Why little mention of the CQ NRL bid?

[Perth Red]

IN SA and WA we have a population of over 3 1/2 million that have very little exposure to RL at this point in time. If the NRL is to become all it can be it simply cannot ignore these massive population & corporate centres. If you can't see how a city of 1.2million could prove more valuable than a shire of 200k then you really are blinkered.

 

[mightybears]

How many people followed the ARL/SL comps in Melbourne in 1997?
How many Victorians were watching the NRL & Origin in 2007?
How many will there be in 2017?

As with everything else in life, the hardest part is the first step.

Melbourne's population is more than 3 times that of Adelaide, the core isn't there, a relocation is the only way it COULD work.

 

[Brutus]

Didn't they avg 15k in their first year over a decade ago?

What is this BS about air fares? FFS we have a water polo team and a baseball team that plays in a national comp and can afford airfares from Perth!

Sometimes the lack of faith in our game and what it could be is dismaying. It's little wonder 100 years on its played in just 4 small parts of the world with game in front of less than 10k people.

Good point. All sorts of sports from Perth compete in 'national' comps and a lot of them have way less money than RL. If they can do it then so can RL.

The airfare excuse is plain stupidity.

 

[Timbo]

How about Hobart? you stupid moronic dick, it's so easy to throw insults at people in a forum, what a f**king hero you are.
Hobart has a population of 220k, with 500k in Tasmania. That's a bloody decent place to start.
Hobart itself may not be your magical 400k but the state is pure AFL heartland and it has 500k that will support a team out of Hobart.

Fail.

When the AFL were admitting the Power, Hobart had a bid in place. It included a new 30,000 seater stadium at Glenorchy on the site of the showgrounds paid for by the government.

The AFL dismissed it because there is nowhere near enough corporate support in Tasmania to support a professional football side.

For the same reason the Gold Coast and Western Sydney were admitted in front of Tasmania again.

 

[Bro Bear]

Perth only has 8 clubs, and not every age group is catered for. They have u/7, u/9, u/11 etc.
My son played u/7 in Sydney then we moved here the following season and he had to play u/9. He got smashed several times playing against kids older than him, he was never a standout player anyway but playing against older bigger players turned him right off, he was small and passive for his own age let alone playing a year up.

So somehow Perth is far superior to Adelaide because it has maybe 2 extra junior clubs.

So what if the Bears have wanted a team since 1998, that doesn't mean they're entitled to one. Newtown have probably wanted to be back in since the 80s, do they deserve it more then?


Well I did say that I preferred relocation for Adelaide and Perth.
Of course no one wants to move, that's why the NRL need to step in and start forcing some moves or start culling some teams. Sydney has too many teams and you people want to stick another one in the area.

The AFL moved teams to non AFL cities because they had some foresight and wanted to grow their game. RL fans don't seem to want to grow their game, you are all happy to keep bringing in new teams to clog up the Eastern seaboard. Let's bring in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie, they'll bring in more sponsorship dollars and a bigger TV deal than bringing in Adelaide.:roll:


Oh dear, it's too hard, so why bother?
The AFL had a lot of hard work to do when they sent teams to Sydney and Brisbane.

Lets just forget the cities and don't worry about being a proper national game, lets just bring in CC, CQ, move the Storm to Dubbo and move the Warriors to Coffs Harbour. Then we can all feel warm and fuzzy knowing that the NRL has looked after it's already strong areas.:roll:

Your solution has been solved - Parramatta first Sydney club to relocate to Adelaide, Rugby League will never be a national game and I have lived in every state. WA is the only AFL dominated state that may have a warm and fuzzy feeling about league. Personally, CC Bears and Ipswich Diggers/Jets but I want to see the game grow - having a team in WA maybe pausible.

 

[Schiltzenberger]

Fail.

When the AFL were admitting the Power, Hobart had a bid in place. It included a new 30,000 seater stadium at Glenorchy on the site of the showgrounds paid for by the government.

The AFL dismissed it because there is nowhere near enough corporate support in Tasmania to support a professional football side.

For the same reason the Gold Coast and Western Sydney were admitted in front of Tasmania again.

Fail, right back at you.
He asked if there was an AFL heartland with 400k+ people.
So yes indeed Tasmania is an AFL heartland with 500k+ people.

