Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Posts

    1,114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. Unless they've got way more money up their sleeves than it seems, the only way I can see them getting any significant mainstream coverage in the US is if celebrities get involved. I mean look what the Rock has done for the XFL and CFL, yes that's a bit different but you get the idea. If I was them I'd be contacting every celebrity with any connection to RL whatsoever, and trying and get them involved in someway, even if it's just a shout out on social media. I'd start with Rusty, who would probably be up for it assuming they aren't expecting him to put any money or effort in, and then use his connection to try and get others involved.
  2. We also have to keep in mind that this is Utah we are talking about. For obvious reasons a lot of Mormons from Aus, NZ, and particularly the PI's, migrate there. So keeping that in mind it's not beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could drum up a significant amount of interest in a RL program there. In saying that the numbers probably are fudged, but they aren't impossible.
  3. Except that the NSWRL weren't wealthy because of their football operations! Aside from specific exceptions when certain clubs were going through periods of significant success, every single one of the NSWRL clubs football teams were loss making enterprises that were propped up by pokies. In other words they weren't even popular enough to support themselves, and if they didn't have the pokies every single one of them would have folded! So from the very beginning you've got everything ###### backwards because you fail to understand that the BRL clubs (and others) weren't competing with the popularity of NSWRL teams, they were competing with the popularity of pokies in the working class parts of Sydney. So there's no what if about it, Australia has consistent laws on gambling, and specifically pokies, throughout it's existence then everything changes for RL not only in this country, but the whole world. And if you are seriously going to argue that is a what if fallacy then there's no helping you. And I don't know how you can possibly pretend to sit their and ignore the fact that effectively having a monopoly on pokies was a monumental, and totally unfair, advantage, that (corruption aside) wouldn't have been allowed in any other industry. But here you are pretending that that elephant isn't in the room. I also haven't moved an inch from my original point, the NSWRL didn't grow into the national competition because of it's popularity inside or outside of Sydney. Popularity didn't come into it in the slightest. Most popular, least popular, somewhere in between, it wouldn't have made any difference, they still would have become the dominant league because of the financial advantages that they had because of pokies. Pretending otherwise is just choosing to live in fanciful narrative.
  4. Sydney's population is just over twice as large as Brisbane's, not 4x or greater. And though this may have changed because of covid, Brisbane's growth rate is on a greater upward trend than Sydney's. Brisbane, and Queensland more generally, may not have an economy as large as NSW, however, covid aside, they're not lacking cash either. There's a huge amount of sponsor and corporate interest in RL in Queensland, so much so that corporates and broadcasters are constantly begging for more NRL teams in Queensland, and particularly in Brisbane, hence why the NRL is expanding to Brisbane over new markets. Hypothetically Queensland could easily support a conference of NRL clubs of similar size to the Sydney clubs, for all sorts of reasons that shouldn't happen, but there's no reason why it couldn't. Sydney is only the cultural hegemon of Australia in the minds of people in Sydney. Melbourne has been culturally dominant for going on 25-30 years now, and the slow movement of the Barassi line further north is one of the better measures of that. All that Sydney has over Melbourne at this point is that it's population is bigger, but even that won't be the case in the next decade. Finally, you could just as easily you use your arguments to say that that the biggest football clubs in London will be bigger than the biggest ones in Manchester, which we both know isn't the case either because population doesn't equal demand.
