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!

What those advocating afl style expansion don't want u to know

MugaB

First Grade
Messages
6,793
I had a suspicion my good buddies from Townsville and Perth had me on ignore, I'm a bit sad now, well crying and shaking I'm so upset to be honest.

But they obviously can't engage with the purrrre factzzzz that the sharks are such a well supported club and now have their shit together off field it's destroyed their poor little souls 😓
Theyll have to start picking on another sydney based club now, especially since bears are on the return soon
 
Messages
2,661
Theyll have to start picking on another sydney based club now, especially since bears are on the return soon
Manly is probably the easy target at the moment. Always hated that club but feel the need now to embrace my fellow Sydney brethren clubs into the future :)
 

AlwaysGreen

Immortal
Messages
43,132
Aw bless, ok I’ll feed the troll.
yeh sharks are in such good shape, terrible corporate support, one of the smallest fanbases in nrl, one of shttest stadiums in nrl, despite selling off their assets can barley break even and had a negative cash flow of $1.6mill last year, business model is to get more people to play pokies, need to sign players from Melbourne to have any success. Shall I go on?
And yet they survive. Go 🦈
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
10,542
Lets just say a single Sydney club does have $6m from sponsors, If all 9 have that we are talking $50m brought into the game via Sydney

Throw in the assets too and only an idiot would say it isn't strong
Well I don't know the exact number because not every club releases financial reports. It would obviously be in the tens of millions. The logic that others like Donkeys and Perth Red are arguing though is that if you cull Sydney teams, the sponsors of the culled teams will just go to the remaining teams, making those remaining clubs slightly richer. It's nonsense though. Sponsors back teams quite often because corporate owners know high-ranking individuals at those clubs and negotiate directly with those people. What's more likely to happen is those sponsors just walk away from the game and advertise elsewhere.

Yes and no, in theory yes, in reality the existing clubs struggles have long been held as a reason for no expansion going all the way back to Gallop in 2006 ish statements.
Gallop and News Corp never cared about the long term interests of the game. It was just an excuse. Referring to them as if they're relevant to today's expansion discussion is odd.

A few years' ago the Broncos averaged 173k, Cowboys and Titans 157k, Storm 150k and everyone else 107k in Brisbane on Ch9. Queensland teams rate better in Sydney than Sydney teams do in Brisbane. If there were lots of Sydney fans in Brisbane then this wouldn't be the case.
And? So Queensland teams rated better in Queensland than Sydney teams. Do you really think this is some kind of gotcha moment? To then argue though that means there aren't fans of Sydney NRL clubs in Queensland because they don't rate similarly to Queensland teams is, frankly, nonsensical. Nobody is arguing that Sydney clubs are as popular as Queensland clubs in Brisbane. You keep making up these bizarre strawman arguments.

I'm pointing out the reason they have half as many FTA games is because they have far fewer fans willing to watch them play. You cannot say it's all down to less games and not having fewer fans. Having fewer fans is what drives down their sponsorship value.

Cowboys didn't have 17 FTA games but got $8.7m in sponsorship, making a mockery of your argument.

Sydney clubs have half as many FTA games as the Broncos because the NRL and 9 still rig the schedule to make it that way. To claim that it has no impact on sponsorship when it is a large source of exposure for sponsors is to deny basic reality.

Also you mention the Cowboys as if that makes your entire argument but do I really need to explain to you the logical fallacy of how one correlation does not automatically mean that it is a causation? I'm not arguing at all that the Cowboys don't get more sponsorships because they have the benefit from having their own unique market. Again, you're arguing entirely with yourself there. I actually agree - that is part of the reason. But it is only PART of it.

My argument is that the value of sponsorships is BASED ON MORE THAN JUST ONE METRIC, which is what you keep suggesting. And that is entirely nonsensical. As I said before and I'll repeat it again - sponsorship value is based on lots of things - market access, demographics, FTA exposure - to name a few. To reduce down something complex into a basic presumption is foolhardy.

Didn't you say Sydney should keep all nine clubs but Brisbane should just have two?

A massive double standard and a sign of NSWRL bias.

