: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:19 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

1. news ltd killed off perth last time, so i doubt theyd cover those losses, no.

2. sydney clubs have either Leagues Clubs or rich owners to cover the losses.

This is fair enough, but I don't believe profit is the be all and end all, as I've said before.

3. population applies to a RL state. more clubs are needed in a state where the sport is popular. 3 isnt enough.

Why not move some Sydney teams there? If QLD is a haven of profit and is desperate for teams, it would make sense.

4. again 15,000 in perth for 15,000 lost in cronulla isnt expansion. its canibalization. as ive said before when it happened to souths and norths the sport suffered.

Another team in QLD is cannibalisation, by the same token. You're taking fans, or potential fans, from the other QLD franchises.

The difference is, the people in Perth don't have a local team - or even another team in that state.

5. RL in australia doesnt suffer the same as it does in england. we are probably the dominant sport of the country so if people want to say its only played in queensland and nsw, good luck to them.

since those places are more than half the population, im happy with that.

There are way more people in the North-West than Bridgend. I would not suggest that Widnes are therefore incomparably the better bet vs. Celtic Crusaders.

I believe you need ambition, not to simply play a holding game. It's bizarre to see RL in Aus not using that strength to expand, and yet in Europe RL is weak and is going for it.

AFL is our major rival sport. it has zero international presence, and other than 3 states in australia, is insignificant or non existant every where else in the world.

And yet it's still dusting the NRL for money and support. That should not be happening, and it would be less likely to maintain that situation with a team in Perth, for example.

i actually support a perth NRL club. but its not crucial to our success. queensland is much more important for the codes future.

Queensland is fine, just as Vic is fine for AFL. But the AFL were not content to simply be a power outside of NSW and QLD.

More QLD teams is a good idea, but alongside underperforming NSW clubs and to the exclusion of everywhere else?

I simply don't agree that a Perth team would somehow cannibalise support from Sydney.

we already are in a very strong position. perth would be the icing on the cake, but its not as if we need them in some stupid quest to put pins in the map as AFL does.

That strategy has not done too badly in terms of TV money - and that's without any international component.

we need clubs where there are lots of RL fans, and where there will be even more RL fans in the future.

They're already fans.

central coast and queensland, and also wellington, PNG are up there.

perth would be nice, and id brush adelaide all together

I'm not convinced on the merits of Adelaide either.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:34 pm  

St.John wrote:

1. This is fair enough, but I don't believe profit is the be all and end all, as I've said before.



2. Why not move some Sydney teams there? If QLD is a haven of profit and is desperate for teams, it would make sense.



3. Another team in QLD is cannibalisation, by the same token. You're taking fans, or potential fans, from the other QLD franchises.

The difference is, the people in Perth don't have a local team - or even another team in that state.



There are way more people in the North-West than Bridgend. I would not suggest that Widnes are therefore incomparably the better bet vs. Celtic Crusaders.

4. I believe you need ambition, not to simply play a holding game. It's bizarre to see RL in Aus not using that strength to expand, and yet in Europe RL is weak and is going for it.



5. And yet it's still dusting the NRL for money and support. That should not be happening, and it would be less likely to maintain that situation with a team in Perth, for example.



6. Queensland is fine, just as Vic is fine for AFL. But the AFL were not content to simply be a power outside of NSW and QLD.

More QLD teams is a good idea, but alongside underperforming NSW clubs and to the exclusion of everywhere else?

7. I simply don't agree that a Perth team would somehow cannibalise support from Sydney.



That strategy has not done too badly in terms of TV money - and that's without any international component.



They're already fans.



I'm not convinced on the merits of Adelaide either.

1. true enough but with the other benefits qld teams bring, its a good start to say profits are important, or at least the ability to be strong financially.

2. moving teams when they are surviving is wrong. if they have no other option fine, but when they are doing well enough it alienates fans. should widnes be moved to liverpool for example? or worse, to london?

3. canibilization is more when you kill off one team for another. you gain some fans but lose others, probably in the same numbers. if you want genuine expansion then you need more teams.

4. yes thats true, the RFL are doing a great job and showing more b&&ls than the NRL.

5. some truth there but lots of it is due to the Super Leauge War. before that we were doing very well financially but then news ltd became owners of the game and reduced the ability to freely sell our tv deals. packer and murdoch have worked hand in hand at the cost of the game.

