Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Posts

    1,114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. No, the sale of professional sport to hardcore fans is reliant on emotional bias, the running of the business it's self is better done if there's no emotional bias whatsoever.
  2. The only thing that is going to make the WCC grow into the big event it could be is if the NRL and NRL clubs truly buy into it and start taking it seriously. The only way that is going to happen is if the WCC is proven to be a highly profitable product in both hemispheres and for an extended period of time. Here's the catch-22 though, as things are at the moment the WCC will never be proven to be a big sell in Australia because the NRL clubs won't host it (unless they are forced to) until they are certain that it'll be profitable before hand, and because they refuse to host it it's impossible to prove to them that it's a profitable event with staying power in Australia. The only way to break that catch-22 that I can think of is for the ESL clubs to prove that it's a valuable event to the NRL club's by hosting it in Australia! Every second year have an English club (or better the RFL it's self) host it in Australia. If it's really successful and the ESL clubs make good money out of it here in Australia then eventually the NRL clubs will want to get in on the action for the money alone, and if it isn't successful then it'll fades away and we can move on to something else that the NRL clubs will buy in on.
  3. That would be because you are so emotionally biased that you can't see straight on this subject. In other words you are so scared that you'll lose the Sharks that you won't even really broach the subject with an open mind, which is silly because nobody sensible is even talking about folding clubs, so even if Sydney was rationalised the Sharks would still exist. That's just BS on the face of it. None of the Sydney clubs have over 100k supporters of the type that matter; paying customers, and any fans that aren't paying customers are unquantifiable, don't add anything to the club even if they do exist in the hundreds of thousands, and as such don't really matter in the context of this discussion. Maybe if we were living in a time before the internet you might have a point, but obviously we aren't. In the modern global market it's simply impossible to maintain RL's market share of Sydney. These days there's no such thing as a captive market, anybody that takes an interest in any sport can follow it and support it with ease without ever having the opportunity to actually attend an event. In other words even if you keep all the clubs in Sydney and don't touch them at all you are going to slowly bleed fans as more and more people become interested in the bigger fish in the pond, and now that it's a global pond there're some very big fish floating around. The only way that the NRL and RL in general can counter act that bleeding of their fan base is by directly engaging with a larger group of people, i.e. they need to focus on growing their share of the national market of 25 million people instead of focusing the majority of their efforts on the just one fifth of that in Sydney. The NRL has limited resources at it's disposal, it can only afford so much and fit so many clubs in the competition at any one time. As such having 9 clubs in Sydney is prohibiting expansion,and has been for going on 40 years now, because the NRL doesn't have the financial resources and space in the playing pool to support 9 clubs in Sydney plus all the others that they need across Australia and New Zealand, get rid of four or five of the smaller clubs in Sydney, that by rights never should have been in a national competition anyway, and suddenly the NRL has the resources that they need to expand the competition to everywhere it should be and more and quick succession.
  4. Only because of a couple of accidents of history, and the Sharks were the only SL team that survived the war that also failed to use that money to set themselves up for the foreseeable future. Frankly that says all you need to know about their history with money. Not necessarily. If a billionaire came along and promised to bankroll a club from Betoota for a laugh the club would never go broke, they wouldn't have any home fans either, but it'd never go broke. Sometimes playing the long game is the best option, and sometimes that means short term pain for long term gain. Anyone not talking about rationalising Sydney is either ignorant, deluded, or entitled. They are ignorant of the damage that the Sydney centric competition does to the code nationally. Deluded in that they think that there isn't a problem when there so obviously is. Or they are so entitled that they think that their convenience or their club's standing is more important than what is best for the sport and/or competition as a whole.
  5. If not Brisbane then where? Outside of NQ and the GC, that already have clubs, there really aren't all that many places in Queensland outside of Brisbane that could support an NRL club. Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast probably could, but not only would both require the government to build them a stadium for one tenant (i.e. a white elephant), but both would be small regional clubs trying to survive in the shadow of the Broncos, and more likely than not would end up as carbon copies of the Titans in that they'd struggle to survive, and realistically even if they could be built into strong clubs neither would be as valuable as a second, third, or maybe even fourth Brisbane club.
  6. Every second decade somebody has claimed that Cronulla is financially sustainable only for them to balls it up before the decade is out. If there's a way to go broke Cronulla has found it, so I'd give it a little bit of time before I'd be too comfortable. Also just because the club is financially sustainable it doesn't necessarily mean that they should be in the competition. Not that I'm saying that Cronulla should be kicked out, but it doesn't logically follow that simply because they can afford to be in the competition that they should have a place in said competition.
