Jump to content

The Great Dane

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Going by that guys' analysis only very superficial things. I wasn't having a go BTW.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Any talk of a new NRL standard stadium in Brisbane anytime soon is a pipedream, i.e. any new club is going to have to use Suncorp for the foreseeable future. Also the Firehawks are Easts. In other words the Firehawks aren't partnered with Easts, they are East's NRL bid. The Dolphins don't claim to have $100mil in the bank, they claim to have $100mil in assets, and there's a big difference between $100mil in the bank and $100mil in assets. Just because you have assets doesn't mean you are willing to risk them, or the profits, on a failing football business. It's also not really that impressive that a rich well run leagues club has been able to build those sorts of assets. In other words the "$100mil in assets" line is a good bit of spin that sounds impressive but isn't really a big deal when compared to other similar leagues clubs. Given some time to build a team any of the Brisbane bids could pretty much start tomorrow. So again, the Dolphins saying they are ready to go isn't actually all that impressive, it just sounds good if you don't know any better. He also says Redcliffe has the history, the success, their own ground, and a leagues club, and putting aside the facts that both Easts and Ipswich have their own history, success, and leagues clubs, and Easts owns Langlands park, so again none of that is that impressive, that's all true. However he neglects to mention that Redcliffe are also the smallest, most isolated, and insular club of the three, and that as such they have a small fan base (tiny by NRL standards) and the least broad appeal across the city. In other words they are basically Brisbane's answer to Manly, and you'd be absolutely mad to give them a license before larger parts of Brisbane with broader appeal get a license. It would literally be choosing to allow a team with maybe 15-18k fans into the comp instead of one with 20-25k. Anyway, it was pretty fun hearing the opinions of a Pom on NRL expansion.
  8. I never said that they would wreck it or asset strip it... That's just you assuming what my opinion is and filling in the blanks, i.e. building a baseless straw man. If they tried to make the SL into an asset they'd make changes that, frankly, would probably be for the better for the most part, but those changes would almost certainly include getting rid of pro&reg, effectively cutting the Championship and League 1 loose, and then totally restructuring the competition to better suit what broadcasters want and thus maximise broadcast rights values. That restructure would almost certainly include chopping and changing teams to maximise broadcast value which, overtime, would see smaller clubs replaced with clubs from bigger markets with the NRL's backing. They'd also probably softly rig the competition in those big market clubs' favour to boost their success on and off the pitch. If they didn't treat is as an asset, or just wanted to make it into a feeder comp, then there're plenty of benefits to owning it. For one thing you can control how the players are developed and streamline a feeder system into the NRL, and other such things, but more importantly you can control the rules to make it easier to get SL players into the NRL without as much trouble for the NRL clubs, like ####### off transfer fees, which are pretty much alien in Australian culture, and are found quite disgusting once they are explained to the general public, but that is another topic. And frankly it seems to me that 'synergies' can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean in this context, but I'll tell you this; you don't buy a controlling share of a company if you mean to partner with them! If the NRL buy a controlling share of the SL it'll be because it's in their business interests to do so, not out of some charity to the RFL/SL or the game in England, and the only 'working together' will be the NRL's benevolent dictatorship over the SL.
  9. The NRL would have to make deep fundamental changes to the SL and how it's run if they were to take it seriously and try to make it into an asset, and those fundamental changes would undoubtedly disenfranchise a lot of people, whole fanbases of people. If they didn't take it seriously they'd own it but just leave it to run as it does while sucking up all the best talent for the NRL, which would effectively make it an official feeder comp to the NRL. Either way most of the people in England supporting the NRL buying a controlling share of the SL would quickly realise that these fantasies of global competitions or partnerships to grow the game globally are just that; fantasies, and would lament the NRL taking over within a decade. I highly doubt it's going to happen anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.
  10. I do and don't agree. I agree that large events and representative matches, such as internationals, can be a powerful tool to promote the game and get people interested on some level, but at the same time I think that if you become overly focused on them that it has serious negative impacts. In Australia smaller codes and sports often fall into a trap where they become overly reliant on their international team to promote the game. That over reliance leaves them in this sort of limbo where they need to push the national team to the moon to stay relevant, but huge portions of their "fan base" aren't actually fans of the sport as such, and are just fans of the national team, and for whatever reasons can't or won't be converted into fans of the local clubs. The problem with that is that the handful of games that the national team plays, relative to their club competitions, isn't really enough to support the sport and as a result their growth stagnates, and if things go south they quickly start to die. It's even a problem that the NRL faces with SOO to an extent. If the NRL could convert the literal millions of people across the country that are "only SOO fans" into "NRL fans", then the NRL would be the biggest league in the country by far.
