Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

The Nrl beats the afl per capita? What are you on about? 

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.

10 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

So afl has more games on free to air and still gets beaten by nrl 

Oh this just gets better and better 

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.

14 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Nrl is.the number one sport on tv without Perth or Adelaide and without Melbourne contributing much

Draw whatever conclusions you wish 

And if they had Perth and Adelaide they'd be way bigger then they are now.

17 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Me I say we don't need Perth or Adelaide.  Perth would be nice buts its not crucial.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Are the Storm not being clever there though? Club created in the late 90’s with no RL in Melbourne and no players to call upon so they set up links in an existing hotbed of the game, while they attempt to develop the game in their home state. 

If only Toronto had thought like that, they might not have a twenty-two man squad. 

Then the nrl might as well just have had another Queensland team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

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.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-trumps-afl-in-tv-ratings-war-20180910-p502u1.html

Nrl has higher total ratings and excluding ratings in New Zealand 

And that's with aFl having 2 more teams 

2019 was another win for league 

Pretty embarrassing for afl

AFl tv ratings in Nsw and qld have collapsed.  Their so called.expansion has been a major failure in terms of growing ratings

I want Perth in but the nrl is doing fine without them 

Edited by aj1908
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Those juniors come through the ranks in QLD

Slater for example.was rejected by QLD clubs 

The Broncos missed Smith and ingliss too

Parenting with a Queensland club isn't creating more players 

Storm should be focusing on Victoria but that's too hard 

And it's only.bc the Victorian govt put in millions to fund juniors that most of the stuff is happening 

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.

Edited by The Great Dane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-trumps-afl-in-tv-ratings-war-20180910-p502u1.html

Nrl has higher total ratings and excluding ratings in New Zealand 

And that's with aFl having 2 more teams 

2019 was another win for league 

Pretty embarrassing for afl

AFl tv ratings in Nsw and qld have collapsed.  Their so called.expansion has been a major failure in terms of growing ratings

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.

24 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

I want Perth in but the nrl is doing fine without them 

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.

Edited by The Great Dane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

Then the nrl might as well just have had another Queensland team.  

Well, they might as well not. 

The NRL projected itself into the eyes of the people of Melbourne and the club now has 20k+ members a year. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Adelaide has a population of 1,300,000, Rockhampton 80,000. Adelaide has so much more potential, not only with people attending games, but to add to the tv viewing figures, which is where most of the sports revenue comes from. Queensland Cup is the right level for Rockhampton.

You assume that a bigger place will mean bigger audiences, in which case it’s a puzzle that Fev get bigger crowds than London. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eddie said:

You assume that a bigger place will mean bigger audiences, in which case it’s a puzzle that Fev get bigger crowds than London. 

Just as Adelaide has far more potential than Rockhampton, London have far more potential than Fev. Adelaide and London are the clubs that should be in their respective top tier competitions. 

London have many problems including been poorly run for a number of years, numerous ground moves, name changes and a higher cost of living than their competitors. They have also had some success such as their development of young players. 

Going for small town clubs in the top league is never going to help grow the overall competition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Just as Adelaide has far more potential than Rockhampton, London have far more potential than Fev. Adelaide and London are the clubs that should be in their respective top tier competitions. 

London have many problems including been poorly run for a number of years, numerous ground moves, name changes and a higher cost of living than their competitors. They have also had some success such as their development of young players. 

Going for small town clubs in the top league is never going to help grow the overall competition.

London got less than 1,000 last week, and they’ve been around for decades. You say they’re poorly run (not sure how you know that) so how would you in your experience of running a RL club have done things better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

London got less than 1,000 last week, and they’ve been around for decades. You say they’re poorly run (not sure how you know that) so how would you in your experience of running a RL club have done things better?

Kept the same name and the same ground rather than moving here there are everywhere for a start.

London Broncos have called the following stadiums home. Craven Cottage, Crystal Palace, Polytechnic Sports Ground, Barnett Stadium, The Stoop, The Valley, Griffin Park, The Hive and now Trailfinders Sports Ground. Rather than one club that’s been around for decades they are more like 9 different clubs that have each been around for a couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Kept the same name and the same ground rather than moving here there are everywhere for a start.

London Broncos have called the following stadiums home. Craven Cottage, Crystal Palace, Polytechnic Sports Ground, Barnett Stadium, The Stoop, The Valley, Griffin Park, The Hive and now Trailfinders Sports Ground. Rather than one club that’s been around for decades they are more like 9 different clubs that have each been around for a couple of years.

Plenty of NRL clubs don’t stick to the same ground. Presumably though you are aware of why they have had to move grounds so many times, so how would you have done things differently in that situation? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know where these opinions of Cronulla folding are coming from. A club still owned by the members, not owned by private individual/s or a consortium.

Redeveloping their leagues club to be a 21st century entertainment district, vastly better than anything any other club has, with no debt associated.

Significantly more in the bank than most Sydney clubs.

Only club to own their ground.

The Sharks are solid.

Think of Wests and Manly going bottoms up financially before the Sharks do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

I don’t know where these opinions of Cronulla folding are coming from. A club still owned by the members, not owned by private individual/s or a consortium.