  5. There isn't one what if in the main body of my argument. So yeah, you are massively full of . The rest of your argument is BS because it assumes that all the clubs were competing on equal footing in a free market, they weren't. Why weren't they you ask? Because the laws surrounding gambling and pokies were radically different in each state and territory. That means in certain states the clubs had a massive advantage because their leagues clubs could have pokies (or significantly more pokies), where as others could not. Particularly in the case the of Queensland, where it was illegal for leagues clubs to have them, this had a huge impact. That meant that despite the fact that many of the BRL clubs had just as, if not more, successful football businesses than many of their NSWRL competitors, that the NSWRL clubs were significantly richer than their BRL counterparts, which obviously gave them a massive advantage. In other words, the BRL clubs were forced to take a knife to a gun fight. Take away that inherent advantage, or give the BRL their own guns, and the NSWRL doesn't grow anywhere near as big in Brisbane, or Queensland more generally, as it did, because guess what, as I alluded to before, despite being in markets of smaller size, sometimes significantly smaller, the NSWRL wasn't outcompeting the local clubs in popularity on a local scale because many of those clubs were of a similar size, if not bigger than in a lot of cases, the average NSWRL club. To give you the TL;DR, the NSWRL didn't spread through it's popularity, in other words by putting clubs in new markets and outcompeting the local competition. It spread by using money, that it gained through an advantage that their competitors were restricted from accessing, to totally destroy their competition before they even came into direct competition with them, then simply waltzed in and took over the market more or less uncontested. That's not to say that the NSWRL did it cynically, because they didn't, it was just an accident of history that they happened to benefit from, but it is what happened and to pretend otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or a mix of both.
  6. Not all markets are equal. Even after the BRL had started to fall on hard times in the late 70s-mid 80s, the average BRL team was just as popular locally as the average NSWRL team was in Sydney. In other words, RL was way more popular per capita in Brisbane than it was in Sydney (and that's still the case to this day). Give them similar resources to those that the NSWRL clubs were getting through their pokies and you'd almost totally steam the flow of players heading south through the years. If most of the star players don't move south during the 70s, and particularly the 80s, then their competition continues to be viewed as an equal to the NSWRL, if their competition is viewed as an equal interest in the competition doesn't slide, if interest in the competition doesn't slide their local broadcasting deal continues to be competitive with the NSWRL's, then there never would have been a market for the Broncos and the NSWRL wouldn't have been able to muscle in on the BRL's market as easily, then at that point the whole history of RL not just in Australia, but in the entire world, is completely different. You can do a similar alternate history with some of the regional markets, particularly Newcastle.
  7. It's a good job that I didn't argue a hypothesis that didn't happen then isn't it. Read the discussion again, he says "Sydney clubs have ALWAYS transcended their boarders that's why it became the league that grew into the national competition". That's just a total rewriting of history. It spread to be the national competition because it had rich leagues clubs that could afford to pay players significantly more on average than the other regions whose leagues clubs, on average, weren't as big and/or profitable for all sorts of reasons. What happened is the NSWRL clubs would suck most of the best talent out of a region, that would undermine that regions local competition's business and they would fall on hard times as a result, and then that competition and the sport would stagnate or start to die. The NSWRL saw this, panicked because they were reliant on talent from those regions to field their competition, and started to push for national growth to combat it, which then had a domino effect on the other regions. In other words the NSWRL's growth had absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of the competition outside of Sydney, and in fact if you look at the size of clubs at that time the NSWRL clubs weren't much bigger than many of the clubs from larger cities and towns, particularly in places like Brisbane, Newcastle, Queanbeyan, etc. It's also not unreasonable to suggest that in some cases that if one tiny thing changes the whole history of RL in Australia would be completely different. Change the fact that Queensland happened to be run by puritans who banned pokies in the 50s, then the BRL clubs have the money to compete and the NSWRL can't domineer them like they did, as a result SOO probably never happens, the Broncos definitely never happen, and you probably end up with a merger between the NSWRL and BRL competitions (like the NFL and AFL in America) instead of the NSWRL chewing up the BRL's market the way they did.
  8. Licensing fees are standard practice in sport. It's sucks that most clubs will just ###### it down the drain, but if anything it'd be weird if they didn't ask for one.
  9. Firstly, the NSWRL's growth to be the national competition had nothing to do with the popularity of the clubs outside of Sydney. It was because they had the biggest leagues clubs, and as such had the money to suck all the talent out of their competitors competitions and then takeover their 'territory'. Change that accident of history and make it so pokies are legal in Queensland, or some more of the clubs in the bush have the finances to compete with the Sydney clubs, and the whole history of RL in Australia is turned on it's head. Also a following outside of their Sydney base doesn't mean anything if you can't monetise it to make the club financially sustainable, and with the possible exception of Souths, none of them have been capable of truly monetising their support outside Sydney. It's also true that the majority of any teams supporters will live within an hour of the teams home ground, and that those fans will spend significantly more on the club on average than fans outside of it. In other words it's insane to bank on fans from the bush to sustain a club, and the clubs should be doing everything in their power to grow their support locally.