You've then showed why Perth and Adelaide would be better than regional places by mentioning corporate support. If the NRL wants more corporate support then moving teams into state capitals, regardless of how much interest people think there is, will garner more corporate support.

Not to mention the extra TV revenue.

Newcastle has been struggling for years financially, the amount of fans and interest in the area doesn't automatically transfer over to corporate support, especially being in a regional location. So why would the CC be any better off than Newcastle?

Your solution has been solved - Parramatta first Sydney club to relocate to Adelaide, Rugby League will never be a national game and I have lived in every state. WA is the only AFL dominated state that may have a warm and fuzzy feeling about league. Personally, CC Bears and Ipswich Diggers/Jets but I want to see the game grow - having a team in WA maybe pausible.

Well of course I don't want to see Parramatta relocate, no one wants to see their team relocate.

Here's the point though, I'd rather see Parra relocate or merge than get cut like Newtown. Oh but that's too reasonable though isn't it, most fans are pig headed and would rather their team die off.

My preferences in order.
1. Stay how they are.
2. Merge, most likely with Penrith. Parramatta Panthers has a nice ring to it.
3. Relocate, I'd still be able to watch them and have a team to support.
4. Get booted form the comp because the team and fans were too pig headed to think about options 2 and 3.

1 is a million miles in front of 2 and 3, but 2 and 3 are another million miles in front of 4.

You say it will never be national, but also say Perth would be plausible. If we had Perth we'd really only need Adelaide then to become national, yes the same city that had 15k/game turn up in 1997, more than Perth ever averaged.

 

[Loudstrat]

Professor? you insult someone after not even reading the post properly. I clearly said Perth before Adelaide, is it that hard to understand? How the hell did you get me thinking Adelaide before Perth? learn to read, professor.
Gosford will pretty much be another Sydney team and will offer little t...........

Where do I start with this rubbish.

Firstly, why try and convince me that Tassi would be a great spot for an AFL side when AFL don't even think so ffs?

Secondly, what's with this assumption that all Sydney clubs are struggling because Cronulla is, and than all non Sydney teams are thriving because Brisbane is? Do you actually believe that?

And if Adelaide was League potential then Cronulla's games would not have struggled to get 8k in perfect conditions, when Perth got 13 in abysmal conditions?????

FFS - put at tam in Iceland - that's growing the game - potential - whatever other buzzword you can throw at it. Trouble is, money comes from reality. The reality is that the Bears bid will work because the market is there. Adelaide is pure fantasy.

And whoever said we have to ge "Australia" right - no mate, we have to get RUGBY LEAGUE right - and Wellington may be a big part in that.

Too many of you lot think like AFL - "The code will die unless we have a team in each capital so we can say we are national" Well, we can say we are all the tooth fairy too. I'd rather be international, as our comp is. F*ck ticking a box on a marketers checklist. Better to be profitable - something you morons obviously forgot.

Didn't they avg 15k in their first year over a decade ago?

What is this BS about air fares? FFS we have a water polo team and a baseball team that plays in a national comp and can afford airfares from Perth!

Sometimes the lack of faith in our game and what it could be is dismaying. It's little wonder 100 years on its played in just 4 small parts of the world with game in front of less than 10k people.

Are you forgetting that the first Reds team blamed their demise on airfares????

Whats the cost of shipping two teams of 17 players (NRL and NYC) plus coaching staff and board members - lets say 40 people - to and from Sydney (9 times), Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra, Townsville, Melbourne and Auckland - That's 1200 interstate flight tickets per year. conservatively $400-600k?

Sharks to Adelaide. Or Sharks stay where they are with 50% more crowd and Thurston.

 

[Loudstrat]

Fail, right back at you.
He asked if there was an AFL heartland with 400k+ people.
So yes indeed Tasmania is an AFL heartland with 500k+ people.

A state? Not a single population you twit.

You've then showed why Perth and Adelaide would be better than regional places by mentioning corporate support. If the NRL wants more corporate support then moving teams into state capitals, regardless of how much interest people think there is, will garner more corporate support.

Rubbish. Parramatta and North Sydney CBD's are bigger than Perth and Adelaide.

