Brisbane Firehawks

[M j M]

17 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

What evidence do you want? Because it seems unrealistic to expect something like a survey or a study into people in Brisbane that don't like the Broncos lol.

I would have thought exactly that would be a key part of this club's application TBH - not whether they don't like the Broncos, but that they don't support them but would support another team.

[Allora]

1 hour ago, nadera78 said:

The last time you made this claim I asked for some evidence to back it up. I'm not doubting that a lot of people don't follow the Broncos, but I'm still yet to see any concrete information, beyond anecdotes, that these people would support a new NRL club.

Do you want me to do a Poll in the Park?

I work with over 100 people, of those that are into the NRL (maybe 20) less than half follow the Broncos.

Plenty follow the Broncos in Brisbane because its the only choice and game in town.

 

[M j M]

I think it's less likely a second team would split the Broncos gates and more likely, like the Crushers, they won't find a fanbase which is sustainable. If they are insistent on another Queensland team, making it geographically distinct is a must so Ipswich would seem to be a better option, even if they have to play at Suncorp.

[nadera78]

2 minutes ago, Allora said:

Do you want me to do a Poll in the Park?

I work with over 100 people, of those that are into the NRL (maybe 20) less than half follow the Broncos.

Plenty follow the Broncos in Brisbane because its the only choice and game in town.

 

Anecdotes just don't work for me, not when making a decision like this.

In North America potential expansion teams have to demonstrate the support they're going to bring to the league. For example, the new Seattle NHL team sold 25,000 season tickets deposits in 1 hour - that's alongside all the formal business plans, etc.

There really needs to be something more than "Brisbane is a big place, let's stick another team in there". Just as a starting point the NRL should commission a study examining the potential of Brisbane, Central Queensland, Perth, New Zealand, etc. Then follow it up with a formal bidding process.

[Allora]

20 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

Anecdotes just don't work for me, not when making a decision like this.

In North America potential expansion teams have to demonstrate the support they're going to bring to the league. For example, the new Seattle NHL team sold 25,000 season tickets deposits in 1 hour - that's alongside all the formal business plans, etc.

There really needs to be something more than "Brisbane is a big place, let's stick another team in there". Just as a starting point the NRL should commission a study examining the potential of Brisbane, Central Queensland, Perth, New Zealand, etc. Then follow it up with a formal bidding process.

I am sure the TV money and other factors come into it.

There have been studies and bids over the years.

Much of those bids use projections and wishful pie in the sky forecasts on paper to sell there admission into the game.

I used to work in an Industry where projections, forecast to leverage better buying deals were mainly bases on dreams and garbage.

People talk about the Crushers, it was 25 years ago on the verge of a War in the game.

How would Central Qld possibly work? they don't have the population to make it work.

New Zealand.....that would be a wing and a prayer.

Perth should get a spot.

 

[Yakstorm]

There has been numerous surveys and studies which have shown that there is more than enough support in Brisbane for a second NRL team, conducted by relevant bids, the NRL and independent groups.    The ARL Commission has also done no less than 2x studies into adding additional teams looking into the likes of Brisbane, Perth, PNG, Central Queensland, etc.

This isn't just someone's hunch, a new team, provided it knows how to position itself, will do very well in Brisbane, and from an NRL perspective, it suddenly gives the Broncos two more big games a year, and two more opportunities to get 40K+ outside of the Cowboys and Storm games at Suncorp.

Now I know people like to point to the Crushers as reason enough to not add a second Brisbane team, but poor South Queensland had a lot going against them.  Firstly, the Broncos and News were out to kill them off from the start... with no real newspaper alternative than the Courier Mail (News owned) and the influence that newspapers had in the 90's, it doesn't give them a great start.

Secondly, they had no money, the club recycled their jerseys from the 95 to 96 seasons because of their lack of cash and had an unprofitable leagues club...ironically they actually started turning things around in 97.  Finally, it was part of the Super League agreement that there would only be one Brisbane team, they weren't even given a chance to try and fight for a franchise spot.

Yes their crowds did fall apart, but they still averaged over 21K in 1995 (League average of 13,918) and over 13K in 1996 (League average of 11,458) so were still one of the better drawers.  

[nadera78]

17 minutes ago, Yakstorm said:

There has been numerous surveys and studies which have shown that there is more than enough support in Brisbane for a second NRL team, conducted by relevant bids, the NRL and independent groups.    The ARL Commission has also done no less than 2x studies into adding additional teams looking into the likes of Brisbane, Perth, PNG, Central Queensland, etc.

This isn't just someone's hunch, a new team, provided it knows how to position itself, will do very well in Brisbane, and from an NRL perspective, it suddenly gives the Broncos two more big games a year, and two more opportunities to get 40K+ outside of the Cowboys and Storm games at Suncorp.

