Western Corridor NRL bid

[adamkungl]

I don't rate Central QLD as worthwhile, for me it would be a fight between Wellington and Christchurch

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Id love to see all 4 accepted, Wellington being the 4th. Even at a 3 year gap. 2 added in 2013, 2 more in 2016.

 

[adamkungl]

potential 20 team NRL vs 1995 20 team ARL

Brisbane - Brisbane
Canterbury - Canterbury
Canberra - Canberra
Nth QLD - Nth QLD
Gold Coast - Gold Coast
Manly - Manly
Melbourne - Illawarra
Newcastle - Newcastle
Parramatta - Parramatta
Penrith - Penrith
Cronulla - Cronulla
South Sydney - South Sydney
StG-Illawarra - St George
Sydney (Easts) - Sydney City (Easts)
NZ (Auckland) - Auckland
Wests - Western Suburbs
Central Coast - North Sydney
WA - Western Reds
Ipswich - South QLD
Wellington/Christchurch - Balmain

Slightly better spread of teams with Melbourne and NZ2 instead of the split mergers. Otherwise fairly close to what we were aiming for 15 years ago.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Very close. Other areas could be saved for relocation like Adelaide, Central Queensland, Darwin, NZ3. Maybe if teams get game enough, a second Melbourne team :sarcasm:

 

[Desert Qlder]

It absolutely stuns me that this bid will end up ignoring potential fans in the Eastern suburbs of Brisbane. There is a MASSIVE market in footy strongholds like Wynnum, Redlands and Mt Gravatt. That market would not at all be interested in associating with Ipswich.

After Twenty years of looking for an alternative to the Broncos, it would be such a shame to admit an Ipswich side as the second SEQ side.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the second team must be called 'Brisbane'. This would be a club that would attract disenfranchised supporters from Wide Bay to Ipswich to Logan and to Straddie.

 

[Brutus]

It absolutely stuns me that this bid will end up ignoring potential fans in the Eastern suburbs of Brisbane. There is a MASSIVE market in footy strongholds like Wynnum, Redlands and Mt Gravatt. That market would not at all be interested in associating with Ipswich.

After Twenty years of looking for an alternative to the Broncos, it would be such a shame to admit an Ipswich side as the second SEQ side.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the second team must be called 'Brisbane'. This would be a club that would attract disenfranchised supporters from Wide Bay to Ipswich to Logan and to Straddie.

Agree.

Brisbane Diehards.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

It absolutely stuns me that this bid will end up ignoring potential fans in the Eastern suburbs of Brisbane. There is a MASSIVE market in footy strongholds like Wynnum, Redlands and Mt Gravatt. That market would not at all be interested in associating with Ipswich.

After Twenty years of looking for an alternative to the Broncos, it would be such a shame to admit an Ipswich side as the second SEQ side.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the second team must be called 'Brisbane'. This would be a club that would attract disenfranchised supporters from Wide Bay to Ipswich to Logan and to Straddie.

The Titans have significant support from fans in the Bayside/south Brisbane areas. Go to the schools there and there’s as much Titans gear as Broncos gear.

An Ipswich side would do the same for Western Brisbane/Toowoomba you’d have to think.

It’s the best way to go imo. Have the Broncos in the heart and then satellite clubs surrounding them to the south (Titans) west (Jets) and north (eventual Sunshine Coast team). It gives the fans in each area a choice but doesn’t oversaturate/strangle the market.

ie:

 

[BDGS]

Disagree, I paid $48 at ANZ, pitch of seats is too shallow so viewing isn't great then it started raining and I got soaked!

Those are the "cheap" seats.

Every game i have been to ANZ, and remember that is an uncountable number due to my team playing there, i have never been rained on and have been close to the action. On one occassion i could of awesome touched Ben Roberts and felt the wind off Josh Morris in a gap.

 

[BDGS]

The Titans have significant support from fans in the Bayside/south Brisbane areas. Go to the schools there and there’s as much Titans gear as Broncos gear.

