View Full Version : Expansion Just how viable is the Gold Coast
yioughtta
6 Nov 2007, 21:40
If people like you stopped posting inaccurate stuff about North, I wouldn't feel the need to respond to it. I wouldn't want people to think that a failure to respond to something is acceptance of the truth of it.
Why don't you try putting forward some arguments about how Gold Coast will achieve. Put forward some numbers yourself or some theories. Because at the moment all you are doing is sitting back and sniping other peoples comments without actually making any yourself. And you talk about politics. :confused:
What's that saying? You know, the one about the nail and the head and some form of hitting thereof?
:thumbsu:
yioughtta
6 Nov 2007, 21:43
Don't misquote me. The Gold Coast Titans were accepted into the competition in late 2005. - 12 months after the latest serious proposal was "postponed" by the NRL. Just where did you come up with the "lobbying" term? For all we know Carlton lobbied to merge with the Kangaroos. FFS, Judd might've "lobbied" to join Carlton in March. If you're gonna base you arguement on conjecture and not facts, save us all the time..
Hahahahahhaha. That's a bit rich coming from you, sunshine.
So you aren't willing to go on the record as saying that the Gold Coast NRL club was only put on the agenda of the region three years ago?
Didn't think so. Dill. :)
ArachniX
6 Nov 2007, 21:53
Why can't Brisabne fill a 40k seat stadium? Answer that all you guys with the stats on South East QLD. Please. Oh and tell me the reasons again.
Funkalicous
6 Nov 2007, 21:57
Hahahahahhaha. That's a bit rich coming from you, sunshine.
So you aren't willing to go on the record as saying that the Gold Coast NRL club was only put on the agenda of the region three years ago?
Didn't think so. Dill. :)
"On the agenda" now is it?!!
Bloody hell, you do realise that there has been an NRL Gold Coast side before the Titans, don't you? You obviously have a piece of journalism weaker than water which you won't show until I make a ridiculous claim that I can't possibly defend. "AGENDA"?!! A bear in the woods can have an agenda!
I'll say it a 3rd time: The NRL agreed to let the Titans join the comp in late 2005, giving them approximately 18 months to prepare. In that time they signed up a team, and found some sponsors. What they couldn't do in that time was build a stadium ready for 2007. Perhaps if they did have 7 years to prepare they may have. :rolleyes:
Now put that on your record, and shove it up your arse. :cool:
Cheers,
Funk
Funkalicous
6 Nov 2007, 21:58
Why can't Brisabne fill a 40k seat stadium? Answer that all you guys with the stats on South East QLD. Please. Oh and tell me the reasons again.
They already have planty of times. They've maxed out their memberships before too.
Surely in th 50 years of being the handbaggers you've experienced bad crowds too?
Why can't Brisabne fill a 40k seat stadium? Answer that all you guys with the stats on South East QLD. Please. Oh and tell me the reasons again.
Because in the last couple of years they've been sh*t?
ArachniX
6 Nov 2007, 22:09
They already have planty of times. They've maxed out their memberships before too.
Surely in th 50 years of being the handbaggers you've experienced bad crowds too?
Good on ya mate. The max crowd is a little of 37k. a few times against Collingwood. and a few times against Essendon. Average is under 30k. As for Geelong, a city with less than 200k. yet have a membership of over 30k this year. Make ur own numbers up, oh yeah and come back in 5 years time and tell me how good the Gold Coast is. Ill meet you. Plan it now, give me your name and ill write it now here with your predictions and look you up in 5 years 5 time.
ChrisFooty
6 Nov 2007, 22:11
Because in the last couple of years they've been sh*t?
The AFL would hate to see a period of time where both Brisbane and the Gold Coast team are hovering near the bottom of the ladder. The AFL would have to hand 5 million dollar cheques to both sides for assistance.
yioughtta
6 Nov 2007, 22:25
"On the agenda" now is it?!!
Bloody hell, you do realise that there has been an NRL Gold Coast side before the Titans, don't you?
Indeed I do. You see, that club (the Chargers) went down despite financial success (due to the after-effects of the Super League war), and it was because of this that there have been efforts ever since to see a new club take its place. That finally happened after 10 years.
You obviously have a piece of journalism weaker than water which you won't show until I make a ridiculous claim that I can't possibly defend. "AGENDA"?!! A bear in the woods can have an agenda!