Now I know people like to point to the Crushers as reason enough to not add a second Brisbane team, but poor South Queensland had a lot going against them.  Firstly, the Broncos and News were out to kill them off from the start... with no real newspaper alternative than the Courier Mail (News owned) and the influence that newspapers had in the 90's, it doesn't give them a great start.

Secondly, they had no money, the club recycled their jerseys from the 95 to 96 seasons because of their lack of cash and had an unprofitable leagues club...ironically they actually started turning things around in 97.  Finally, it was part of the Super League agreement that there would only be one Brisbane team, they weren't even given a chance to try and fight for a franchise spot.

Yes their crowds did fall apart, but they still averaged over 21K in 1995 (League average of 13,918) and over 13K in 1996 (League average of 11,458) so were still one of the better drawers.  

Thank you, finally someone has posted something more than "people don't like the Broncos".

Do you know if the NRL has ever made any of these studies public? It'd be interesting to see the comparisons drawn between different cities. 

[Pulga]

Terrible name.

I'm open to jumping ship from the Broncos if we get a decent Brisbane 2 team. The Firehawks and Bombers won't get my money.

[The Great Dane]

4 hours ago, Yakstorm said:

There has been numerous surveys and studies which have shown that there is more than enough support in Brisbane for a second NRL team, conducted by relevant bids, the NRL and independent groups.    The ARL Commission has also done no less than 2x studies into adding additional teams looking into the likes of Brisbane, Perth, PNG, Central Queensland, etc.

This isn't just someone's hunch, a new team, provided it knows how to position itself, will do very well in Brisbane, and from an NRL perspective, it suddenly gives the Broncos two more big games a year, and two more opportunities to get 40K+ outside of the Cowboys and Storm games at Suncorp.

On top of that there're multiple very rich businessmen and consortium interested in owning/supporting a club, multiple absolutely loaded leagues clubs that want one, tons of expressions of interest from sponsors and advertisers, the broadcasters have been calling for a second Brisbane club, the government supports it, etc, etc, basically anybody who is anyone supports it and/or wants to own a piece of it.

The amount of money and power that is interested in a second Brisbane club is absolutely insane.

[The Great Dane]

4 hours ago, nadera78 said:

Thank you, finally someone has posted something more than "people don't like the Broncos".

Do you know if the NRL has ever made any of these studies public? It'd be interesting to see the comparisons drawn between different cities. 

As far as I know the NRL hasn't made any of their research in potential expansion public, it almost certainly wouldn't be in their interest to do so either.

[The Great Dane]

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

Terrible name.

I'm open to jumping ship from the Broncos if we get a decent Brisbane 2 team. The Firehawks and Bombers won't get my money.

I'm genuinely interested what you think is wrong with it?

Its uniquely Australian, it's interesting, no other professional sports team has it, it'd make for good imagery, all round it seems pretty good.

I can however see how it could very easily go from unique and interesting to an extremely cartoony logo and a mess of a jersey with flames all over it...

[unapologetic pedant]

10 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Though I guess it's not impossible, a merger between Easts and Redcliffe would make little sense. Redcliffe is from the very north of Brisbane and Coorparoo (where Easts are from) is south of the river, so it'd be a bit like Manly merging with St. George Illawarra, it'd be a bit disjointed and wouldn't make much sense.

It'd make more sense if they made a joint bid with Wynnum Manly or Souths Logan.   

BTW if Wests had stuck with Balmain stuff, and the merger effectively became a hostile takeover of the Magpies by the Tigers, then they probably wouldn't exist today.

Balmain wen't broke about a decade ago, so had they pushed Western Suburbs out (which is what would have happened if they didn't make some concessions), the NRL club would have gone broke with them.

Easts and Redcliffe were the two cited in the Foxsports article. Does it not make sense that if the bid is supported by existing clubs they should be geographically wider apart, if they`re to credibly lay claim to represent Brisbane, not just part thereof?

The Balmain point was purely about optics. A black V or Vs on an orange background is a wonderful look for RL Tigers everywhere. It was a pity to lose it from the NRL. Since Western Suburbs had all the financial clout they could have seen it as a hostile takeover of Balmain`s jersey.

[DlEHARD]

Brisbane already has a netball team called the Firebirds.

[DlEHARD]

12 hours ago, frank said:

Forget about a second Brisbane team, what's required first are teams in Perth and Adelade.A second team in Brisbane will only split the Bronco's gates.

No it won't I'm from Brisbane and there are clearly thousands of people who love Rugby League but don't support the Broncos. They will find their own base and many fans will support both because they love the game too.

It's the second biggest RL city in the world. It is madness not to have more than one club.

[JonM]

12 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

 it'd be a bit like Manly merging with St. George Illawarra, it'd be a bit disjointed and wouldn't make much sense.

Of course, St. George Illawarra is a combo that looks insane from a British viewpoint - a suburb in the inner south of Sydney with a district 50 miles away, particularly as there's other clubs from suburbs of Sydney that are further south. Appreciate there's some history behind it.