  10. Only if you consider getting lucky and finding a Hollywood star with rich mates willing to bankroll the club, or lucking out and having an already established leagues club in a growth corridor, "good management". Unless you can convince Hugh Jackman to get some mates together and blow tens of millions of dollars saving the Sea Eagles, it's pretty unlikely that they'll be so fortunate.
  11. Juniors aren't really a problem for either of them (well at least not in this regard), the problem for both (and many other NRL clubs) is that they refuse to adapt the environment changing around them. They need to make meaningful changes to make themselves more appealing to a broader group of people to grow their fan base, but they refuse to make those meaningful changes because 'tradition'. It's the biggest difference between the AFL and the NRL which has made the AFL more successful; even if they need a bit of arm twisting at times, the AFL clubs are willing and capable of making changes for the benefit of their club and the sport, where in the name of "tradition" (most) NRL clubs will fight change until they are blue in the face.
  12. The $30mil upgrade at Brookvale is a band-aid on a cancer. It won't fix any of the real problems that the stadium has, and it's nostalgia soaked regressive thinking like this that has held the game back for decades on both sides of the equator. Keep playing in rundown stadiums that are difficult for 90% of the population to get to if you like, but don't then complain when you are going broke and watching the AFL average tens of thousands more then you could ever dream of.
  13. The only reason you describe my posts as uniformed rants is because you don't like what you hear. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter, the fact that on 95% of what I talk about I'm in a way better position to have an understanding of what's actually happening than almost any of the people I'm discussing it with on this forum doesn't matter either, no matter how uncontroversial that opinion would be in Australia, if it doesn't conform to the majority's bias you aren't interested in even truly engaging with it. It's a real problem on this forum as well, because it's lead to an almost total intolerance of any opinion that doesn't conform to that confirmation bias, and in my time here I've seen multiple people bullied off the platform simply for holding firm on an opinion that others didn't like.
  14. You're right about the Roosters, they slipped my mind. However the rest have transcended their suburban boarders to varying degrees and now have mass appeal across the city (and the eastern seaboard of the country) in a way Manly has simply failed to achieve. It's a fact that there're significantly more Souths fans in Western Sydney than Eastern Sydney these days, and that's been the case for more than a decade now. You see a similar thing with the Dogs and Parra as well, just on a smaller scale. It also doesn't matter because all those clubs (with the possible exception of Cronulla) are in a position where they are at least reasonably financially stable for the time being, and don't need a huge boost of support to boost their business. Neither have enough amenities to support a crowd over 10k, and all it would take is a handful of bad luck or bad decisions on a day with a big crowd and things could go badly #### up. For example the southern stands at Leichardt were infested with termites for years before they were forced to rip one of them down. Apparently, despite being the same wooden design and only being meters away the other one is just fine though... Norths, with the help of the NSWRL, have blocked Manly's attempts to grow outside of the Northern Beaches by claiming "they're trying to steal our juniors" multiple times. Of course Manly had no interest in Norths juniors and were just doing basic marketing that all sports clubs do, and the NRL should have put Norths and NSWRL in it's place, but they didn't and it is what it is. As to a merger, I don't see what the point would be at this point, especially after how things went last time.
  15. Don't confuse poor decision making in the football department, particularly poor cap management, for financial instability. The reality is that Manly are totally reliant on their NRL grant and the Penn family for their existence, and Scott Penn wants out. Meanwhile both Wests and Canterbury have successful well run leagues clubs, and have the resources to follow the more successful clubs lead by investing heavily in other revenue steams.
  16. Wouldn't know as I've never been to Wakefield or Castleford. However Brookvale and Leichhardt are seriously outdated relicts that should have been abandoned by the NRL years ago. Let's put it this way, if Australia ever has a serious stadium disaster then it's more likely than not that it will happen at one of those two.