So now you are the authority on bears, too? Since you won't go on record as saying that the Gold Coast NRL team (now known as the Titans) had not been in planning for more than three years, I suggest you retract your earlier (false) comments suggesting as such.
I'll say it a 3rd time: The NRL agreed to let the Titans join the comp in late 2005, giving them approximately 18 months to prepare. In that time they signed up a team, and found some sponsors. What they couldn't do in that time was build a stadium ready for 2007. Perhaps if they did have 7 years to prepare they may have. :rolleyes:
Do you think the NRL 'magically' allowed a new license into the comp, or do you think some work had to go into getting the license in the first place?
Now put that on your record, and shove it up your arse. :cool:
Cheers,
Funk
The potty-mouth was to be expected. No offense taken. :)
yioughtta
6 Nov 2007, 22:27
The AFL would hate to see a period of time where both Brisbane and the Gold Coast team are hovering near the bottom of the ladder. The AFL would have to hand 5 million dollar cheques to both sides for assistance.
They wouldn't 'hand' them the cheques.
(They would place them neatly inside the Premiership cups ;))
Funkalicous
6 Nov 2007, 22:47
Indeed I do. You see, that club (the Chargers) went down despite financial success (due to the after-effects of the Super League war), and it was because of this that there have been efforts ever since to see a new club take its place. That finally happened after 10 years.
So now you are the authority on bears, too? Since you won't go on record as saying that the Gold Coast NRL team (now known as the Titans) had not been in planning for more than three years, I suggest you retract your earlier (false) comments suggesting as such.
Do you think the NRL 'magically' allowed a new license into the comp, or do you think some work had to go into getting the license in the first place?
The potty-mouth was to be expected. No offense taken. :)
Please tell me you have something to prove your claims / disprove mine? You've been leading me on for half a dozen posts now.
You'd be a good poker player.... but I'm not folding. In fact I'll see you.
You don't have anything factual to provide, therefore I'll go on record in saying that the Titans got the go ahead in late 2005. I'll also add that the NRL have 'magical' powers, bears have a serious agenda, and Demetrio would wipe the floor with Chuck Norris. :cool:
yioughtta
6 Nov 2007, 22:58
Please tell me you have something to prove your claims / disprove mine? You've been leading me on for half a dozen posts now.
You'd be a good poker player.... but I'm not folding. In fact I'll see you.
You don't have anything factual to provide, therefore I'll go on record in saying that the Titans got the go ahead in late 2005. I'll also add that the NRL have 'magical' powers, bears have a serious agenda, and Demetrio would wipe the floor with Chuck Norris. :cool:
Credit for the last sentence. You clearly have some style.
But that doesn't make up for your lack of elementary understanding of the issues at hand. Or your failure to back up your own claim that the old Coast NRL team was only first pushed for less than three years ago.
Yes, their license was granted back in 2005 (on May 27) but they had been pushing for a license well before then. Indeed, Michael Searle (now Titans CEO) made official attempts for a license as far back as 2003 (so even on the official basis, your 'three year' claim has been debunked).
Prior to this, the Gold Coast rugby supporters had wanted an NRL team to be reinstated ever since their only previous one (the aforementioned Chargers) were excluded from the NRL due to its rationalisation process, despite being one of the more successful during the Super League war.
These are all facts. Go on. Disprove them? You can't!
PS Im off to bed. Will be back to make you look like fool tomorrow. See you then :)
The AFL would hate to see a period of time where both Brisbane and the Gold Coast team are hovering near the bottom of the ladder. The AFL would have to hand 5 million dollar cheques to both sides for assistance.
You don't need to fill stadiums to be profitable. Brisbane are reportedly going to turn a profit in 2007 (albeit a small one) despite having a poor season. Probably because they spent like a bitch in 2006 and cut back on it this year.
Well our boys just made the Prelims with about 90% of the salary cap
Paid with handouts, no?
(as opposed to your boys whose only Premierships came well over 100% of the cap). So you tell me?
Paid with our own money, yes?
Your point only proves one thing. :)
Doctor Jolly
7 Nov 2007, 09:59
You don't need to fill stadiums to be profitable. Brisbane are reportedly going to turn a profit in 2007 (albeit a small one) despite having a poor season. Probably because they spent like a bitch in 2006 and cut back on it this year.