  7. One year doesn't make a pattern, look at the 7 years prior to it... Make the Swans competitive again and their numbers in Sydney will pop right back up, then swap GWS and Brisbane going well for a couple of teams that are actually well supported and their ratings will come back up pretty quickly. As for their expansion being a 'failure', it's going to be at least 10-15 more years before anybody really has an idea whether the AFL's last round of expansion was a success or not, and the AFL knew they were playing the long game with GWS and the GC. However the Swans definitely haven't been a failure, Brisbane on the other hand has never really had sustained success. Whether the NRL is doing fine is debatable (it really depends on your definition of fine), but the NRL would definitely be doing much better with Perth than how it's doing without them, and it'd certainly be doing better with Perth then it would with e.g. the Central Coast.
  8. If the Storm hadn't have given them to a path to the NRL (and largely payed for their development into professional players) most of those players wouldn't be NRL players at all. That is literally creating more professional players. That fact alone gives them the right to call them their juniors. Also your last two points are literally making the point I was originally making for me.
  9. The NRL has higher average ratings, the AFL has higher total ratings. In other words more people in total watch the AFL each year, but more people on average watch the NRL per game. Only because they are playing at a handicap, and it's not by much. They are also growing their market share in non-AFL areas where the NRL has stagnated broadly speaking. And if they had Perth and Adelaide they'd be way bigger then they are now. If Perth isn't crucial where is. And frankly half of the clubs in Sydney aren't crucial yet we're stuck dragging them around despite them not adding anything of value to the competition, so if we can deal with them then I think we can deal with Perth.
  10. That's simply not true. They've had partnerships with clubs in Brisbane and other SEQ based clubs since their earliest days, and their money and resource have gone to developing players that feed into their system in Queensland since that time. In other words they literally produce juniors in Queensland no different than any other club produces 'local' juniors and they always have. Their current partners are the Sunshine Coast Falcons, and the Storm have a lot invested into the Sunshine Coast, arguably more than in Victoria outside of their NRL operations, I mean they literally own the Sunshine Coast Lighting which is the bloody local professional Netball team. It's not uncommon for teams to produce juniors all over the place. The Raiders used to do the same in Brisbane as the Storm are doing on the SSC through a partnership with Souths Logan and their juniors club, it created a direct path from juniors to the NRL through the Raiders, and it produced players like Josh Papalii and Anthony Milford.
  11. Mate I don't have time to explain this to you in detail, but to put it simply, the NRL has to sell it's soul to match the AFL. Compare the AFL's broadcasting deal to the NRL's: The AFL has all it's games on free to air, the NRL doesn't even have half. The AFL has complete control over it's draw, and most of it's matches are played at fan friendly times, the NRL's only has complete control over it's draw in name, and way less of it's games are played at fan friendly times. The NRL only beats the AFL ratings per capita, and the NRL had to murder it's crowds and gate takings to achieve it's high ratings. If the AFL were willing to give up all their control and allow the broadcasters to turn their competition into a 'TV product' then their ratings and the broadcasting rights values would slaughter the NRL's, but they are too smart to do that, and that is why most of their clubs are massively profitable businesses with comparatively huge crowds and memberships, and only one or two of the NRL's clubs are profitable on a annual basis.
  12. Mate, you aren't addressing the point I was making, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact I don't really have an opinion on what you are saying at all.
  13. Yes, but that population is spread across hundereds of thousands of km's, not concentrated in one city. Perth and Adelaide are the only two cities in the top five largest cities in Australia (and top six largest cities in Aus and NZ) that aren't represented in the NRL. BS! As an individual entity an Adelaide club would be worth more to broadcasters than more than half the competition. There presence in the competition would massively increase the value of everybodies sponsorship deals as well. Again, Perth and Adelaide are two of the top five biggest cities in Australia, that make them two of the top five biggest markets in Australia. We aren't talking about the AFL, however their national coverage and market share in their chosen markets is undeniably better than the NRL's. It has nothing to do with copying the AFL, it's about going where the money and people are. If the NRL ever wants to meet it's full potential then it needs to have a presence in all the major capital cities (i.e Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide) and it needs to take a good share of the market in each as well.