Not to mention the extra TV revenue.

Moreso if the CC was admitted in an 18 team comp.

Newcastle has been struggling for years financially, the amount of fans and interest in the area doesn't automatically transfer over to corporate support, especially being in a regional location. So why would the CC be any better off than Newcastle?

How good was the corporate support in Adelaide during SL? When Rupert pulled the plug, the club lasted exactly 2 minutes - that's how long it took for the vote to wind the club up.

People get obsessed with what "national" means. Corporates know people buy stuff - not points on a map. No corporate used a footy jumper to break into a new market - that's what TV and Radio is for.

Well of course I don't want to see Parramatta relocate, no one wants to see their team relocate.

Here's the point though, I'd rather see Parra relocate or merge than get cut like Newtown. Oh but that's too reasonable though isn't it, most fans are pig headed and would rather their team die off.

Even discussion Parra relocating is f*cking rediculous - it not under threat at all.

You say it will never be national, but also say Perth would be plausible. If we had Perth we'd really only need Adelaide then to become national, yes the same city that had 15k/game turn up in 1997, more than Perth ever averaged.

That's not national. That's dots on a map. That's AFL's mental attitude. That ignores regional Australia - which is where League has a massive market advantage. But you can pull your dick as much as AFL does.

I'd rather League thriving by having clubs in heartland area than by worrying about masturbating like AFL plonkers. Adelaide is even behind Rocky as a viable location.

 

[Perth Red]

Are you forgetting that the first Reds team blamed their demise on airfares????

Whats the cost of shipping two teams of 17 players (NRL and NYC) plus coaching staff and board members - lets say 40 people - to and from Sydney (9 times), Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra, Townsville, Melbourne and Auckland - That's 1200 interstate flight tickets per year. conservatively $400-600k?

Rubbish. Parramatta and North Sydney CBD's are bigger than Perth and Adelaide.
.

you clearly have no idea what interstate airfares were in 1995 compared to 15 years later. You could pay $1500 for a Perth - Sydney return, now you can do it for less than a third of that.

Hopefully the NRL will
A) use it coporate airline link up to make it even cheaper
B) cover the travel costs (which I believe they do now for every team anyway) compared to last time when the Reds had to pick uup the bill not only for themselves but for every visiting team as well.

As I said if the NRL can't afford travel to Perth but Water polo, netball and in fact every pro sport in the country can then they should frickin well pack up and go home!

I've walked through North Sydney's CBD and if you think it is bigger than St George's Terrace you are off your rocker and devoid of all grasp of reality!

 

[Fui!!!]

Fail, right back at you.
He asked if there was an AFL heartland with 400k+ people.
So yes indeed Tasmania is an AFL heartland with 500k+ people.

You've then showed why Perth and Adelaide would be better than regional places by mentioning corporate support. If the NRL wants more corporate support then moving teams into state capitals, regardless of how much interest people think there is, will garner more corporate support.

Not to mention the extra TV revenue.

Newcastle has been struggling for years financially, the amount of fans and interest in the area doesn't automatically transfer over to corporate support, especially being in a regional location. So why would the CC be any better off than Newcastle?


Well of course I don't want to see Parramatta relocate, no one wants to see their team relocate.

Here's the point though, I'd rather see Parra relocate or merge than get cut like Newtown. Oh but that's too reasonable though isn't it, most fans are pig headed and would rather their team die off.

My preferences in order.
1. Stay how they are.
2. Merge, most likely with Penrith. Parramatta Panthers has a nice ring to it.
3. Relocate, I'd still be able to watch them and have a team to support.
4. Get booted form the comp because the team and fans were too pig headed to think about options 2 and 3.

1 is a million miles in front of 2 and 3, but 2 and 3 are another million miles in front of 4.

You say it will never be national, but also say Perth would be plausible. If we had Perth we'd really only need Adelaide then to become national, yes the same city that had 15k/game turn up in 1997, more than Perth ever averaged.

Nah, Tigers and Panthers should merge. Could Become the West Sydney Wildcats :sarcasm:

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

A state? Not a single population you twit.

True, and don't forget the rivalry between north and south Tasmania, they are not a unified state. As it is, few from Hobart travel to Launceston to watch the Hawthorn games.