An Ipswich side would do the same for Western Brisbane/Toowoomba you’d have to think.

It’s the best way to go imo. Have the Broncos in the heart and then satellite clubs surrounding them to the south (Titans) west (Jets) and north (eventual Sunshine Coast team). It gives the fans in each area a choice but doesn’t oversaturate/strangle the market.

ie:

Going by that map the team should be "South Brisbane" and not "West Brisbane" or words to that affect.

Either that or incorporate Lockyer valley and then call it west whatevers.

 

[jim_57]

Now this bid is getting serious does anybody think there's a possibility the NRL will introduce a "rolling" expansion schedule? As it stands it looks like atleast one great bid will get denied so maybe they could announce the two teams for 2013 then announce the next best one that missed out will be entering in 2-3 years time. Could work something like this:

2013 - Perth & Central Coast/2nd Brisbane (2 teams to start for an extra game)
2015/6 - Central Coast/2nd Brisbane
2017/9 - 2nd NZ (Bid submission & announcment in 2015/6

 

[Perth Red]

I think money will be a defining factor. Each new team will require (if the grant goes up to say $6mill a club a year) $30mill over the TV deal lifespan. That is $60mill for two teams, $90mill for three. Also three doesn;t really add anything from a TV point of view so unlikely to actually be worth $'s in the next TV deal. It is still possible there will be no expansion let alone more than two teams. If it does happen it will be because
A) the tv companies want an extra game a week
B) they are willing to pay more than $60mill for that extra game
c) The rest of the money goes up sufficiently to give the existing clubs a boost in the grants.

Who gets it will be based on what the TV companies want and who has the strongest bids.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Those are the "cheap" seats.

Every game i have been to ANZ, and remember that is an uncountable number due to my team playing there, i have never been rained on and have been close to the action. On one occassion i could of awesome touched Ben Roberts and felt the wind off Josh Morris in a gap.

What's an awesome touch?

 

[BDGS]

What's an awesome touch?

I walked away mid sentence and forgot what i was talking about. lol

Minus the awesome and continue the sentence, it makes sense lol.

 

[Goddo]

Going by that map the team should be "South Brisbane" and not "West Brisbane" or words to that affect.

Either that or incorporate Lockyer valley and then call it west whatevers.

Finally something we agree on. The Jets won't be West of anywhere except Vanuatu and New Caledonia.

 

[Goddo]

I really hope they keep the name Jets. Don’t care if it’s the Ipswich Jets, Brisbane Jets, West Brisbane Jets, South QLD Jets, etc but with the arrival of the new RAAF fighters and massive expansion of Amberley airbase all timed for the next few years it would be a great tie-in for the team.

Yep with a bad ass F-35 Lightning on their logo

 

[Goddo]

potential 20 team NRL vs 1995 20 team ARL

Brisbane - Brisbane
Canterbury - Canterbury
Canberra - Canberra
Nth QLD - Nth QLD
Gold Coast - Gold Coast
Manly - Manly
Melbourne - Illawarra
Newcastle - Newcastle
Parramatta - Parramatta
Penrith - Penrith
Cronulla - Cronulla
South Sydney - South Sydney
StG-Illawarra - St George
Sydney (Easts) - Sydney City (Easts)
NZ (Auckland) - Auckland
Wests - Western Suburbs
Central Coast - North Sydney
WA - Western Reds
Ipswich - South QLD
Wellington/Christchurch - Balmain

Slightly better spread of teams with Melbourne and NZ2 instead of the split mergers. Otherwise fairly close to what we were aiming for 15 years ago.

That is probably what the comp will look like around 2022.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I think money will be a defining factor. Each new team will require (if the grant goes up to say $6mill a club a year) $30mill over the TV deal lifespan. That is $60mill for two teams, $90mill for three. Also three doesn;t really add anything from a TV point of view so unlikely to actually be worth $'s in the next TV deal. It is still possible there will be no expansion let alone more than two teams. If it does happen it will be because
A) the tv companies want an extra game a week
B) they are willing to pay more than $60mill for that extra game
c) The rest of the money goes up sufficiently to give the existing clubs a boost in the grants.