6. sydney RL clubs on the whole get average crowds and have OK finances (yes the pokie tax is affecting things but it appears to be stabilizing). canberra, warriors and melbourne get less fans than the sydney clubs so should they be kicked out as well.

indeed perth might struggle to average 15,000, on the criteria of having less crowds than average, they shouldnt be in as well.

7. it would if you involve kicking out a sydney team (or moving it) for a perth team. the fans of the sydney team (most) would be lost to RL.


the weakest sydney clubs were souths and cronulla and both have / are turning things around so have a future in their current environments. if the NRL wants a perth club it has to be via increasing the number of teams.

remember perth were in the arl in 1995. they turned their back on the ARL and went to news ltd. news ltd ended up killing them off when the time was right and they got the Pay TV rights they were after. so already perth has cost / damaged the game. why should more clubs have to die to give perth another chance? they stuffed up their chance before and really there are other areas which deserve an nrl team.

the way gallop has been talking, he gives perth no chance any time soon and keeps talking about west brisbane or somewhere in queensland

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:11 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

2. moving teams when they are surviving is wrong. if they have no other option fine, but when they are doing well enough it alienates fans. should widnes be moved to liverpool for example? or worse, to london?

6. sydney RL clubs on the whole get average crowds and have OK finances (yes the pokie tax is affecting things but it appears to be stabilizing). canberra, warriors and melbourne get less fans than the sydney clubs so should they be kicked out as well.

I don't think you're getting my point; I wouldn't be the one proposing moving Widnes to Liverpool or London, because that would presuppose that they would be more successful elsewhere. I also wouldn't be the one to neglect expansion teams like Canberra, NZ and Melbourne - I'm the one proposing that a greater emphasis is placed on non-NSW/QLD teams, including expansion into those areas

Your argument is that QLD needs more teams, and they're guaranteed to be successes there. It's the exact opposite situation to moving Widnes to London, where you would have a relatively strong team moving from a strong RL area to one with comparably little support for the game.

Moving a relatively weak club from Sydney to an area like QLD is entirely different, the opposite of moving Widnes to London or Liverpool.

3. canibilization is more when you kill off one team for another. you gain some fans but lose others, probably in the same numbers. if you want genuine expansion then you need more teams.

That's not cannibalisation, IMO. Moving Cronulla to Newcastle would be cannibalisation (ignoring that they would be laughed out of town).

It's swapping a struggling club in a saturated area for an entirely new market; I don't think it's the same thing as cannibalisation.

Another QLD team is closer to cannibalisation than what I proposed.

7. it would if you involve kicking out a sydney team (or moving it) for a perth team. the fans of the sydney team (most) would be lost to RL.

Ideally, nobody would have to move. But if it came to the crunch, I'd take the loss of 15k in an enormous market which is already saturated with RL to gain 15k, and therefore a very solid foothold, in an expansion area like Perth.

why should more clubs have to die to give perth another chance?

Why did Perth have to die to give other teams a chance? If it's not fair that other teams suffer to get Perth in now, why was it fair for Perth to suffer so they could be in?

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:50 am  

1. perth made their bed going to news ltd. that they dont have a team is their own fault.

2. cronulla isnt struggling. they get 13,000 crowds, and have lots of assets. sure they arent a massive club but they are doing well enough and plans are they will get better.

3. ive seen what losing clubs in sydney means. sydney is the biggest area in the world where RL is strong, why should that be weakened ?

4. the only way to do it properly (expansion) is to expand the numbers in the the nrl. sure if a sydney team is about to go broke they can move then. but to force a perfectly viable club to move for somewhere like perth would be really dumb.

5. looking 20 years down the track if we can sustain our position in queensland well be far and away above AFL, so thats where we should focus. queensland NRL clubs are setting the benchmark and they clearly need more teams.

6. if its 2 teams in 2012 then one will be queensland for sure. the other, take your pick from central coast, wellington or perth. central coast is being left in case a sydney team chooses to go there, but none has taken the $8 million on offer so far so lets see what happens there.

7. what im saying is we dont really need perth to be the strongest football code in australia. we do need queensland though. so if we have to pick, i can live without perth or adelaide to get more queensland teams, and probably central coast as well.

8. id like to see the nrl add in the long term - 2 more teams in queensland, central coast, wellington / southern orcas, perth, PNG.

22 teams, play each other once for 21? rounds.

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:06 am  

Rabbit_Attack wrote:

Every game just about is like an origin game, if you have Collingwood v say Carlton at the MCG with 80,000 for a club match, who needs origin??