  17. Sure, but they also don't have any other major income streams, or the means to invest heavily into building new ones quickly, which makes them almost totally reliant on their football operations to turn a profit, and they simply aren't profitable enough to keep pace with the constantly increasing costs of running an NRL club. In other words other clubs have lower attendance, but they aren't as reliant on their attendance to build a sustainable footy club as Manly is. With the exception of Cronulla, who are in a similar situation to Manly in this regard, all the other clubs have way more room to grow their fan bases locally as well.
  18. Lipstick on a pig. The new stand doesn't change the fact that Brookvale is in a terrible location that is hard to get in and out of, or that the other stands need to be knocked down, or that there's a huge lack of amenities, etc, etc. Long term you might see a minor boost in average attendance, but that isn't going to be enough to fix their issues. What they, and Northern Sydney more generally, needed was a new modern stadium with good links to public transport, a mini Bankwest if you will. The problem is that there was never really is a suitable location for something like that, or the political will to make it happen, and it definitely won't happen in the next few decades now that these upgrades have been built.
  19. It is a problem that in the past the Bears and NSWRL have made a stink about Manly's attempts to grow outside of the Northern Beaches, but the reality is that they have almost no real power over Manly. So the Bears could kick and scream all they want, but aside from when in comes to juniors clubs, there'd be nothing that they could actually do to stop Manly. Frankly, Manly and it's fans often use the Bears and NSWRL as an excuse because they aren't willing to make the changes necessary to make meaningful moves into the rest of NS.
  20. Manly is a failing business, playing out of a ground that should be condemned, with restricted room to grow their fan base, whose owner has be looking to offload them for years now. So yeah they might have had success on the pitch, but as a business they are a relict of a by gone era that desperately needs to modernise or they are going to be totally left behind. Unfortunately for that modernisation to happen it's going to require them to broaden their appeal outside of the Northern Beaches to all of Northern Sydney, which is something they've been totally unwilling to do. It's also going to require a new stadium in a centralised location in Northern Sydney, when realistically there's nowhere where that stadium could be built and no interest from the government to fund it. So in other words if they were an American sports team they would have relocated years ago.
  21. Going by that guys' analysis only very superficial things. I wasn't having a go BTW.
  22. Nah, it's definitely a symbiotic relationship. The Bombers lacked the juniors system and RL credentials that the Jets bring, and the Jets lacked the resources and business connections that the Bombers bring. So it's a win-win for everyone and they instantly put themselves on the same level as the Firehawks and Dolphins. The real question now is what their bid's plan actually looks like; are they going to try and represent Ipswich, or are they going to broaden the brand and try to appeal to a mass audience in Brisbane. If A. there're better options, if B. who knows you'd have to look at their business plan and compare it to the others.
  23. But the reality is that there is a limit on the number of clubs because the NRL, talent pool, and Trans-Tasman pro sport market can only support so many at any given time. At the moment the NRL could probably support 18-20, maybe 22 but even at that point you are stretching resources pretty thin and you wouldn't want anything to go wrong or it could be disastrous. So whether we like it or not there is finite space in the competition, and we do have to be discerning with how many teams we allow in at any one time and where they come from, and in my opinion there's no way you can justify 3 clubs in Brisbane and 9 in Sydney at the expense of other large, strategically and economically important markets. So in other words if you want three clubs in Brisbane it would have to come at the expense of a club in Sydney, and not at the expense of other places like Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Christchurch, Wellington, etc, etc, and the odds of Sydney being rationalised in our lifetime is slim at best.
  24. BTW, his history of the Reds and Rams, and sport in Perth and Adelaide in general, lacks the context of the times, which gives a very warped history of the events. That context of 25 years ago isn't applicable to current times anyway so it's totally irrelevant to any current bids. The CC Bears bid was (as it folded) a fantasy held onto by old men swimming in misplaced nostalgia whom are incapable of moving on with the times. If they ever get an NRL license over large metro markets like Bris, Perth, ADL, or cities in NZ, I'll give up hope on the NRL's future as a commercial product. And that's coming from an old Bears fan.
×
×
  • Create New...