Which is why profitability is not a good measure. One years profit or loss is really just the difference between contracts you signed 3 years ago, compared to todays revenue streams. ie. it can fluctuate.
Better to compare Brisbanes total revenue for 2007 vs Norths total revenue for 2007.... or any year you want.
Interesting figures, but a touch misleading I feel. What would be even more interesting if they were broken down even further.
The Lions have 11 game membership revenue from their home games, which is all well and good. Then they would have revenue from the 6 game Vic memberships. This is a little more important as most of the money for that would have to be paid out as compensation to the home team. So a similar club, with no Vic membership, but without the costs of compensating home teams will find themselves lower on this ladder, but not a whole lot worse financially.
Good point, but then say if North Melbourne moved, they would probably still have around the same membership base in Melbourne that Brisbane have (4-6k), but if we're talking about a GC team starting from scratch then (IMO) they'd balance the lack of Melbourne members with more members up there as i believe a new team would attract more members (quicker) then say a relocated North (just my personal view).
The AFL would hate to see a period of time where both Brisbane and the Gold Coast team are hovering near the bottom of the ladder. The AFL would have to hand 5 million dollar cheques to both sides for assistance.
The AFL already hand out 5 million dollar cheques to the Kangaroos and they finished 3rd.
yioughtta
7 Nov 2007, 16:22
The AFL already hand out 5 million dollar cheques to the Kangaroos and they finished 3rd.
You poor, ignorant fool. Tsk tsk tsk.
If people like you stopped posting inaccurate stuff about North, I wouldn't feel the need to respond to it. I wouldn't want people to think that a failure to respond to something is acceptance of the truth of it.
Why don't you try putting forward some arguments about how Gold Coast will achieve. Put forward some numbers yourself or some theories. Because at the moment all you are doing is sitting back and sniping other peoples comments without actually making any yourself. And you talk about politics. :confused:
Unlike yourself, I only deal in facts. I don't bandy about numbers I read on some webpage with an agenda. I dont guess at attendance figures, or assume statistics. You say that makes me a sniper, but it is because I am not interested in gossip and rubbish. Opinions are one thing, but there aren't any facts here other than the AFL favour the Gold Coast. Why? Many Kangaroo supporters here claim it is because of some vendetta against them, or a conspiracy of sorts. I say that is unlikely, they are in the business of making money, and i don't think they have not analysed this. Just because they aren't showing you the figures doesn't mean they haven't got any. You keep coming back to wanting someone to prove the coast is viable. I say no one needs to, its the AFL's choice, their money, and if they want to waste it, they can. If the 'roos disappear it will be because they refused to move, but only because of years of poor fiscal performance. Anything there any of you can argue with, with any proof of any kind?
Unlike yourself, I only deal in facts. I don't bandy about numbers I read on some webpage with an agenda. I dont guess at attendance figures, or assume statistics.
The only webpage I have got my stuff from is the Qld Department on Infrastructure and the AFL one that link to annual reports. I'm sure there is an agenda on one of those sites, maybe not the one your thinking of though.
You say that makes me a sniper, but it is because I am not interested in gossip and rubbish.
No, you are a sniper becasue you shout down anyone who states an opinion, but you aren't prepared to put you own opinions on the line. You had a go at me for suggesting that the Gold Coast was more pro-rugby(s) than Aussie Rules, you didn't even have the bollocks to hazard a guess as to whether or not that was the case.
but there aren't any facts here other than the AFL favour the Gold Coast.
That may be a fact, but it doesn't make it a good thing.
Why?
Thats why we have these discussions, so people capable of independent thought can come to their own conclusions.
Many Kangaroo supporters here claim it is because of some vendetta against them, or a conspiracy of sorts. I say that is unlikely, they are in the business of making money, and i don't think they have not analysed this. Just because they aren't showing you the figures doesn't mean they haven't got any. You keep coming back to wanting someone to prove the coast is viable. I say no one needs to, its the AFL's choice, their money, and if they want to waste it, they can.
It is not the AFLs money, they are the servants of the clubs.
If the 'roos disappear it will be because they refused to move, but only because of years of poor fiscal performance. Anything there any of you can argue with, with any proof of any kind?