Any credibility you might have had has now vanished.

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:12 am  

dally messenger wrote:

so you are a RL fan and claim origin means nothing?




stick to watching the swans mate.

origin is the pinnacle of australian sport.

even one of the brisbane lions players said he wished AFL had something like it.

they dont.

poor dears.

Yeah i used to like Origin, back when i was a kid, much like you are no doubt now

Now it just bores me & i'd say a hell of a lot of other people.

As for the swans, hate them, never been to a game, never watched a game.

I still say AFL poop all over us, the biggest market is still Sydney for League & everyones to busy & got to much going on & to many things to choose from to really give a toss, hence Sydney clubs at most only get 16000 odd average at best.

All you can keep bringing up is three origin games that are most years hit & miss.

As for the World Cup, do you really think most people even know its on??

I know its going to happen, will i bother to watch games? probably not, will i be Surfing every chance i get??..you feckin bet, most people are over League now, the crowds will be a pretty big dissapointment i reckon, you'll have a few thousand weirdo muppets from England coming over for the greatest show on earth & nobody will be home

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:23 am  

dally messenger wrote:

1. perth made their bed going to news ltd. that they dont have a team is their own fault.

And yet Aukland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury, Cronulla, NQ and Penrith do?

That argument doesn't make sense.

2. cronulla isnt struggling. they get 13,000 crowds, and have lots of assets. sure they arent a massive club but they are doing well enough and plans are they will get better.

You've completely ignored the point of the post again.

3. ive seen what losing clubs in sydney means. sydney is the biggest area in the world where RL is strong, why should that be weakened ?

Ideally, it shouldn't, as I said. But, as I said, given the choice between losing one of the weaker Sydney teams to gain the same fan base elsewhere in an untapped market seems a worthwhile exchange.

Sydney would not be lost to RL on the back of one team moving. But that one team could open up a new market elsewhere.

4. the only way to do it properly (expansion) is to expand the numbers in the the nrl. sure if a sydney team is about to go broke they can move then. but to force a perfectly viable club to move for somewhere like perth would be really dumb.

Which is why I haven't suggested doing that.

5. looking 20 years down the track if we can sustain our position in queensland well be far and away above AFL, so thats where we should focus. queensland NRL clubs are setting the benchmark and they clearly need more teams.

I agree, QLD need another team. But I don't agree that the NRL should do merely that, and feel smug. there are other markets which need to be addressed alongside this.

6. if its 2 teams in 2012 then one will be queensland for sure. the other, take your pick from central coast, wellington or perth. central coast is being left in case a sydney team chooses to go there, but none has taken the $8 million on offer so far so lets see what happens there.

I always get slightly nervous when people mention Wellington. NZ produce loads of top players, but I'm not sure they're quite ready for another NRL franchise.

From what I can gather, outside of the heart of RL in NZ (Aukland) Wellington is the next strongest area.

7. what im saying is we dont really need perth to be the strongest football code in australia. we do need queensland though. so if we have to pick, i can live without perth or adelaide to get more queensland teams, and probably central coast as well.

Adelaide, I can understand. Not Perth; you're always going to have less TV cash than the AFL.

"Look! We've got another team in QLD!"
"So what? They were all watching the NRL anyway, it adds no extra value to our TV stations."

8. id like to see the nrl add in the long term - 2 more teams in queensland, central coast, wellington / southern orcas, perth, PNG.

22 teams, play each other once for 21? rounds.

Looks good, but that setup will be a long, long way off.

I'm intrigued by a PNG team, but can't for the life of me see how it would be arranged.

I'm sure a good performance from the Kumuls in the coming weeks would increase the calls for such a team, but unfortunately I don't think the money or the political will is there.

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:28 am  

Rabbit_Attack wrote:

Yeah i used to like Origin, back when i was a kid, much like you are no doubt now

Now it just bores me & i'd say a hell of a lot of other people.

As for the swans, hate them, never been to a game, never watched a game.

I still say AFL poop all over us, the biggest market is still Sydney for League & everyones to busy & got to much going on & to many things to choose from to really give a toss, hence Sydney clubs at most only get 16000 odd average at best.

All you can keep bringing up is three origin games that are most years hit & miss.

As for the World Cup, do you really think most people even know its on??

