: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:34 am  

St.John wrote:

The point is that it gives you a solid presence in Perth, something currently lacking. Sydney is already dominated by RL, the loss of 15k Cronulla fans won't change much; but the addition of 15k fans in Perth would.

no it actually wouldnt.

perth TV games get something like 14,000 watching.

indeed Swans get only 80,000 - 100,000 watching their live games in sydney.

people in RL states dont watch AFL and vice versa so if we want to increase the value of tv rights its where people will watch the sport and where there isnt a team at the moment.

in order of priority queensland and the central coast would rank ahead of perth, as would wellington.

perth would be nice, but id put more queensland clubs ahead of them.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:42 am  

dally messenger wrote:

no it actually wouldnt.

Yes, it would.

It gives the NRL and ARL a rallying point for the media in terms of another expansion team doing relatively well.

It gives the game more coverage in Perth, as the local media are more likely to report on an equivalent to Cronulla than the current relatively low profile semi pro outfit.

It gives the fans a sense of confidence; it reassures them that the NRL and AFL are not simply retreating into their bunkers, a view that has seemed apparent on Aussie message boards in the recent past. The Aussie media seem keen to keep reporting lies and half truths about the delining popularity of the game, in the face of all evidence. A Perth team with an overnight 15k fans is an important statement of intent and power.

perth TV games get something like 14,000 watching.

I suspect the viewing figures would be higher if they involved, well, a Perth team.

indeed Swans get only 80,000 - 100,000 watching their live games in sydney.

80 to 100k regular viewers in Perth would be a great start, alongside 15k fans in the ground. I reckon the NRL should happily take that.

people in RL states dont watch AFL and vice versa so if we want to increase the value of tv rights its where people will watch the sport and where there isnt a team at the moment.

People in AFL states do watch RL - Melbourne get decent figures, for example the SOO, when given the genuine chance to do so.

I'm not sure there's huge numbers of people in QLD who would watch RL with the addition of another team, who don't already watch RL.

I think the situation in Perth may be rather different; they don't have a top level team in the state, but they do have grassroots - and the potential to add to the value of the sport in a manner that another QLD team would struggle to match.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:32 am  

1. the storm lose between 1 - 3 million pa apparently, covered by news ltd. who is to cover those losses for a perth team?

2. the queenland teams on the whole are profitable.

3. the nrl is taking the approach that they want the storm to get their losses down. rather than admit more teams with poor finances from expansion areas, they will go with ones for now that will be strong from day one.

look at the titans, a massive success. more queensland teams will copy that.

population data shows that queensland will be the number 2 state population wise in 20 years, so we need to ensure we keep that as ours.

4. RL areas in australia comprise a majority of the population. thats why afl is so desperate to expand into our areas.

west brisbane and the central coast have all been mentioned by the nrl as more important now than perth and i can understand what they mean.

5. you are aware that cronulla actually own their own ground and the land adjoining, worht around $50 million. they are planning more ground improvements and building a hotel which will make them quite wealthy.

why is losing a part of sydney considered progress.

people said souths should be out of the nrl, and once that happened they realized the mistake.

norths getting kicked out just meant the north shore went to union and AFL.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:44 am  

dally messenger wrote:

1. the storm lose between 1 - 3 million pa apparently, covered by news ltd. who is to cover those losses?

Who would cover the Storm losses?

Oh, wait, someone does.

2. the queenland teams on the whole are profitable.

There's more to life than profit. Should we shut down any NSW or SL teams that don't turn a profit?

3. the nrl is taking the approach that they want the storm to get their losses down. rather than admit more teams with poor finances from expansion areas, they will go with ones for now that will be strong from day one.

This point presupposes that another team would have identical finances to the Storm; I'm not sure that's always going to be reliable, but it's certainly worth thinking about. But we should be thinking long-term for expansion, and a short term loss is worth it, IMO.

look at the titans, a massive success. more queensland teams will copy that.

Again, this presupposes that a Perth team, for example, won't be a success.

We could equally look at the performance of the Titans and conclude that RL is Sydney, by comparison, needs a scythe running through it.

I'm not sure that's the case.

population data shows that queensland will be the number 2 state population wise in 20 years, so we need to ensure we keep that as ours.

How do new teams in QLD ensure this? Why won't those same fans grow up as fans of the existing teams? This doesn't make sense.

4. RL areas in australia comprise a majority of the population. thats why afl is so desperate to expand into our areas.

Surely you therefore propose another few teams in the Melbourne environs, due to the population there?

west brisbane and the central coast have all been mentioned by the nrl as more important now than perth and i can understand what they mean.

I think their ideas have merit in many ways.

5. you are aware that cronulla actually own their own ground and the land adjoining, worht around $50 million. they are planning more ground improvements and building a hotel which will make them quite wealthy.

A straight swap between Cronulla in Sydney and an equivalent club in Perth is a no-brainer; this comment simply reinforces that.

why is losing a part of sydney considered progress.

people said souths should be out of the nrl, and once that happened they realized the mistake.

norths getting kicked out just meant the north shore went to union and AFL.