Rubbish. Parramatta and North Sydney CBD's are bigger than Perth and Adelaide.

So very wrong. Jump on Google earth. Research commercial office Area. Adelaide has a large low provile CBD because of its proximity to its Airport. Perth's CBD is not much smaller than Brisbane's and is just as tall. Both far larger than Parra and especially North Sydney.

That's not national. That's dots on a map. That's AFL's mental attitude. That ignores regional Australia - which is where League has a massive market advantage. But you can pull your dick as much as AFL does.

I'd rather League thriving by having clubs in heartland area than by worrying about masturbating like AFL plonkers. Adelaide is even behind Rocky as a viable location.

It's not just a dot on the map, its showing the other 48% of Australia that you actually give a damn about them and the game in their area, rather than the safe regions of your own states. A team in the fontier give something their state (WA, Vic, SA) can identify with and create a sentimental link to Rugby League.

I know you're talking specifically about Adelaide here but it doesn't look good to South Australians when you say screw you we have Rockhampton.

The AFL haven't just plonked dots on the map either. They have clearly identified were they intend to and have a more realistic chance of growing their game and finding a niche. There is a reason they didn't go to Hobart, Newcastle or Canberra. Also the AFL can't perminently go to the regional areas as the opperational costs of an AFL team are far higher than in the NRL, too much for a population under 400 000. Geelong only survives because it has 150 years of roots with very healthy support in near by Melbourne.

You accuse the AFL of being "Masturbating Plonkers" in regards to a National brand and yes both the AFL and NRL have a compromised National structure but you can't possible reason that ther NRL is more National than the AFL. Those 5 capital cities have 66% of the nations population, not to mention the regional support through tv and merchandise in the outside the capitals nation wide. Get the NRL to put a team in Perth and you will give 2.2 million Australians a far easier avenue to enjoy Rugby League. Thats got to mean more to notions of a national league rather than fattening up the heartlands.

 

[docbrown]

Every away game involving Perth, Adelaide, Warriors, Canberra, Nth Qld, Central QLD, Ipswich, Brisbane and Gold Coast should be shown on free to air in those respective states, either on the main network or on digital.

 

[Brutus]

Geelong only survives because it has 150 years of roots .

Sounds like an interesting place.

 

[docbrown]

Sounds like an interesting place.

Not if you've been there...

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Every away game involving Perth, Adelaide, Warriors, Canberra, Nth Qld, Central QLD, Ipswich, Brisbane and Gold Coast should be shown on free to air in those respective states, either on the main network or on digital.

Why cant NSW have that too?

 

[Loudstrat]

So very wrong. Jump on Google earth. Research commercial office Area. Adelaide has a large low provile CBD because of its proximity to its Airport. Perth's CBD is not much smaller than Brisbane's and is just as tall. Both far larger than Parra and especially North Sydney.

It was recently announced that Parra is the 4th biggest CBD in Australia when they annouced the reason for resurrecting the Epping rail link. I have no idea how they measure these things - but it wouldn't involve google earth. I recall a similar claim about North Sydney a few years earlier.

It's not just a dot on the map, its showing the other 48% of Australia that you actually give a damn about them and the game in their area, rather than the safe regions of your own states. A team in the fontier give something their state (WA, Vic, SA) can identify with and create a sentimental link to Rugby League.

Wow. So a team in Perth would make a sh*tload of differentce to Port Headland? Rubbish.

The impact of the Swans is zero here. We did not suddenly give thanks for the AFL for suddenly looking after NSW by plonking a side in East Sydney.

I know you're talking specifically about Adelaide here but it doesn't look good to South Australians when you say screw you we have Rockhampton.

F*ck South Australians if they cannot show any interest in our game. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rocky got bigger crowds for the WC games than Adelaide got for Sharks v Cowpats last year.

The AFL haven't just plonked dots on the map either. They have clearly identified were they intend to and have a more realistic chance of growing their game and finding a niche. There is a reason they didn't go to Hobart, Newcastle or Canberra. Also the AFL can't perminently go to the regional areas as the opperational costs of an AFL team are far higher than in the NRL, too much for a population under 400 000. Geelong only survives because it has 150 years of roots with very healthy support in near by Melbourne.