  14. I don't necessarily disagree with most of this (however a lot of it is just utter BS), but the person I was responding to was trying to use the Storms lack of success in growing participation numbers in Victoria as a reason not to expand to other non 'heartland' markets. Pointing out to him/her that is largly because the Storm have never really tried to grow participation numbers in Victoria isn't wrong.
  15. Adelaide is the 5th largest city in the country, and SA is one of the most valuable markets in Australia or NZ. It's also a highly desirable market for broadcasters and sponsors. A team in Adelaide is inevitable, and it's madness that so many people will champion places like the PI's and regional cities like the CC or CQ over it. If you don't have a club in Adelaide then you don't have a national comp, and you are leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table.
  16. This is true, however it's also true that over their existence the Storm have invested most of their money and resources for junior development into South East Queensland instead of Victoria. So it's not really fair to say there hasn't been much growth in participation in Victoria when the Storm more or less totally ignored Victoria's juniors and participation numbers until only a few years ago. Also how is expanding into places where people are already playing the sport in numbers going to be better for participation than a new club in Perth or Adelaide? No matter how many teams are in e.g. Brisbane it's not going to have a major effect on participation numbers, but an NRL team in Perth or Adelaide could inspire growth in participation numbers in those cities that will never happen without an NRL club. I don't know Adelaide's numbers, but take WA's for example; when the Reds were around in the 90s RL participation in WA was at it's highest at just over 10k, after the Reds were kicked that number tanked, at their lowest it was under 2k, and these days it's around 4k. Realistically, if you want those numbers back up near 10k then WA is going to need a club again. https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/02/10/25-years-after-reds-perth-is-ready-for-a-new-nrl-team/
  17. The Central Queensland bid folded. Their main backer went broke, and everybody could see that it was a pipe dream anyway.
  18. No not the Brisbane Bombers, but how about a South Brisbane team, that has marketing that targets basically everything south of the river, throw in Ipswich and Logan as well if you like. That has huge potential. You know what'd bring much larger crowds; A large club that represents a large portion of Brisbane's metropolitan area... Actually they do have to make money, or at least be sustainable, because the NRL can't afford to bankroll the sport in the entire Southern Hemisphere, and the reality is that it's extremely unlikely that most of the Pacific Islands would be able to sustain clubs long term. Even if they were sustainable they still wouldn't be as valuable as the major cities in Australia and NZ anyway, so if you are in the NRL's position why would choose e.g. Samoa over Perth, when the reality is that Perth's going to be better for your business.
  19. There's simply no money in it, they'll all be charity cases built on foundations of sand.
  20. It's never too late to do anything, and with the right set up with the right people behind it a second Brisbane club could be extremely successful.
  21. With the possible exception of PNG, I highly doubt that the NRL will expand into the PI's before 2050, if they ever expand into them at all. At the very least I'd put Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Wellington, Christchurch, Melbourne 2, in front of any of the PI's.
  22. Even if they added a Perth club tomorrow, the NRL still wouldn't really be national without at least an Adelaide club as well.
  23. Yep I don't doubt it, but just because it's probably what's going to happen doesn't mean that it's what should happen. Brisbane 2 could/should be the NRL's version Man City to the Broncos Man Utd, but if the Dolphins get the nod it'll just be Brisbane's version of Manly, which is why it'll probably happen, because it's very NRL, and RL in general frankly, to pass up on an opportunity for greatness to take the what they think is the safe and easy road instead.
  24. Uh huh, and where are they now. Also they were talking about playing the odd game in other cities, just like the Warriors do now, not taking half of their season and splitting it between three third world countries. The problem with Bruce and EPIC isn't the distance or the time it takes to get to them so much as it is the locations themselves, i.e. the problem isn't that it's 6km from town (barely anybody lives in town so it's actually much further than 6 km for the vast majority of people), it's that Bruce is in the middle of a suburb with no amenities around it and EPIC is the middle of nowhere with even less. Also as a person that comes from a city where people will regularly complain that it's to far and to hard to attend a game if it's in the next suburb over, and (IIRC) is a Cronulla fan who's memberships and crowds look like they are going to tank because they are temporarily playing in a stadium a couple of suburbs over, you aren't really in a position to talk about lazy fans.
  25. It'd take generations to separate the Dolphins brand from Redcliffe, and the Dolphins are Morton Bay's version of the successful club that everybody loves to hate, so just changing the name from Redcliffe to Morton Bay wouldn't achieve much anyway. Realistically their NRL club would need a total re-brand if it wasn't going to be seen as the Dolphins in drag.
×
×
  • Create New...