Brisbane have the worst facilities in the AFL by a long way but have struggled to interest either the Federal or State Government in their plight.

However, investing in women’s sport is seen as a vote winner.

The AFL and Ipswich will fund the training and administration base, which will house both men’s and women’s teams if the State Government will contribute to the construction of a stadium with a small grandstand and hills and terraces that could house 15,000.

The Lions drew a crowd of 15,610 for the AFLW Grand Final against Adelaide, which was played at Metricon Stadium after Gabba officials refused access to the ground over concerns over the state of the pitch following the Adele concert.

It plunged already strained relationships between the Brisbane Lions and the AFL and Stadiums Queensland to a new low.

Last time the Lions were considering a move to Springfield it created internal divisions within the club between those who saw it as an opportunity to secure their future and another faction who believed the club would lose its Brisbane identity if they moved into a different city.

There was also concerns over Lions chairman Bob Sharpless’ potential conflict of interest in his role as vice-president of SLC.

However, Sharpless is scheduled to stand aside as Lions chairman at the end of the present term.

The Lions eventually walked away from the initial Springfield proposal when $15 million in promised Federal Government funding fell over when the Gillard government lost power.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
scabs at it again

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...e/news-story/195621f26620381e157a522250ca980d

Gillon McLachlan to meet with Queensland government over new Brisbane Lions base
Andrew Hamilton, The Courier-Mail
May 9, 2017 6:17pm

AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan will meet with State Government ministers on Wednesday to push the case for a boutique stadium at Springfield.

The AFL want the Government to contribute $15 million towards the stadium, which would incorporate the Brisbane Lions new training and administration base.

McLachlan has a scheduled meeting with sports minister Mick de Brenni. He is also hoping for the opportunity to personally assure Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk of the AFL’s commitment to the sport in Queensland and its intention to make a major financial contribution to the new development.

It is the first time McLachlan has personally entered the fray with the Palaszczuk government in the Lions’ long-running battle to find a new home.

Sources say the club has never been closer to striking a deal.

It is understood Brisbane have secured a funding package from the AFL and Ipswich City Council worth $15 million for their new headquarters and have been offered a peppercorn lease on the land from the Springfield Land Corporation.

The AFL is desperate to get a venue suitable for the successful AFLW competition and also pre-season JLT matches.

Brisbane’s long-term agreement with the Gabba restricts its access to its home ground until the first AFL premiership match of the season.

The Lions have taken home pre-season games to regional Queensland and Burpengary in recent years and the women’s side played their home-and-away fixtures at Brendale.

Brisbane have the worst facilities in the AFL by a long way but have struggled to interest either the Federal or State Government in their plight.

However, investing in women’s sport is seen as a vote winner.

The AFL and Ipswich will fund the training and administration base, which will house both men’s and women’s teams if the State Government will contribute to the construction of a stadium with a small grandstand and hills and terraces that could house 15,000.

The Lions drew a crowd of 15,610 for the AFLW Grand Final against Adelaide, which was played at Metricon Stadium after Gabba officials refused access to the ground over concerns over the state of the pitch following the Adele concert.

It plunged already strained relationships between the Brisbane Lions and the AFL and Stadiums Queensland to a new low.

Last time the Lions were considering a move to Springfield it created internal divisions within the club between those who saw it as an opportunity to secure their future and another faction who believed the club would lose its Brisbane identity if they moved into a different city.

There was also concerns over Lions chairman Bob Sharpless’ potential conflict of interest in his role as vice-president of SLC.

However, Sharpless is scheduled to stand aside as Lions chairman at the end of the present term.

The Lions eventually walked away from the initial Springfield proposal when $15 million in promised Federal Government funding fell over when the Gillard government lost power.
vote winner? wtf

if the afl want it they can pay for it themselves, f**king weasels.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
they never pay for shit and all state and federal governments seem to love handing out money to them

f**k knows why
The one that really annoys me is the Victorian government will in all likelihood fund a $300m redevelopment of etihad stadium, an asset now wholly owned by the AFL. The reasoning for the redevelopment is to entice more people & events to the ground, thus generating more revenue for the asset holders, the AFL. I would have thought if an organisation decides to purchase an asset they are wholly responsible for it, from maintenance to redevelopment. Instead the AFL gets a sweetheart deal to purchase the stadium and then benefits from a $300m redevelopment that not only increases their revenue but triples the value of the AFL asset. All without the AFL having to spend a cent! How can any government, even a Victorian government, justify gifting $300m in taxpayer funds to a private, for profit organisation (the AFL elected to keep the stadium business as a separate entity)?
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
because AFL is a cult in Victoriania and they are so brainwashed that they expect governments to spend on AFL and would be pissed off if they didn't
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
incompetent is the Governments wasting so much money on flogball for no benefit to the tax payers

they do not do it for any other sports, not just Rugby League

and it's because the AFL are corrupt and so too are the Governments
 

Latest posts

Top