Jump to content

New Brisbane NRL team


Davo5
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RP London said:

As mentioned in the article it gives a game a week for the Brisbane TV market rather than a game every other week which would surely lead to better/more local advertising revenue and therefore potentially more tv money. of course it does not necessarily do that and nothing is certain but that is why i said "which can help to secure" rather than "will secure".. 

 

There's little value to the NRL it's self in adding one more team, and the only reason we seem to be talking about one team instead of two is because V'Landys has this weird hate boner for anywhere outside of NSW and QLD.

If for whatever crazy reason the NRL does expand by one team it'll only be a matter of time before problems with an uneven draw, frustration with constant byes, and pressure from broadcasters for more content, will force them to even out the competition again.

So yeah, I don't know why we are screwing around with the idea of adding one more team when we know from experience that it doesn't really work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, RP London said:

As mentioned in the article it gives a game a week for the Brisbane TV market rather than a game every other week which would surely lead to better/more local advertising revenue and therefore potentially more tv money. of course it does not necessarily do that and nothing is certain but that is why i said "which can help to secure" rather than "will secure".. 

Yes understand your view. Instead of “surely“ I would say “could or should”. The broncos ratings have been way down this year...and they do not look likely to improve in the immediate future..so a continuation of their not so good ratings...perhaps even worse...a new Brisbane side might arrest the slide. But I don’t like an odd number because it’s just...odd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Quolls2020 said:

Yes understand your view. Instead of “surely“ I would say “could or should”. The broncos ratings have been way down this year...and they do not look likely to improve in the immediate future..so a continuation of their not so good ratings...perhaps even worse...a new Brisbane side might arrest the slide. But I don’t like an odd number because it’s just...odd.

Unless the new club sucks as well, in which case the people in Brisbane will refuse to watch them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

A second Brisbane club is inevitable, but none of the bids are quite there if you know what I mean.

The Firehawks are the closest by far, but even they have their flaws. Hopefully the NRL announces a bidding process and some better options come out of the woodwork.

Isn't there an Australian mining mogul who could be interested?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Isn't there an Australian mining mogul who could be interested?

Interest isn't the problem. There are tons of loaded people/groups interested in owning/backing an NRL club in Brisbane.

The problem so far has been that all their ideas for the new club haven't really fit what the NRL needs in a second Brisbane club.

Edited by The Great Dane
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Dane said:

There's little value to the NRL it's self in adding one more team, and the only reason we seem to be talking about one team instead of two is because V'Landys has this weird hate boner for anywhere outside of NSW and QLD.

If for whatever crazy reason the NRL does expand by one team it'll only be a matter of time before problems with an uneven draw, frustration with constant byes, and pressure from broadcasters for more content, will force them to even out the competition again.

So yeah, I don't know why we are screwing around with the idea of adding one more team when we know from experience that it doesn't really work.

Two new teams seems the sensible option but if it has to be one at a time then so be it I guess.

I don't think the whole constant bye or uneven draw issue is really an issue. Prior to the Titans joining we had these 'issues' and i cant recall it being that big of a deal at the time (having the bye week 1 sucks).

Why would there be pressure from broadcasters for more content with 17 teams? If one team has a bye, broadcasters still get their 8 games a week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Two new teams seems the sensible option but if it has to be one at a time then so be it I guess.

I don't think the whole constant bye or uneven draw issue is really an issue. Prior to the Titans joining we had these 'issues' and i cant recall it being that big of a deal at the time (having the bye week 1 sucks).

I was around back then as well. Everybody hated the bye except the players, and people still hate the uneven draw to this day.

The fans whom get a 'bad draw' complain about it each year, and the clubs that get dudded for free to air games regularly will tell you themselves that it costs them invaluable exposure and sponsorship dollars. Adding an uneven amount of teams and a weekly bye will just exacerbate those problems and should be avoided if at all possible.

It also wasn't so bad back then because everybody knew that it wouldn't be a long term thing. As soon as the NRL's appeal was over either the Rabbitohs were going to be punted again or the NRL would be forced to expand, either way it'd be over after a few years. But if you expand by one club then who knows how long it'll be before another one comes in to make up the numbers.

1 hour ago, AB90 said:

Why would there be pressure from broadcasters for more content with 17 teams? If one team has a bye, broadcasters still get their 8 games a week.

As soon as the Broncos first bye came around the broadcasters started bitching and moaning about how it was a "free kick" to other sports to have such valuable assets sitting on the sideline. In other words, they are happy to have a weekly bye so long as they don't think it's effecting their ratings, and they pretty quickly come around to the idea of paying for more content when they realise that a weekly bye means that the "big clubs" have to take them as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Quolls2020 said:

Adding just one team, does not necessarily mean an increase in TV money as the games per round remains the same, the monetary gain comes from increasing games per round and/or ratings.

I don’t believe that a bye per round is a good thing as 1 team starts the season later than all the rest and 1 finishes earlier...and a proportion of fans have little interest in each round because their team is not playing.