I said Brisbane shouldn't have a third team until both Broncos and Dolphins are averaging 30,000. What's the point in adding a new team if the Broncos and Dolphins are struggling? You might disagree on that metric and say no 20,000 is enough. But if all the Dolphins do is eat into Broncos averages then it's hardly a success. I don't think that will be the case though. I'd say both Broncos and Dolphins could meet that criteria within 10-15 years. If you want to interpret that as 'Docbrown thinks Queensland should never have another team' then I guess there's just no such thing as nuance with you.

And yes I said Sydney should keep its clubs. If they fold because of finances or a lack of support then so be it. But there's no benefit in forcibly shutting down an existing club with a real fanbase when we can still easily expand with 3 new clubs into a 20 team competition.
 
Messages
7,853
Well I don't know the exact number because not every club releases financial reports. It would obviously be in the tens of millions. The logic that others like Donkeys and Perth Red are arguing though is that if you cull Sydney teams, the sponsors of the culled teams will just go to the remaining teams, making those remaining clubs slightly richer. It's nonsense though. Sponsors back teams quite often because corporate owners know high-ranking individuals at those clubs and negotiate directly with those people. What's more likely to happen is those sponsors just walk away from the game and advertise elsewhere.


Gallop and News Corp never cared about the long term interests of the game. It was just an excuse. Referring to them as if they're relevant to today's expansion discussion is odd.


And? So Queensland teams rated better in Queensland than Sydney teams. Do you really think this is some kind of gotcha moment? To then argue though that means there aren't fans of Sydney NRL clubs in Queensland because they don't rate similarly to Queensland teams is, frankly, nonsensical. Nobody is arguing that Sydney clubs are as popular as Queensland clubs in Brisbane. You keep making up these bizarre strawman arguments.



Sydney clubs have half as many FTA games as the Broncos because the NRL and 9 still rig the schedule to make it that way. To claim that it has no impact on sponsorship when it is a large source of exposure for sponsors is to deny basic reality.

Also you mention the Cowboys as if that makes your entire argument but do I really need to explain to you the logical fallacy of how one correlation does not automatically mean that it is a causation? I'm not arguing at all that the Cowboys don't get more sponsorships because they have the benefit from having their own unique market. Again, you're arguing entirely with yourself there. I actually agree - that is part of the reason. But it is only PART of it.

My argument is that the value of sponsorships is BASED ON MORE THAN JUST ONE METRIC, which is what you keep suggesting. And that is entirely nonsensical. As I said before and I'll repeat it again - sponsorship value is based on lots of things - market access, demographics, FTA exposure - to name a few. To reduce down something complex into a basic presumption is foolhardy.



I said Brisbane shouldn't have a third team until both Broncos and Dolphins are averaging 30,000. What's the point in adding a new team if the Broncos and Dolphins are struggling? You might disagree on that metric and say no 20,000 is enough. But if all the Dolphins do is eat into Broncos averages then it's hardly a success. I don't think that will be the case though. I'd say both Broncos and Dolphins could meet that criteria within 10-15 years. If you want to interpret that as 'Docbrown thinks Queensland should never have another team' then I guess there's just no such thing as nuance with you.

And yes I said Sydney should keep its clubs. If they fold because of finances or a lack of support then so be it. But there's no benefit in forcibly shutting down an existing club with a real fanbase when we can still easily expand with 3 new clubs into a 20 team competition.
The main reason Sydney's clubs are worth less than the Cowboys is because there's too many of them and they're competing for a limited resource in the one market. You can dance around the issue by claiming it's just one part of the equation and erroneously argue that lack of FTA coverage is just as much of a reason, but all you're doing is living in denial.

The stupidity of your argument is it's impossible for all nine Sydney clubs to feature on FTA every week when there's only three games involving six teams. Even if we had three Sydney vs Sydney games on Ch9 each week that would mean 33% of Sydney's clubs aren't covered. It's not a conspiracy to advantage the Broncos. It's a reality of Sydney having more teams than it can support. Accept it and stop whinging.

The Broncos, Storm and Cowboys are more valuable than any of the Sydney clubs because they draw interest in unique markets that lead to more money being generated. The money drawn by the interest they generate outside of Sydney is being used to prop up unviable Sydney clubs. I'm sick of our clubs being ripped off to prop up your shit unviable clubs.

Support for Sydney clubs in Queensland is low and not strong enough to generate corporate support north of the Tweed. To argue otherwise is to live in denial.

Without the annual grant then a few of the Sydney teams would fold. So they're already unviable.
 
Last edited:
Top