Have you actually said anything? Simple fact, you are unwilling or incapable of mounting an argument for the move to the Gold Coast other than the AFL want it, so it must be a good thing. You're exactly the type of people the AFL like.
No, you are a sniper becasue you shout down anyone who states an opinion, but you aren't prepared to put you own opinions on the line. You had a go at me for suggesting that the Gold Coast was more pro-rugby(s) than Aussie Rules, you didn't even have the bollocks to hazard a guess as to whether or not that was the case.
No, I concede that the coast is more pro rugby than aussie rules, I deny that there isn't enough support for Aussie rules to be viable. For the third time I state this. Can you read it this time? Read it again. It is like saying the coast is more pro motor racing. Who cares? The only thing that matters is who will go to, or watch on TV, the Gold Coast AFL. I say there is plenty.
That may be a fact, but it doesn't make it a good thing.
My opinion is that it is a good thing.
Thats why we have these discussions, so people capable of independent thought can come to their own conclusions.
Sure, but lets discuss things we know to be true, or admit they are opinions.
It is not the AFLs money, they are the servants of the clubs.
The AFL is an entity of its own. The clubs all vote. If they dont want this, it wont happen. Right?
Have you actually said anything? Simple fact, you are unwilling or incapable of mounting an argument for the move to the Gold Coast other than the AFL want it, so it must be a good thing. You're exactly the type of people the AFL like.
I haven't said anything THAT YOU LIKE. Of course that doesn't mean I dont have a clear opinion on the matter. Do you really not know what it is?
No, I concede that the coast is more pro rugby than aussie rules
Thats the first time I've heard you admit this. Makes me wonder why you had a go at me when I said exactly the same thing.
I deny that there isn't enough support for Aussie rules to be viable. For the third time I state this. Can you read it this time? Read it again. It is like saying the coast is more pro motor racing. Who cares? The only thing that matters is who will go to, or watch on TV, the Gold Coast AFL. I say there is plenty.
So why don't you explain to me why you think that. Less than a third the population of Brisbane, are Gold Coast people more passionate about the game than Brisbanes? Is there better infrastructure in place? I asked the question "how viable is the Gold Coast?", why don't you participate in that debate and explain how you think it's viable rather than just criticise anyone that say why they think it isn't?
Sure, but lets discuss things we know to be true, or admit they are opinions.
I've always said it's my opinion when that has been the case. But in the initial thread I wasn't even stating opinion, I was asking the question.
The AFL is an entity of its own. The clubs all vote. If they dont want this, it wont happen. Right?
Not necessarily. Clubs might not like it, they might not like the consequences of rejecting the AFL even more. AFL has way too much power over the clubs IMO.
I haven't said anything THAT YOU LIKE. Of course that doesn't mean I dont have a clear opinion on the matter. Do you really not know what it is?
Yes I do, you actually haven't said anything. I know you want the move to go ahead, that much is obvious. But I still wouldn't have a clue why you think it's a good idea. You're like the politician that has a go at the other parties policies, but doesn't his own for fear of being criticised over them.
yioughtta
7 Nov 2007, 18:01
No, I concede that the coast is more pro rugby than aussie rules, I deny that there isn't enough support for Aussie rules to be viable. For the third time I state this. Can you read it this time? Read it again. It is like saying the coast is more pro motor racing. Who cares? The only thing that matters is who will go to, or watch on TV, the Gold Coast AFL. I say there is plenty.
My opinion is that it is a good thing.
Sure, but lets discuss things we know to be true, or admit they are opinions.
The AFL is an entity of its own. The clubs all vote. If they dont want this, it wont happen. Right?
I haven't said anything THAT YOU LIKE. Of course that doesn't mean I dont have a clear opinion on the matter. Do you really not know what it is?
Helix, good on you for standing up for what you believe in. You are entitled to your opinion as am I to mine and everybody else is to theirs.
But how I differ from you is in this: You use the point that the 'AFL thinks it is a good idea' to justify your own opinion. This is completely contrary to my argument which is that if you believe everything the AFL tell you, you are a fool and deserve to have no say in the governance of the game.
I would sooner believe Brisbane's own membership departments figures, Brisbane's own financial report, Brisbane's own key directors and high-profile figures, and history concerning the failed Brisbane Carrara push (to name but a few sources) than anything the AFL have to say. 'Crazy' you may say, but to me this makes far more sense.