Increasing the number of ad breaks in a match by stopping the clock in dead ball situation as they were reportedly considering doing is another way to increase the value of their TV rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Dane said:

I was around back then as well. Everybody hated the bye except the players, and people still hate the uneven draw to this day.

The fans whom get a 'bad draw' complain about it each year, and the clubs that get dudded for free to air games regularly will tell you themselves that it costs them invaluable exposure and sponsorship dollars. Adding an uneven amount of teams and a weekly bye will just exacerbate those problems and should be avoided if at all possible.

It also wasn't so bad back then because everybody knew that it wouldn't be a long term thing. As soon as the NRL's appeal was over either the Rabbitohs were going to be punted again or the NRL would be forced to expand, either way it'd be over after a few years. But if you expand by one club then who knows how long it'll be before another one comes in to make up the numbers.

As soon as the Broncos first bye came around the broadcasters started bitching and moaning about how it was a "free kick" to other sports to have such valuable assets sitting on the sideline. In other words, they are happy to have a weekly bye so long as they don't think it's effecting their ratings, and they pretty quickly come around to the idea of paying for more content when they realise that a weekly bye means that the "big clubs" have to take them as well. 

You do realise that there already is a weekly bye for every team? There are currently 25 rounds with each team only playing 24 games. Plus an international break. 

As you mention, the draw is already uneven. 15, 16, 17, 18 or 20 teams won't change that.

I think you may be making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AB90 said:

You do realise that there already is a weekly bye for every team? There are currently 25 rounds with each team only playing 24 games. Plus an international break. 

As you mention, the draw is already uneven. 15, 16, 17, 18 or 20 teams won't change that.

I think you may be making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

There is not a weekly bye. There is a bye for every team worked out over 2 rounds mid season, that is not a bye every week. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Redcliffe team would do well in the NRL and it would be considered expansion because it's expanding the NRL to 17 teams, they would be the best Brisbane option. Firehawks sounds like a netball team, Western Corridor, are they the Ipswich Jets? they would be your second bet for a 5th QLD team. If it was me I'd go for the Perth team but I'll support whatever option. Rugby league's a great sport and always will be. Expansion doesn't always have to come in the form of putting a new dot on the map but if it works, it works. Just need the right people behind any successful franchise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
54 minutes ago, Horace said:

Brisbane 2 in 2023 because it’s a rugby league city then Auckland 2 in 2028 because of the juniors they have and if a Sydney team falls over then the license will go to Perth that will give the NRL 18 teams

Yes to Brisbane 2 but no to Auckland 2. Needs to be either Christchurch or Wellington for a 2nd NZ franchise.

The south east Queensland area is interesting as it’s a fast growing region in terms of population. Places like Ipswich and Logan are expected to hit 400k+ by 2030.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horace said:

Brisbane 2 in 2023 because it’s a rugby league city then Auckland 2 in 2028 because of the juniors they have and if a Sydney team falls over then the license will go to Perth that will give the NRL 18 teams

I'm not sure what juniors in Auckland your on about but a South Island team base in Christchurch will unite that region.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2020 at 13:41, Copa said:

Henson Park, Marrickville.

Matches there usually pull crowds of exactly 8,972.

Last time I was at that ground was  back in 1978 when Penrith prop John Farragher had a tragic accident after a collapsed scrum. He snapped his spinal cord and became a quadriplegic. Phil Gould played for Penrith in that game too. The Penrith club rallied round tremendously and gave him a job at the Leagues club where he still works today. I see him most times when  I go for lunch every fortnight at the club and have a little chat if he is alone sitting in his wheelchair. He is still going strongly.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NRL has still not fully shaken its NSWRL image to this day, and the fact Brisbane to this day still only has one team is a big reason why. Australia is not comparable to UK, there are 5 major cities, then there is a sharp drop after that. Basically, here is what we have:

Sydney, 4.5 million - 9 teams 

Brisbane, 2 million - 1 team 

Brisbane is just as, if not more fanatical about RL.

We do not have a time machine, but when the game first went national, they really should have put 8 Sydney, 4 Brisbane teams, but obviously that ship has now sailed.

The longer time goes on, the harder it will be for a 2nd team to ever come in. I can tell you for a fact, many born and bred Brisbanites hate the Broncos and still cling to their Qld Cup, or NRL teams from the pre-Broncos days. So there is definitely a market.

Ipswich, Logan, Redcliffe, Sunshine Coast - yes, great RL areas that produce a lot of the game's talent, but are NOT NRL material and if they ever do get in, will almost certainly end up playing at Suncorp Stadium anyway (with the exception of Redcliffe).

Easts Tigers have rebranded to Brisbane Tigers. I think this is a good compromise as it is an organic, established club, rather than artificial.

