Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

No less a similar assumption that taking the sport to a new area will result in greater proportionate growth

It's not an assumption when we have proven demand, and we have proven demand in both Perth and Brisbane.

Edited by The Great Dane
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

None of them. No team deserves being culled, moved or expunged. 

Sydney Swans, GWS Giants, Sydney FC, Western Sydney Wanderers and NSW Waratahs. Because I'm a one-sport man. And any suggestion that Rugby League clubs in Sydney should be closed down, merge

Because you can't prove something scientifically doesn't make it a lie. I'm sure you're right that a significant proportion of Bears fans were also interested in teams from other sports, but afte

3 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

It's not an assumption when we have proven demand, and we do have proven demand in both Perth and Brisbane.

I’ll say it one last time. Satisfy that demand and add them. But don’t satisfy it at the expense of established, well supported clubs that fulfil an important and valuable position as representatives of the highest competition in the country.

Edited by Sports Prophet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I’ll say it one last time. Satisfy that demand and add them. But don’t satisfy it at the expense of established, well supported clubs that fulfil an important and valuable position as representatives of the highest competition in the country.

We can't satisfy that demand because the NRL refuses to expand until A. they are comfortable that all the current clubs are sustainable and B. they have 'the money' (they never define how much) to do it. 

Some of the current clubs will never be sustainable because they're in an over saturated market that they can't compete in, and the NRL will never have the money because they waste at least $117mil dollars a year in propping up those clubs that will never be sustainable.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Also you have delusions of grandeur when it comes to the NRL clubs, especially the ones in Sydney.

The smallest AFL club in Melbourne (the North Melbourne Kangaroos) had 42,419 members and an average attendance of 20,808 in 2019, that is more members than any NRL club and a higher average average attendance than any NRL club except the Broncos. In comparison Souths had 28,394 members and Parramatta averaged 18,396, the biggest numbers in each category of any of the Sydney clubs.

Here's the real kicker, the AFL is trying to force the North Melbourne Kangaroos to relocate to Tasmania...

Edited by The Great Dane
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

I'm sorry that you are totally incapable of accepting that people have opinions other than yours, but that isn't my problem.

And the only person trying to turn somebody off anything is you!

I am wrong often and do not mind being educated.

You on the other hand know everything and love to tell people where they are wrong and how little they know.

Take a break Oracle.

 

Edited by Allora

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Are these clubs who have needed bailing out with 130% of their salary cap coming from the NRL going to survive when they get less as the NRL income is divided between 18 clubs?

You’ve already said that introducing teams from Perth and Adelaide will increase TV revenue, so their tv income would go up even though the % share is slightly less. 

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

Then they’d have to not take their share at the start, like Toronto have ridiculously been forced to do by the other SL clubs. 

They will need propped up financially for years,Melbourne  were for 2 decades.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Are these clubs who have needed bailing out with 130% of their salary cap coming from the NRL going to survive when they get less as the NRL income is divided between 18 clubs?

130% of the salary cap isn’t a bail out as much as you say it is.

its not a handout at all. The clubs and NRL go to broadcasters as collective partners. That is their money as much as the approx 27% of game revenue belongs to the players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel that the answer to the financial problem of rugby league is the type of rugby played. Cut out all the negative rugby and reintroduce fast flowing open exciting rugby league.  Supporters like to see trys scored not boring five tackles and a kick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having no RL for four months will be a financial strength test for each club. Might this prove to be an evolutionary step?

Edited by Blind side johnny

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Having no RL for four months will be a finacial strength test for each club. Might this prove to be an evolutionary step?

Some on here hope so, they hope it’s wiped out like the dinosaurs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

It's a pretty big one for the struggling clubs.

The questions is , how clubs are losing so much money when their player wages are paid plus 30% if they are strong 'future proofed' clubs.

 

If you don’t know that, then I would suggest you have no idea what you have been talking about for the past 13 pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Perhaps not immediately though. 

Why an earth would the NRL expand if the TV revenue from the expanded clubs/additional game does not increase with it? That's why they are considering expansion in the first place (to increase the broadcast revenue). Not spread what they currently have to another club or two.

The nrl gets roughly $1.7m per each game from broadcasters so if you add another two teams (I.e 1 extra game) you would expect the TV deal to increase at the very least by that figure ($41m per year).

All very rough numbers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It wouldnt necessarily grow at the same rate, thats why i suggested they wouldnt expand the number at the moment. 

Though even if it doesnt grow at the same rate, thats no necessarily a reason for not doing it. If it were to grow at a slower rate for say 3 years, then at a faster rate after the new clubs/timeslots etc had proved their value then it would be worth doing. 

 

So your saying take a punt and expand without the increase in broadcast revenue on the hope that in three years time the TV ratings for the new teams are great and then hope to secure a huge increase. I see some flaws in this theory unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its what has already happened in RL and what has happened in other sports. 

Are there any examples of sports which have substantially grown attendances and tv revenues without expanding their geographic footprint from their original heartlands?

 

It has happened but only if you have a daft admiration. Look at Catalans....we are still waiting for the increase in TV revenue they were brought into achieve. It's a risky way of doing things. It hasn't happened in modern NRL times so I don't see why they would do it now.

Yes, answer to your second point. In the past 15 years the NRL are close to quadripling their TV revenues. Yes, there has been some expansion but this increase has been predominantly driven by the popularity of the game increasing throughout NSW and QLD (RL heartlands). Which probably a decent argument to keep all 9 Sydney clubs.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, AB90 said:

It has happened but only if you have a daft admiration. Look at Catalans....we are still waiting for the increase in TV revenue they were brought into achieve. It's a risky way of doing things. It hasn't happened in modern NRL times so I don't see why they would do it now.