I know its going to happen, will i bother to watch games? probably not, will i be Surfing every chance i get??..you feckin bet, most people are over League now, the crowds will be a pretty big dissapointment i reckon, you'll have a few thousand weirdo muppets from England coming over for the greatest show on earth & nobody will be home

maybe you arent much of a RL fan mate.

im going to 7 WC games myself, and cant wait for it actually.

since the final is close to sold out, you really should read the papers in this country before sprouting the BS you do.

and do you surf in the dark champ, most of the WC games are held at night!.





origin
NZ Warriors.
Internationals

vs AFL - collingwood vs carlton

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:34 am  

St.John wrote:

And yet Aukland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury, Cronulla, NQ and Penrith do?

That argument doesn't make sense.



You've completely ignored the point of the post again.



Ideally, it shouldn't, as I said. But, as I said, given the choice between losing one of the weaker Sydney teams to gain the same fan base elsewhere in an untapped market seems a worthwhile exchange.

Sydney would not be lost to RL on the back of one team moving. But that one team could open up a new market elsewhere.



Which is why I haven't suggested doing that.



I agree, QLD need another team. But I don't agree that the NRL should do merely that, and feel smug. there are other markets which need to be addressed alongside this.



I always get slightly nervous when people mention Wellington. NZ produce loads of top players, but I'm not sure they're quite ready for another NRL franchise.

From what I can gather, outside of the heart of RL in NZ (Aukland) Wellington is the next strongest area.



Adelaide, I can understand. Not Perth; you're always going to have less TV cash than the AFL.

"Look! We've got another team in QLD!"
"So what? They were all watching the NRL anyway, it adds no extra value to our TV stations."



Looks good, but that setup will be a long, long way off.

I'm intrigued by a PNG team, but can't for the life of me see how it would be arranged.

I'm sure a good performance from the Kumuls in the coming weeks would increase the calls for such a team, but unfortunately I don't think the money or the political will is there.

news ltd chose which SL clubs to keep and which to kill off. no perth team now is the fault of news ltd. news ltd had the power to make the choice because perth went to news ltd. so its their fault they are no longer in.

im not saying we should ignore perth forever. i am saying though that other areas can offer more for the game now, and if we ignore perth next time round its not that bad.

just because AFL has a team in all capitals doesnt mean we need them now.

more queensland teams would improve the ratings as there would be more high ratings games in queensland which they would watch. more people from queensland would watch a game form their club than a perth team.

PNG - the nrl has looked at a joint venture between darwin and PNG, with darwin being the training facilities and 1/2 the games and PNG the rest.

re wellington - given the number of kiwi RL players in the nrl and overseas, NZ could easily handle another side. indeed we would keep more of our juniors that go to the dark side.

: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:45 am  

dally messenger wrote:

news ltd chose which SL clubs to keep and which to kill off. no perth team now is the fault of news ltd. news ltd had the power to make the choice because perth went to news ltd. so its their fault they are no longer in.

The Gold Coast were also axed in the formation of the NRL; they therefore shouldn't be in the NRL. They made their bed by staying with the ARL, etc.

im not saying we should ignore perth forever. i am saying though that other areas can offer more for the game now, and if we ignore perth next time round its not that bad.

I'm not suggesting you are!

But long term plans need the planning to start now. The Perth junior team is doing all the right things, with apparent support from the appropriate people in the game.

just because AFL has a team in all capitals doesnt mean we need them now.

Remind me, what is the money difference in the TV contracts between the NRL and the AFL?

more queensland teams would improve the ratings as there would be more high ratings games in queensland which they would watch. more people from queensland would watch a game form their club than a perth team.

But the Perth team brings greater exposure, and is a more powerful statement to the press and the RL fans in Aus. It opens up a market you otherwise would not have access to.

PNG - the nrl has looked at a joint venture between darwin and PNG, with darwin being the training facilities and 1/2 the games and PNG the rest.

Seems like a half measure, to me; I'd prefer the franchise to be based in PNG, but I appreciate the difficulties with that.

re wellington - given the number of kiwi RL players in the nrl and overseas, NZ could easily handle another side. indeed we would keep more of our juniors that go to the dark side.

Most of the NZ juniors seem to come from the NRL academies, so I'm not sure those that leave for RU are motivated by being unable to get a place in any other NRL team. They're motivated by money; another NRL team means more places available at first grade (more cash), and in Wellington is undoubtably more attractive than in Aus for native NZ'ers.

But I don't believe we're not losing juniors because there's not enough teams, we're losing juniors because we're up against the allure of an All Blacks jersey, and fair enough.