Sop AFL ignore every Australian that doesn't live in a capital? That's 50% right there!

You accuse the AFL of being "Masturbating Plonkers" in regards to a National brand and yes both the AFL and NRL have a compromised National structure but you can't possible reason that ther NRL is more National than the AFL. Those 5 capital cities have 66% of the nations population, not to mention the regional support through tv and merchandise in the outside the capitals nation wide. Get the NRL to put a team in Perth and you will give 2.2 million Australians a far easier avenue to enjoy Rugby League. Thats got to mean more to notions of a national league rather than fattening up the heartlands.

How do you get 2.2 million people benefitting when Perth has only 1.6 million ffs????

Anyway - your plan only satisfies a notion ffs - Notions do not buy tickets mate. People do. And if you have an area that can average 15-17k why worry about the postcode? An extra game with 15-17k has to be better than what Adelaide can offer.

 

[Loudstrat]

Sounds like an interesting place.

:lol: 150 years of inbreds called Ablett.

I can just hear the banjo now - da da da da da da da da da

 

[docbrown]

Why cant NSW have that too?

That would mean you'd have 6-7 games a week in NSW on FTA. Plus it would impact on crowd as 3 games are NSW teams playing each other and Fox wouldn't shell out as much money it 6 out of 9 games were on FTA.

And actually now that I think about it a bit more, I'd probably leave out the QLD clubs too.

At the moment, Sunday NRL tends to focus on Sydney teams so naturally QLD ratings are lower than NSW.

But - when there's two games on a Friday and Sunday on FTA each back to back, you can have 1 QLD club involed on both days as there'd be at least 2 games in QLD each week (if either CQLD or Ipswich get in) and the fans would sit through both, especially on a Sunday - almost everybody would start watching at 2pm through to 6pm - that means there's 4 sets of fans.

There'd be 26 x 4 = 104 FTA games. I think all the major games of the season - Easter, Traditional Derbies, Grand Finals replays etc - should all be scheduled at the start of the year. All the big games guaranteed of getting a crowd and a TV audience. This would mean every team can be guaranteed 4 of those FTA spots a season (which would mean about 40% of the FTA matches are locked in at the start of the season) and fans can buy tickets before the season opens. Then the rest of the games can be ranked so we still end up top of the table clashes on FTA Friday & Sunday, and fox Saturday Night and Monday Night.

So... that said I think the QLD and NSW teams would get enough FTA coverage and teams would get promoted enough.

But when WA, Melbourne, Canberra, Warriors and other non-heartland expansion teams are away, play those games into their local areas (as it won't affect crowds) on FTA (even if they're also on Fox) so we can build those team's supporter bases.

The great thing about WA is that there's another live timeslot to ensure 3 games each on Saturday & Sunday, alternating with NZ.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

And actually now that I think about it a bit more, I'd probably leave out the QLD clubs too.

So... that said I think the QLD and NSW teams would get enough FTA coverage and teams would get promoted enough.

But when WA, Melbourne, Canberra, Warriors and other non-heartland expansion teams are away, play those games into their local areas (as it won't affect crowds) on FTA (even if they're also on Fox) so we can build those team's supporter bases.

The great thing about WA is that there's another live timeslot to ensure 3 games each on Saturday & Sunday, alternating with NZ.

Thanks, that's was actually what I was getting at.

Only places that should have any right to FTA every week are expansion/non heartland areas. And even then, they don't necessarily deserve it.

Look at Melbourne too for a sec, they are very highly rated on Fox, if the game capitalised on that money that Fox Sports are getting from the Storm, why should we take them off Fox??

 

[simostorm]

Just regarding the Airfares.. first budget airline Virgin Blue wasnt introduced until 2000.

Reds had to pay for all visiting teams airfares also. Which is a joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WA_Reds

The Perth Reds (1997)
The Western Reds changed their name to the Perth Reds for the 1997 Super League season,[1] and adopted a jersey of Red, White and Black. Although the club had made some promising signings, such as Rodney Howe and Robbie Kearns, the crushing $10 million debt that hung over the club (from having to pay the airfares for all visiting teams) at the end of the season led to Super League axing the Perth Reds on October 1, 1997