If you can, please put forward genuine facts, figures, evidence etc to back-up your claims that the Gold Coast is viable. We can't shoot you down till you put something out there- and so far your evidence has been scarce at best.
Thats the first time I've heard you admit this. Makes me wonder why you had a go at me when I said exactly the same thing.
I have no problem with it, and stand by it, in the context that it was aimed.
I have repeatedly stated, yet I will do it again here since you might be a little slow, that the Gold Coast IS an AFL town AS WELL as a rugby league town. We are quite capable of supporting more than one sport, due to the massive numbers of Victorians who saw the light (sunlight) and moved here, combined with the traditional support for Rugby League. The sports are both very well represented at all the schools in the area, Auskick is commonplace.
Since the Titans have started, we have embraced them too. See, I am a Melbourne boy, grew up in Melbourne, am (obviously) mad keen on AFL, and support rugby league as well. Isn't that amazing! This is how it works here.
Why didn't you read this?
So why don't you explain to me why you think that. Less than a third the population of Brisbane, are Gold Coast people more passionate about the game than Brisbanes? Is there better infrastructure in place? I asked the question "how viable is the Gold Coast?", why don't you participate in that debate and explain how you think it's viable rather than just criticise anyone that say why they think it isn't?
My criticism is for those making facts up. I acknowledge the valid arguments, with facts behind them or clearly stated as opinions.
Yes I do, you actually haven't said anything. I know you want the move to go ahead, that much is obvious. But I still wouldn't have a clue why you think it's a good idea. You're like the politician that has a go at the other parties policies, but doesn't his own for fear of being criticised over them.
Yes, but it was obviously meant as a financial one. On field the Kangaroos have been good, which simply supports the argument that in spite of on field success, not enough people follow the roos for them to be viable in Melbourne. Personally, I hope you stay in Melbourne, and the Sharks get a licence. Then, let nature take its course. Nothing ignorant or incorrect about it.
I have said plenty, but you aren't listening.
Helix, good on you for standing up for what you believe in. You are entitled to your opinion as am I to mine and everybody else is to theirs.
But how I differ from you is in this: You use the point that the 'AFL thinks it is a good idea' to justify your own opinion. This is completely contrary to my argument which is that if you believe everything the AFL tell you, you are a fool and deserve to have no say in the governance of the game.
I would sooner believe Brisbane's own membership departments figures, Brisbane's own financial report, Brisbane's own key directors and high-profile figures, and history concerning the failed Brisbane Carrara push (to name but a few sources) than anything the AFL have to say. 'Crazy' you may say, but to me this makes far more sense.
If you can, please put forward genuine facts, figures, evidence etc to back-up your claims that the Gold Coast is viable. We can't shoot you down till you put something out there- and so far your evidence has been scarce at best.
How many times do I need to say this? I don't have figures that support it. The AFL has done the studies, but has not chosen to share them with me. I just have more faith in the enthusiasm shown by the AFL than I do in the negativity shown by the "say no to the Gold Coast" campainers. Why? One thinks they have a lot of money to gain from the Gold Coast, and one is trying to save what is left of their club by any means necessary. Am I not entitled to this too?
Why didn't you read this?
I did, it doesn't say anything about rugby being more popular than Aussie Rules.
My criticism is for those making facts up. I acknowledge the valid arguments, with facts behind them or clearly stated as opinions.
I've not made "facts" up. I've made some assumptions and some suppositions, and invited comment. Anything that has come from that I've been very clear is my opinion.
Am I not entitled to this too?
You are, but to be honest the "AFL says it's a good idea so it must be" argument doesn't hold any water with me. If we were all as incapable of indepent thought as that there would be no point having this board.
You are, but to be honest the "AFL says it's a good idea so it must be" argument doesn't hold any water with me. If we were all as incapable of indepent thought as that there would be no point having this board.
Just as the "The AFL are ignoring the fact that the Gold Coast is not Viable" argument doesn't hold water with me. Stop badgering me to make something up to satisfy your wish to rebuke me.
I did, it doesn't say anything about rugby being more popular than Aussie Rules.
The theme is clear. You are being pedantic.