Who gets it will be based on what the TV companies want and who has the strongest bids.

Speaking of money. Its fair to say that the Reds are going to need some help for a few years to set themselves up. Not in the Melbourne proportions but help none the less.

The reasoning behind having another Qld teams is networks will have more options (particularly FTA networks) to show games games live into Queensland.

Perth will provide a new timeslot to show live games at a later hour for FTA but mainly PayTV. (Eg, 9:30 eastern will be a live 7:30 in Perth. etc etc)

CC is lacking in this area. However they will have a good following on TV as history has shown.

My question is, do you or anyone else in the WA bid team think that the prop up required for the Reds by the NRL, will be offset by the money that they will/should provide with the live timeslot option?

Because unless Fox (I dont think FTA will benefit too much from the live Perth timeslot) see good value in the timeslot, and the extra money the Reds will require is greater then is made from the timeslot, the NRL may feel that the Bears will be the safer option as they wont require any extra support.

My fear for the Reds is that because they are a risky area, we may invest money into the licence and if they were to fall into a heap requiring a bail out from the NRL, which at the moment can only provide an advance in the club grant because there is no money saved, which wouldnt help much.

Not saying that the Bears or Jets cant/wont fall into the same situation, but it is more likely to happen to the Reds. Im just saying that it is a possiblity that the IC may choose to leave out Perth and just admit the Bears and the Jets (which would seal up the eastern seaboard which in the past was the goal of the NRL)

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

That is probably what the comp will look like around 2022.

Hopefully.

 

[BDGS]

Speaking of money. Its fair to say that the Reds are going to need some help for a few years to set themselves up. Not in the Melbourne proportions but help none the less.

The reasoning behind having another Qld teams is networks will have more options (particularly FTA networks) to show games games live into Queensland.

Perth will provide a new timeslot to show live games at a later hour for FTA but mainly PayTV. (Eg, 9:30 eastern will be a live 7:30 in Perth. etc etc)

CC is lacking in this area. However they will have a good following on TV as history has shown.

My question is, do you or anyone else in the WA bid team think that the prop up required for the Reds by the NRL, will be offset by the money that they will/should provide with the live timeslot option?

Because unless Fox (I dont think FTA will benefit too much from the live Perth timeslot) see good value in the timeslot, and the extra money the Reds will require is greater then is made from the timeslot, the NRL may feel that the Bears will be the safer option as they wont require any extra support.

My fear for the Reds is that because they are a risky area, we may invest money into the licence and if they were to fall into a heap requiring a bail out from the NRL, which at the moment can only provide an advance in the club grant because there is no money saved, which wouldnt help much.

Not saying that the Bears or Jets cant/wont fall into the same situation, but it is more likely to happen to the Reds. Im just saying that it is a possiblity that the IC may choose to leave out Perth and just admit the Bears and the Jets (which would seal up the eastern seaboard which in the past was the goal of the NRL)

I disagree on the FTA and Reds comment. I think FTA would love the Reds just as much as Fox would love their super saturday being 3 live games. FTA network could show two live games on friday night or show the 4pm sunday game live. Its a win win and FTA channels should pay more for that.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I disagree on the FTA and Reds comment. I think FTA would love the Reds just as much as Fox would love their super saturday being 3 live games. FTA network could show two live games on friday night or show the 4pm sunday game live. Its a win win and FTA channels should pay more for that.

Live isn't always good. Live is only good for getting a larger audience, but a live game at 9:30pm will not have as many ads as a delayed game, and because its a late time slot, most people will go to bed, so the loss of ad time is not going to be made up for by the extra viewers of a live audience.

Its not the fact that the game at 9:30 is a replay that puts people off, its the sheer lateness of the starting time. Same situation for Sunday afternoons. Less ad time if its live, and if it were to go to extra time, I cant see any network willing to sacrifice its news broadcast for it.

I do agree however with Fox. They would love it.