I don't think it should be about "losing a pert of Sydney", I think it should be about widening the representation of the sport at the top level. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to reconcile the current situation with being able to bring more teams in.

Not enough cash, for one thing; something a better TV deal might help.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:14 am  

dally messenger wrote:

you dont get 3 million people watching collingwood vs carlton thats the problem sunshine. 3 million people watch every origin game.

hence why the AFL cant match the nrl.

good to see you sticking up for the AFL mob, they need all the help they can get.

indeed, 1 origin game in queensland gets more TV ratings than an ENTIRE season of AFL games in that state.

so much for AFL in queensland eh mate?

Feck Qld you muppet!! the place is full of banjo playing inbreds or low income earners from NSW or VIC who are basically Westy scum & act like it.

SOO is three bloody games, thats all, we all cream ourselves over three games & a grand final, that just about sums up our year.

The Afl's whole final system is watched religiously, those big games that regularly attract 80,000 or more are almost bloody weekly, just about every other game is 40,000 plus, & i'd hazard a guess & say that the bigger games would attract a few million on the box, someone might like to correct me, but any victorian or W.A people would surely agree that they would all tune into Collingwood v carlton or Hawthorn, or St kilda etc.

Like i said, i dont really care for the game, doubt i've watched a whole game through, but stop kidding yourself knackers, we aint got Sh@t compared to the way they do things

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:54 pm  

St.John wrote:

Who would cover the Storm losses?

Oh, wait, someone does.



There's more to life than profit. Should we shut down any NSW or SL teams that don't turn a profit?



This point presupposes that another team would have identical finances to the Storm; I'm not sure that's always going to be reliable, but it's certainly worth thinking about. But we should be thinking long-term for expansion, and a short term loss is worth it, IMO.



Again, this presupposes that a Perth team, for example, won't be a success.

We could equally look at the performance of the Titans and conclude that RL is Sydney, by comparison, needs a scythe running through it.

I'm not sure that's the case.



How do new teams in QLD ensure this? Why won't those same fans grow up as fans of the existing teams? This doesn't make sense.



Surely you therefore propose another few teams in the Melbourne environs, due to the population there?



I think their ideas have merit in many ways.



A straight swap between Cronulla in Sydney and an equivalent club in Perth is a no-brainer; this comment simply reinforces that.



I don't think it should be about "losing a pert of Sydney", I think it should be about widening the representation of the sport at the top level. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to reconcile the current situation with being able to bring more teams in.

Not enough cash, for one thing; something a better TV deal might help.

1. so whose going to cover the losses a perth team would make? that would be nobody.

2. queensland teams make profit, perth wont. you work out why im saying a queensland team is better on that score, its not very hard.

3. no extra teams in melbourne as its not a RL area. queensland is. seroiusly put some thought into this.

4. no a straight swap between sydney and perth wont work. souths and norths showed why that doesnt work.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:55 pm  

Rabbit_Attack wrote:

Feck Qld you muppet!! the place is full of banjo playing inbreds or low income earners from NSW or VIC who are basically Westy scum & act like it.

SOO is three bloody games, thats all, we all cream ourselves over three games & a grand final, that just about sums up our year.

The Afl's whole final system is watched religiously, those big games that regularly attract 80,000 or more are almost bloody weekly, just about every other game is 40,000 plus, & i'd hazard a guess & say that the bigger games would attract a few million on the box, someone might like to correct me, but any victorian or W.A people would surely agree that they would all tune into Collingwood v carlton or Hawthorn, or St kilda etc.

Like i said, i dont really care for the game, doubt i've watched a whole game through, but stop kidding yourself knackers, we aint got Sh@t compared to the way they do things

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.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:57 pm  

just for the poor AFL fan :

1. Origin - TV viewers 10 million.
2. Crowds - 170,000 - 220,000 each year.
3. Revenues for RL 10 million.

AFL - collingwood vs essendon.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:30 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

1. so whose going to cover the losses a perth team would make? that would be nobody.

If it adds value to their subscriptions, I imagine News might be interested.

Either way, profit is not the be all and end all.

2. queensland teams make profit, perth wont. you work out why im saying a queensland team is better on that score, its not very hard.

See above; do all the Sydney teams turn a comparable profit?

3. no extra teams in melbourne as its not a RL area. queensland is. seroiusly put some thought into this.

I'm using your population argument. It's not as simple as "place x is projected to have a lot of people", or Melbourne would be targetted for more teams.

4. no a straight swap between sydney and perth wont work. souths and norths showed why that doesnt work.

The argument was predicated on swapping 15k fans in Cronulla to something comparable in Perth.

I'd take that, as it opens up a new market, and helps dispel the myths surrounding RL only being viable in certain constrained areas.

: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:31 pm  

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

perth would be nice, and id brush adelaide all together