Redeveloping their leagues club to be a 21st century entertainment district, vastly better than anything any other club has, with no debt associated.

Significantly more in the bank than most Sydney clubs.

Only club to own their ground.

The Sharks are solid.

Think of Wests and Manly going bottoms up financially before the Sharks do.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nate90 said:

I can see the purpose of another Queensland club but I don't think it should be in Brisbane.

I hope we finally see a Perth club.

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Great Dane said:

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. 

Every second decade. Well in that time we have seen Souths out of the comp, mergers between Balmain and Wests, St George and Illawarra as well as Norths and Manly.

You are right, financial stability is no sole requirement for a club’s place in the NRL, but it’s a bloody great one. Anyone suggesting a forced merger, relocation or relegation of a Sydney club has rocks in their head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2020 at 11:22, Eddie said:

Fair enough if that’s true, though when Chasing Kangaroos did an episode on WA a few months back it didn’t exactly sound thriving, plus they said most players were originally from NSW and QLD. 
 

Edit: there are 11 clubs according to Wikipedia, so maybe not enough so say thriving but yes a presence nonetheless. I’d love to see a Perth team in the NRL and if they do get one again hopefully it will boost grassroots there more than it has in Victoria.  

The sports market is completely different in Melbourne to Perth so you can’t really compare the 2. Melbourne is the home of AFL with 9 teams there alone. It is embedded there

Perth/WA is a more open market and they have a decent and growing grassroots scene

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2020 at 04:36, Sports Prophet said:

Every second decade. Well in that time we have seen Souths out of the comp, mergers between Balmain and Wests, St George and Illawarra as well as Norths and Manly.

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.

On 20/02/2020 at 04:36, Sports Prophet said:

You are right, financial stability is no sole requirement for a club’s place in the NRL, but it’s a bloody great one.

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.

On 20/02/2020 at 04:36, Sports Prophet said:

Anyone suggesting a forced merger, relocation or relegation of a Sydney club has rocks in their head.

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.

Edited by The Great Dane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might consider your opinion of Sydney rationalisation to be ignorant, deluded or entitled @The Great Dane

Every Sydney club serves over 100,000 supporters of varying fanaticism each.

Each Sydney club plays a key role in ensuring that Sydney remains a League city where other codes are just waiting for an opportunity to swoop and accomodate the general public’s emotional and financial appetite for elite sport.

Sydney clubs do not prohibit expansion to new cities and states. So to consider internal expansion is at the expense of external expansion is frankly naive.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I might consider your opinion of Sydney rationalisation to be ignorant, deluded or entitled @The Great Dane

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.

21 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Every Sydney club serves over 100,000 supporters of varying fanaticism each.

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.

21 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Each Sydney club plays a key role in ensuring that Sydney remains a League city where other codes are just waiting for an opportunity to swoop and accomodate the general public’s emotional and financial appetite for elite sport.

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.

21 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Sydney clubs do not prohibit expansion to new cities and states. So to consider internal expansion is at the expense of external expansion is frankly naive.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only two major Australian cities that are not represented in the NRL. I disagree that the NRL does not have enough resources to accomodate two more professional clubs.

There are 51 other men’s professional sporting clubs in national competitions in this country that are not RL clubs that should be considered commercial competitors before any of the existing 16 NRL clubs should be.

The sport of RL needs to consider how to expand its financial attractiveness to an increasing number of commercial partners, rather than simply re-distributing the existing ones.

Each Sydney club has a potential of 100s of thousands of fans. It is the job of the governing body and the clubs to convert more of the fleeting supporters into invested fans. Juggling that with expanding to the only two remaining non represented markets is the key.

Its a case of doing both, not one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

That would be because you are so emotionally biased that you can't see straight on this subject.

The whole business of professional sport is reliant on emotional bias. Strange that any supporter would be required to defend such a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2020 at 23:15, Sports Prophet said:

The whole business of professional sport is reliant on emotional bias. Strange that any supporter would be required to defend such a position.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why the NRL wants another Queensland based club, to further boost the standing of the sport in that territory and to help the Queensland side at State of Origin level. 

I can also see why a longer term vision to integrate Perth into the competition could/would be good, though I admit to not knowing the logistics of travel from places like Townsville and Auckland to Perth. 

I cannot get my head around the idea of moving any club away from their home city. I know a lot of the NRL clubs have merged and/or have multiple home grounds a year but that’s not quite moving a club to a different state. I feel that you alienate far more than you win with such a tactic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I can see why the NRL wants another Queensland based club, to further boost the standing of the sport in that territory and to help the Queensland side at State of Origin level. 

I can also see why a longer term vision to integrate Perth into the competition could/would be good, though I admit to not knowing the logistics of travel from places like Townsville and Auckland to Perth. 

I cannot get my head around the idea of moving any club away from their home city. I know a lot of the NRL clubs have merged and/or have multiple home grounds a year but that’s not quite moving a club to a different state. I feel that you alienate far more than you win with such a tactic. 

Who's talking about relocation anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...