ArachniX
7 Nov 2007, 19:37
How many times do I need to say this? I don't have figures that support it. The AFL has done the studies, but has not chosen to share them with me. I just have more faith in the enthusiasm shown by the AFL than I do in the negativity shown by the "say no to the Gold Coast" campainers. Why? One thinks they have a lot of money to gain from the Gold Coast, and one is trying to save what is left of their club by any means necessary. Am I not entitled to this too?
Helix, you are making a few points and seem to have a good argument but as everyone has pointed out here, unfortunately it is not substantiated. I think you will find that the AFL has done studies but more on the "future" viability of the Gold Coast, but not just the Gold Coast alone. I am sure their studies are done based on the prospect of TV rights and the extra money that is available as well as industry that will invest in the new club. I think you will also find that the AFL sees the SE Qld market as also "future potential" IF it can tap into it. Their sums, I would imagine, are based around the fact that just like Sydney, they can quite easily fund it even if it's a basket case just for the sake of having a 2nd team in QLD. In other words, the AFL "agenda" is more important than the viability of the club. And it's from there I think you will find the frustration from the non-Gold Coast market. The amount of money that will go into that club will be enough to save North Melbourne and other weaker Melbourne sides. If the AFL spent some of that money here in Melbourne it would quite easily allow these other clubs to survive. With the Gold Coast, it is a massive risk. It may work "in the future", but it's definitely not viable "now" and to frustrate current supporters and also dilute the SE Qld market with a 2nd team, when the first one isn't exactly on firm footing is a serious risk that money may not fix "in the future".
Just as the "The AFL are ignoring the fact that the Gold Coast is not Viable" argument doesn't hold water with me. Stop badgering me to make something up to satisfy your wish to rebuke me.
I am not using that argument at all. I provided a few reasons why I don't think the Gold Coast is viable and invited opinion, on why those reasons may be relevant or not.
yioughtta
7 Nov 2007, 19:43
Helix, you are making a few points and seem to have a good argument but as everyone has pointed out here, unfortunately it is not substantiated. I think you will find that the AFL has done studies but more on the "future" viability of the Gold Coast, but not just the Gold Coast alone. I am sure their studies are done based on the prospect of TV rights and the extra money that is available as well as industry that will invest in the new club. I think you will also find that the AFL sees the SE Qld market as also "future potential" IF it can tap into it. Their sums, I would imagine, are based around the fact that just like Sydney, they can quite easily fund it even if it's a basket case just for the sake of having a 2nd team in QLD. In other words, the AFL "agenda" is more important than the viability of the club. And it's from there I think you will find the frustration from the non-Gold Coast market. The amount of money that will go into that club will be enough to save North Melbourne and other weaker Melbourne sides. If the AFL spent some of that money here in Melbourne it would quite easily allow these other clubs to survive. With the Gold Coast, it is a massive risk. It may work "in the future", but it's definitely not viable "now" and to frustrate current supporters and also dilute the SE Qld market with a 2nd team, when the first one isn't exactly on firm footing is a serious risk that money may not fix "in the future".
:thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu:
Helix, you are making a few points and seem to have a good argument but as everyone has pointed out here, unfortunately it is not substantiated. I think you will find that the AFL has done studies but more on the "future" viability of the Gold Coast, but not just the Gold Coast alone. I am sure their studies are done based on the prospect of TV rights and the extra money that is available as well as industry that will invest in the new club. I think you will also find that the AFL sees the SE Qld market as also "future potential" IF it can tap into it. Their sums, I would imagine, are based around the fact that just like Sydney, they can quite easily fund it even if it's a basket case just for the sake of having a 2nd team in QLD. In other words, the AFL "agenda" is more important than the viability of the club. And it's from there I think you will find the frustration from the non-Gold Coast market. The amount of money that will go into that club will be enough to save North Melbourne and other weaker Melbourne sides. If the AFL spent some of that money here in Melbourne it would quite easily allow these other clubs to survive. With the Gold Coast, it is a massive risk. It may work "in the future", but it's definitely not viable "now" and to frustrate current supporters and also dilute the SE Qld market with a 2nd team, when the first one isn't exactly on firm footing is a serious risk that money may not fix "in the future".