  11. You know you don't actually have to invest in real estate in the town you live in right, and I never said it would be easy.
  12. A well run club in London that isn't run on the smell of an oily rag would be a good place to start, and there's no reason why the Broncos or Scholars couldn't be that club with the right people and money behind them, both of which the NRL could do a lot to help with. You could do similar things with other clubs from some of the bigger markets in the north that aren't well represented in the SL, Newcastle and Sheffield maybe. I don't know much about France or what impact a strong Toulouse would have on broadcasting contracts, but maybe them as well. Maybe talk about the potential of moving clubs into Liverpool and Manchester, maybe not if that's not well received by the clubs and fans, but explore all your options. Obviously I'm just spitballing, and others would have a better idea than me, but the point is that English RL has the makings of a competition that is much more appealing to broadcasters, and could be the basis form which the sport grows more nationally, they just haven't had the resources to make it a reality.
  13. Real estate and COE's is where most of the clubs have/are moving now, and there's no reason why you couldn't replicate those in England.
  14. A. You are assuming they'd keep all the current clubs that are in the Super League. B. Going by Damien's numbers, For a league of 10 clubs it'd cost the NRL roughly £46mil (au$83 mil) a year to double their grants. If they really wanted to they could come up with that money just from the NRL's broadcasting deals, they'd undoubtedly have to re-gig some things and other areas would get cutback, but they could do it easily. Again that's more or less what they did with the Knights, Titans, etc. They took them over, put their people in charge, flushed them with all the resources they needed to build a successful club, then banked on making their money back from the sale of the clubs and in the long run through broadcasting deals. Here's the thing though, they probably wouldn't even need to double their grants to flush the clubs with resources.
  15. They have 6. 4 in the ACT, 1 in NSW, and 1 in QLD. They also own/are involved in a bunch of other assets and businesses.
  16. Newcastle, Gold Coast, Wests, others to a lesser extent.
  17. Actually I didn't give my opinion at all... I said "I have no idea which clubs in England the NRL would deem the most important/valuable". How is that clueless? Everything I said there the NRL and clubs have done in Australia, and if they had the power to do so would try to do similar things in England. Maybe if the RFL and clubs had done some of those things themselves, particularly diversifying their income streams, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
  18. Ok, but how could the effects of covid not force radical change? You can say things were good before covid and not to make rash decisions, which I agree with by the way, but covid has changed things and whether we like it or not everybody is going to have to change along with if they wish to survive and thrive. Crisis creates opportunity, and you need to be ready to take it if it presents it's self.
  19. To be fair you are right, Abdo is a puppet, but these are unusual times with covid and all and V'landys (or rather the ARLC) micromanaging the NRL has been a bit of a necessity at points this year. Even so V'landys isn't really running the day to day at the NRL, and even if he wanted to he probably couldn't feasibly micro manage the Super League from the opposite side of the world while also running the ARLC and Racing NSW.
  20. Who's actually making any decisions though, and why do you think that they are based on covid? All that's happened is that the NRL has contacted an investment firm to look into the potential of investing in, or buying out, the Super League. That could led to nowhere, they may not even intend to actually try to buy into the Super League at all and are just exploring options, and you are acting like it's an existential threat to the sport in England.
  21. You could argue that willful ignorance is a form of stupidity. Either way we agree once you boil it down.
  22. I.e. exactly what the NRL have done with struggling clubs since the ARLC has takeover. Clubs that would have been left to go bust if they had been in the Super League...
  23. No, a media that doesn't think you'll move papers ignores your existence. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  24. I'm not backtracking, you are just misrepresenting me. Why you are doing that I don't know, but I honestly can't be bothered with it. If you want to be an ###### go ahead and be an ######.
  25. I'm sorry but what the is your problem? I give examples of things that the NRL and clubs have done in Australia, i.e. examples of assets they've invested in, and you are twisting that into me suggesting that is exactly what they would/should do in England, when really all I was saying is they'd do similar things. I didn't even say anything about stadiums at all, so yeah whatever mate. Also it wouldn't take billions of dollars to invest into some of those things at the clubs in England, and if the NRL were smart about it (which they were when they did it with the Knights, Titans, and Tigers, so I don't see why they wouldn't be with English clubs as well) they'd make their money back on the investments (or at least most of it) in the sales of the clubs. Finally, I'm not actually for or against the NRL buying the Super League, and I am simply describing things you could expect the NRL to do if they did takeover. So maybe stop trying to paint me into a position I don't hold...
  • Create New...