Yes, answer to your second point. In the past 15 years the NRL are close to quadripling their TV revenues. Yes, there has been some expansion but this increase has been predominantly driven by the popularity of the game increasing throughout NSW and QLD (RL heartlands). Which probably a decent argument to keep all 9 Sydney clubs.

 

I know nothing about the structure of Australian broadcasting but does the quadrupling in TV revenues derive from NSW and Queensland viewers alone or from viewers in other states? This data could significantly inform any decisions about outward expansion I believe.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

That assumes that les Catalans extra game per week was worth nothing to sky.

Which would he in contradiction of your earlier argument that as more games were available there would be a congruent immediate uptick in rights value. Now considering that 3 other SL games arent, and no championship games are screened most weeks then it makes it difficult to argue we arent already seeing value from les Catalans.

It has happened in modern NRL times, of the 16 clubs in the NRL, Brisbane, NZ warriors, Melbourne, NQC, gold coast and Newcastle are less than 35 years old. If you put that up to 38 years you include Canberra and that is every single club outside Sydney is less than 40years old

Decades ago the NSWRL were a part time comp whose best players were being stolen by cashed up British clubs to the point that they were refusing to cap overseas players for rep games. In 35 years they have expanded that to a successor comp whose national footprint has grown and has seen a growth in tv rights and associated revenue.

Noted about your Catalans point. Expansion in super league compared to nrl are two different kettles of fish as RL isn't popular enough in the UK for a broadcaster to televise every single game (like in Aus).

When I said modern times nrl times I literaly meant the nrl (I.e after the super league war when the nrl was first formed). My point was that all modern expansion has been done when the TV broadcast deal expires/renegotiated every 5 years incorporating the new team into the deal. Melbourne was introduced in the first nrl season in 1998, 5 years later when the TV deal expired/renewed in 2002 Souths were reintroduced, then again, 5 years later Gold Coast was introduced (when the TV deal was renegotiated). There are/were plans to introduce a second Brisbane team in 2023 (when the new TV deal is due to be renegotiated).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I know nothing about the structure of Australian broadcasting but does the quadrupling in TV revenues derive from NSW and Queensland viewers alone or from viewers in other states? This data could significantly inform any decisions about outward expansion I believe.

Plus TV revenues have gone up in loads of sports, it’s hardly an NRL specific phenomenon. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Allora said:

I am wrong often and do not mind being educated.

You on the other hand know everything and love to tell people where they are wrong and how little they know.

Take a break Oracle.

 

Obviously you do mind being educated because that is what you are whinging about.

If somebody is making pronouncements and decisions based on bad information, don't you think that they should be informed of that bad information?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Davo5 said:

They will need propped up financially for years,Melbourne  were for 2 decades.

People keep saying this like it's a bad thing.

Firstly it's inevitable, every business requires investment to start up and establish themselves. 

But more importantly, the vast majority of the money that went to establishing the Storm came from their owners New ltd, and not the NRL, so they weren't anymore of a burden on the league than any other club.

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

130% of the salary cap isn’t a bail out as much as you say it is.

its not a handout at all. The clubs and NRL go to broadcasters as collective partners. That is their money as much as the approx 27% of game revenue belongs to the players.

You keep failing to mention that the NRL couldn't afford those 130% of the cap grants, that they had to take money ear marked for other areas of the sport that needed it much more desperately to fund those grants, and that those grants that the NRL couldn't afford are a big part of why they are in the financial struggles that they are in now.

So to suggest that that money is as much the clubs as anybody else's is quite galling considering that they had to take it from other partners in the game and they had to strong arm the ARLC and NRL into giving it to them.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

People keep saying this like it's a bad thing.

Firstly it's inevitable, every business requires investment to start up and establish themselves. 

But more importantly, the vast majority of the money that went to establishing the Storm came from their owners New ltd, and not the NRL, so they weren't anymore of a burden on the league than any other club.

For 20 yrs !!

Up to a couple of years ago the Storm were still receiving  extra money from the NRL on top of the grants the other clubs got.

The Titans were bailed out by the NRL a couple of years ago after running up large debts,so your argument that it's all the Sydney clubs fault the league hasn't expanded is rubbish

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

You keep failing to mention that the NRL couldn't afford those 130% of the cap grants, that they had to take money ear marked for other areas of the sport that needed it much more desperately to fund those grants, and that those grants that the NRL couldn't afford are a big part of why they are in the financial struggles that they are in now.

So to suggest that that money is as much the clubs as anybody else's is quite galling considering that they had to take it from other partners in the game and they had to strong arm the ARLC and NRL into giving it to them.

The NRL salary cap is $9.6 million, which means 130% is about $13 million. $13 million x 16 clubs = $208 million / year. But the NRL's TV deal is $360 million / year.

What other sports league in the world has 42% of their TV deal going somewhere other than the clubs that are playing in the league? None. 

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

You keep failing to mention that the NRL couldn't afford those 130% of the cap grants, that they had to take money ear marked for other areas of the sport that needed it much more desperately to fund those grants, and that those grants that the NRL couldn't afford are a big part of why they are in the financial struggles that they are in now.

So to suggest that that money is as much the clubs as anybody else's is quite galling considering that they had to take it from other partners in the game and they had to strong arm the ARLC and NRL into giving it to them.

The same argument could be said that the NRL are not running a tight enough ship or definitely are playing the players too much.

I could equally suggest the clubs are deserving of more than the income they receive. There is no argument to confirm I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...