Brisbane aside. I think Wellington and/or Perth would also be great. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, langpark said:

NRL has still not fully shaken its NSWRL image to this day, and the fact Brisbane to this day still only has one team is a big reason why. Australia is not comparable to UK, there are 5 major cities, then there is a sharp drop after that. Basically, here is what we have:

Sydney, 4.5 million - 9 teams 

Brisbane, 2 million - 1 team 

Brisbane is just as, if not more fanatical about RL.

We do not have a time machine, but when the game first went national, they really should have put 8 Sydney, 4 Brisbane teams, but obviously that ship has now sailed.

The longer time goes on, the harder it will be for a 2nd team to ever come in. I can tell you for a fact, many born and bred Brisbanites hate the Broncos and still cling to their Qld Cup, or NRL teams from the pre-Broncos days. So there is definitely a market.

Ipswich, Logan, Redcliffe, Sunshine Coast - yes, great RL areas that produce a lot of the game's talent, but are NOT NRL material and if they ever do get in, will almost certainly end up playing at Suncorp Stadium anyway (with the exception of Redcliffe).

Easts Tigers have rebranded to Brisbane Tigers. I think this is a good compromise as it is an organic, established club, rather than artificial.

Brisbane aside. I think Wellington and/or Perth would also be great. 

 

 

 

Rebranding east tigers to brisbane tigers is like calling the team from the sports  village wigan centurions.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/10/2020 at 11:45, Oxford said:

Don't you think that these two things are not either or?

Expansion is just another club, widening the sport's footprint is growing the game. And if Brisbane can support two teams, that's fantastic too.

But a club in Brisbane is not expansion of RL however much you want to call it that.

 

Only people like you give a stuff about fantasy expansion, the rest of us live in the real world and realise you spread outwards from the heartland in small increments. It's a long haul but it's way more effective to gather in another million genuine potential fans than create such NRL/SL train wrecks as Perth, Adelaide, Paris, London and Toronto. When will you people ever learn?

It's not the job of all the hard working folk supporting the heartland teams to provide the cash so that a couple of over entitled blokes in the South of England can have a play thing team all of their own. You want RL in Non RL areas then you bl**dy pay for it! Me I pay towards my club first, my local area second, the GB set up third. I have no wish to see a single further penny wasted on slake the selfish dreams of people like you.

If the people of Brisbane and dare I say those of Leigh are not good enough for you then go bother another sport.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

Only people like you give a stuff about fantasy expansion, the rest of us live in the real world and realise you spread outwards from the heartland in small increments. It's a long haul but it's way more effective to gather in another million genuine potential fans than create such NRL/SL train wrecks as Perth, Adelaide, Paris, London and Toronto. When will you people ever learn?

It's not the job of all the hard working folk supporting the heartland teams to provide the cash so that a couple of over entitled blokes in the South of England can have a play thing team all of their own. You want RL in Non RL areas then you bl**dy pay for it! Me I pay towards my club first, my local area second, the GB set up third. I have no wish to see a single further penny wasted on slake the selfish dreams of people like you.

If the people of Brisbane and dare I say those of Leigh are not good enough for you then go bother another sport.

I think the term "northern privilege" describes this best.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

Rebranding east tigers to brisbane tigers is like calling the team from the sports  village wigan centurions.

Again, I say Australia not comparable to UK.  But if you are trying to imply that the Tigers are located outside Brisbane, then you are wrong.

Easts Tigers are located in what is now considered inner-city Brisbane (Coorparoo).  I am not a fan of rebranding (and I hate the new logo), but I understand why they've done it, especially if they have NRL ambitions.  I will take a club founded in 1933 over a "Brisbane Bombers" fake entity any day.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

Only people like you give a stuff about fantasy expansion, the rest of us live in the real world and realise you spread outwards from the heartland in small increments. It's a long haul but it's way more effective to gather in another million genuine potential fans than create such NRL/SL train wrecks as Perth, Adelaide, Paris, London and Toronto. When will you people ever learn?

It's not the job of all the hard working folk supporting the heartland teams to provide the cash so that a couple of over entitled blokes in the South of England can have a play thing team all of their own. You want RL in Non RL areas then you bl**dy pay for it! Me I pay towards my club first, my local area second, the GB set up third. I have no wish to see a single further penny wasted on slake the selfish dreams of people like you.

If the people of Brisbane and dare I say those of Leigh are not good enough for you then go bother another sport.

Some people aspire for our game to reach and be enjoyed by as many people as possible and find new teams exciting and real growth of our sport. Toronto offered hope of a brighter future, however UK administration and clubs scuppered that. Ottawa hopefully won't have the same issues.

  I am one of these people.  

Clearly you are not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, langpark said:

Again, I say Australia not comparable to UK.  But if you are trying to imply that the Tigers are located outside Brisbane, then you are wrong.

Easts Tigers are located in what is now considered inner-city Brisbane (Coorparoo).  I am not a fan of rebranding (and I hate the new logo), but I understand why they've done it, especially if they have NRL ambitions.  I will take a club founded in 1933 over a "Brisbane Bombers" fake entity any day.

I love the new logo. Fresh and something different. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...