Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Posts

    1,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

The Great Dane's Achievements

692

Reputation

  1. Rep footy isn't comparable to club footy for a number of reasons, and frankly I think you know that. A one off special event is always an easier sale than a biweekly commitment. BTW, I live in Canberra, and it's not close to a sell out unless they've flogged 10k seats cheap in the last few days. Which isn't impossible mind you, I just haven't heard about it yet if it's happened. Edit; I just checked Ticketek, there's no way that it's close to a sell out. Not yet anyway.
  2. Ignorance is bliss. The support base is only on the Eastern Seaboard because everything south of Goulburn and west of Bathurst has been neglected by the establishment in Sydney for basically all of the sport's existence. If investment was made into other markets you'd see growth, just like the AFL has in the north east and RL in Canberra and Melbourne. Until that happens the sport will have no significant traction. Furthermore, there're multiple entities across the country interested in investing in the sport that have been shut out by the NRL that could have used the NRLW as a foot in the door, WA being a great example of one that isn't on the Eastern Seaboard. You also failed to address the actual point that I was making, but whatever. If there was any real value to the existing brands then the NRLW, AFLW, W-league, etc, etc, sides wouldn't be averaging crowds roughly 1-5% the size of their male counterpart's depending on the sport. Their social media engagement, ratings, etc, etc, would all be significantly higher as well because the supporters of those brands would support the team simply because it's carrying the brand. They aren't, why? Because 95-99% of the pro club's supporters don't care about the women's product regardless of the brand, and never will. As such it's a niche product that will appeal to a niche audience that can exist regardless of the men's audience. I also never suggested that the NRL should set up 10 brand new franchises, in fact I suggested quite the opposite, so again you are dodging the actual point that was made. Cronulla probably shouldn't be in the NRL, let alone the NRLW, but that's an aside. Under no circumstances, no matter the league or sport, is it necessary to have two Southern Sydney sides in the same national competition. There simply isn't the market for it, and as such in the long run their presence will do more damage than good just like it has done in the NSWRL/ARL/NRL. Taking all that into consideration, their prior investments into women's RL are pretty irrelevant frankly.
  3. It has happened in soccer (Canberra United), basketball (WNBL), and a few other sports. In those sports that have independent clubs and shared clubs, the independent women's club's tend to be the most successful once you take away the subsidies that the others get from their club's men's team's operations. In saying that, both business plans have their pros and cons and it's definitely a horses of courses situation. In saying all that I totally agree with you that the NRLW will almost certainly never have an independent club. The NRL will pay lip service to it, but I doubt it'll ever actually happen.
  4. Sure, but if the NRL demands of new expansion clubs that they field NRLW teams then those NRLW teams aren't in locations without without NRL teams are they.
  5. Why should they not have the right to build their own legacy instead of being forced to ride on the coat tails of the men's clubs? Signing up to be an NRL club's women's team is signing up to eternally be the after thought opening act, and it shows in the variation between the support of women's and men's teams.
  6. Maybe, but Cronulla, Bondi, Kogarah, and Balmain/Campbelltown probably wouldn't be in most national competitions, or at the very least not all of them. In RL you'd probably ideally spilt Sydney into 4 or 5 regions each with a single representative- north, south, east, and west, or inner west and outer west. That split was totally achievable in the NRLW, and the only reason it didn't happen is because of myopia and self interest. To give you an analogy; it'd be like a supposedly national competition in the US that has the five boroughs of New York represented but no teams in LA, Chicago, and Dallas.
  7. Nobody is asking for perfection, just for a little more effort than the bare minimum.
  8. If you were starting a 10 team NRL from scratch today it would look something like- Sydney x2 Brisbane x2 Melbourne Perth Adelaide NZ Regional x2 Now in the NRLW's case that probably wasn't going to be feasible, especially with the impact of covid, however the goal still should have been to get as close to that as possible. There also should have been a hard cap on the amount of Sydney clubs as well (probably 4-5), and there's no way that they should have ever been allowed to represent 50% of the competition at any one time. Myth. If it was true the NRLW teams would be significantly better supported than they actually are. The NRL sides don't have a monopoly on popular existing brands either. The NRL would have got a ridiculous amount of publicity if the Bears and/or Newtown were given NRLW licenses for example, and there're plenty of other famous clubs and brands from around the country whom will/should never get a run in the NRL that the NRLW could have been the perfect format for as well. We'll never know because 99% of them were effectively barred from bidding. Doesn't give them a divine right to an NRLW license.
  9. Yeah if the NRL had any intentions of the NRLW being anything more than a glorified publicity stunt then they would have capped the percentage of the competition that could be from Sydney at any one time, and the licenses would have been open to tender. Unfortunately self interest and myopia rules the day in RL.
  10. To be honest the AFL is doing more damage in this regard than RL ever could. Through no fault of RL's mind you. In the last twenty years they've wriggled their way into most of the private school systems in Australia in a way that RL is incapable of doing because of discrimination. As a result they've provided an alternate to kids in the private schools that didn't exist in most places until very recently. That has more or less halved RU's participation in said schools, which has totally thrown their junior system into chaos. Add in the NRL, and to a lesser extent French and Japanese rugby, coming in and poaching most of the best of the rest and the vast majority of juniors whom thirty years ago would have ended up playing RU are ending up in other sports or overseas. It's no coincidence that the AFL's growth in the eastern states this century has centred around traditionally strong RU regions (Northern and Eastern Sydney, the posh parts of Brisbane, Canberra, etc), as RU's decline has more or less mirrored the AFL's growth.
  11. If anything you lose braincells from watching New's analysis lol.
  12. Moving exclusively, or even mainly, to a FTA broadcaster in NZ would almost certainly mean taking a revenue hit of tens of millions of dollars, which simply isn't going to happen. Pushing for Sky to allow for more content on FTA would be a good move, but realistically it's unlikely to be successful considering that they begrudgingly allowed a larger FTA component in the current deal as a sweetener and if anything will probably try to reel that back in. That assumes that there's no serious rival bidder for the rights of course, which again, is most likely going to be the case.
  13. The NZ broadcast rights only saw a large jump because Spark Sport (streaming service in NZ) put in a competitive bid for the rights, which caused a small bidding war for the rights which has basically never happened before in NZ. The problem is that Spark Sport has struggled since then and are unlikely to be able to put in such a bid again. In other words Sky NZ will probably be the sole serious bidder again meaning there'll be no competition for the rights again. In such circumstances it's unlikely that you'll see another significant jump in the rights value, Sky may even try to low ball the NRL. I imagine that they would be open to negotiations to pay for the extra local content that a second NZ club would bring, but you'd have to ask them that question to be sure, and even so realistically there's significant more opportunity for growth in WA, SA, Qld, and Vic, than in NZ. In saying all that broadcast rights value isn't/shouldn't be the only factor when considering expansion.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.