[Copa]

20 hours ago, frank said:

Forget about a second Brisbane team, what's required first are teams in Perth and Adelade.A second team in Brisbane will only split the Bronco's gates.

I doubt it will have any negative impact on the Bronco’s gates. If anything it will have a positive impact due to a huge local derby.

South East Queensland has 3.6 million people (2.4 million in Brisbane) and rugby league is very popular. There’s enough people to support a new NRL team.

[ojx]

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how the NRL can have an odd number of teams and balance their schedule.

17 teams means either a 16, or an impossible 32, game season. Otherwise some teams will play more games than others.

[Allora]

13 minutes ago, ojx said:

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how the NRL can have an odd number of teams and balance their schedule.

17 teams means either a 16, or an impossible 32, game season. Otherwise some teams will play more games than others.

In the NRL the teams do not all meet each other twice in a season.

They meet some teams twice and some only once.

It has been that way for a very long time.

This is Parramattas 2019 draw.

Here is all you need to know about the Parramatta Eels' 2019 Telstra Premiership draw.

Teams they play twice: Panthers, Bulldogs, Sharks, Raiders, Wests Tigers, Knights, Dragons, Broncos, Sea Eagles.

Teams they play once: Roosters, Storm, Cowboys, Rabbitohs, Warriors, Titans.

It is a fact that is rarely spoken about or questioned to the point where many don't know how it works.

[ojx]

11 minutes ago, Allora said:

In the NRL the teams do not all meet each other twice in a season.

They meet some teams twice and some only once.

It has been that way for a very long time.

This is Parramattas 2019 draw.

Here is all you need to know about the Parramatta Eels' 2019 Telstra Premiership draw.

Teams they play twice: Panthers, Bulldogs, Sharks, Raiders, Wests Tigers, Knights, Dragons, Broncos, Sea Eagles.

Teams they play once: Roosters, Storm, Cowboys, Rabbitohs, Warriors, Titans.

It is a fact that is rarely spoken about or questioned to the point where many don't know how it works.

I understand that, and looping fixtures is not a problem with an even number of teams, but cannot be done with an odd number, or some teams will play one more game than others.

[Number 16]

2 hours ago, ojx said:

I understand that, and looping fixtures is not a problem with an even number of teams, but cannot be done with an odd number, or some teams will play one more game than others.

Perhaps they could do it on percentages like the RFL did back in the day...  

[M j M]

3 hours ago, ojx said:

I understand that, and looping fixtures is not a problem with an even number of teams, but cannot be done with an odd number, or some teams will play one more game than others.

They just use a bye which rotates amongst the teams, this is what happened the last time they had an odd number. The finals series is entrenched enough that the structure of the regular season isn't that important to fans.

[Copa]

3 hours ago, ojx said:

I understand that, and looping fixtures is not a problem with an even number of teams, but cannot be done with an odd number, or some teams will play one more game than others.

We had the bye supporters club..

Here’s the bye team’s website on the wayback machine archive site: https://web.archive.org/web/20040825090140/http://www.byerugbyleague.20m.com:80/

 

[The Great Dane]

19 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Easts and Redcliffe were the two cited in the Foxsports article. Does it not make sense that if the bid is supported by existing clubs they should be geographically wider apart, if they`re to credibly lay claim to represent Brisbane, not just part thereof?

The whole reason we're talking about a second team is because no one entity could truly represent all of a city like Brisbane.

Trying to represent both the Redcliffe/Moreton Bay area and south of the river at the same time, and in a meaningful way, would run the risk of trying to appeal to everyone, and when you try to appeal to everyone you appeal to nobody.

It makes sense to split the clubs along geographical and cultural lines, and the Broncos are based north of the river, Easts are south of it, and Redcliffe is in the north east. If you merged Redcliffe and Easts then you'd have a club that ostensibly represents the very north east and south of the city, with the Broncos sandwiched in between, which wouldn't be ideal.

On top of that, I don't think that Redcliffe would have any interest in a merger/joint bid with anybody, unless it was a hostile takeover where they basically run the NRL club, and if Easts are serious about a potential joint bid (which I believe they are), then the first people they would have contacted is Redcliffe, Ipswich, and Brothers, all of whom have their own bids or are apart of a consortium. Basically, if it was going to happen it would have already happened.

[MattSantos]

AFL

A second team in Brisbane also ensures that it remains a Rugby League city. Strengthens the East coast before an 18th team is in either Perth, New Zealand or the Pacific Islands

[rlno1]

What about Brisbane Titans ie. move the Gold Coast to Brisbane.

Bring in Perth and CC Bears to reconnect with thousands of lost supporters. 

18 teams.

Scenario two.

Add Redcliffe Dolphins call them Sunshine Coast Dolphins, play big games in Brisbane smaller on Sunshine Coast.

And Perth.