I have clearly stated that I don't tie the Gold Coast suceeding with the Kangaroos demise. I understand that frustration that Kangaroos fans must be feeling, just as I understood the frustration Fitzroy fans faced, and ironically the angst was directed at people like me back then too. I just want AFL to grow into an area that is convenient for me to see the sport I love, and believe that it is viable to do so. If it wasn't, I can't understand why anyone would push for it. Yet they do. Why? There must be some reward. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.
Also, Brisbane is on firm footing. Our 20,000 members pay $400 a year. Your 30,000 pay how much? $170 or something? After the Gabba is paid, we make more money anyhow. Accounting shows us with a loss last year, after many factors have been dealt with. It certainly does not make us fragile.
I have clearly stated that I don't tie the Gold Coast suceeding with the Kangaroos demise. I understand that frustration that Kangaroos fans must be feeling, just as I understood the frustration Fitzroy fans faced, and ironically the angst was directed at people like me back then too. I just want AFL to grow into an area that is convenient for me to see the sport I love, and believe that it is viable to do so. If it wasn't, I can't understand why anyone would push for it. Yet they do. Why? There must be some reward. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.
Also, Brisbane is on firm footing. Our 20,000 members pay $400 a year. Your 30,000 pay how much? $170 or something? After the Gabba is paid, we make more money anyhow. Accounting shows us with a loss last year, after many factors have been dealt with. It certainly does not make us fragile.
Living up these parts I also believe that the demographics have changed in the favour of a Gold Coast team.
I cant give the evidence that moomba asks for but I can say that the papers ,radio and tV stations now have 1000% more coverage than 10 years ago. It is not fair of Moomba to go on about Brisbanes share compared to a GC teams share of the population. There are different dynamics at play here. If Port Adelaide had started before the Crows (like we should have) would we be judging the crows potential memberships on what Port had achieved?
Well, if we had, we would we wrong. IMO the Gold coast has more southern supporters of footy here than Brizzy and, as I have stated before , more sympathetic coverage of Aussie rules ( the Bulletin , SeaFM ..a paticular mayor) than Brisbane.Different dynamics and different potential.
I bet the financial backers of Captain Cook had critics with no vision who were saying...."there is nothing out there."..."no one would want to live there"....and even...."show me the evidence on this purported Australia project"(moomba)...
Well, in life some people have to have vision and lead and bring the people with them.
what the AFL is trying to do is spread the game, it is an honourable ambition.
Living up these parts I also believe that the demographics have changed in the favour of a Gold Coast team.
I cant give the evidence that moomba asks for but I can say that the papers ,radio and tV stations now have 1000% more coverage than 10 years ago. It is not fair of Moomba to go on about Brisbanes share compared to a GC teams share of the population. There are different dynamics at play here. If Port Adelaide had started before the Crows (like we should have) would we be judging the crows potential memberships on what Port had achieved?
Well, if we had, we would we wrong. IMO the Gold coast has more southern supporters of footy here than Brizzy and, as I have stated before , more sympathetic coverage of Aussie rules ( the Bulletin , SeaFM ..a paticular mayor) than Brisbane.Different dynamics and different potential.
I have no problem with you having that opinion, this is the sort of stuff that I have been asking for. I have a few doubts whether a more sympathetic coverage, and more southern supporters of footy will compensate for the much smaller population and the fact that Brisbane currently have the state to themselves, the Gold Coast will be competing against them very much as the junior partner. But it's all about debate, and it's good that someone is finally able to join in with it.
I bet the financial backers of Captain Cook had critics with no vision who were saying...."there is nothing out there."..."no one would want to live there"....and even...."show me the evidence on this purported Australia project"(moomba)...
You don't know me, and it would be silly to try and presume what I'm like. As I have already mentioned, I am not necessarily opposed to relocation if it is the last resort, but it has to be the right place, and it has to be managed correctly. At the moment the AFL is falling down on both fronts.
Well, in life some people have to have vision and lead and bring the people with them.
Vision is wonderful, Christopher Skase had vision, Geoffrey Edlestone had vision. Not always great for footy though wouldn't you say?
On the leadership thing, what the AFL is doing is not leading. If they wanted to lead they would demonstrate to North supporters why this is the best thing for them. Not bully, and lie and disenfranchise them. At the moment, the AFL is Norths biggest weapon, and part of the reason for that is that they are failing to show proper leadership.
what the AFL is trying to do is spread the game, it is an honourable ambition.
I agree, but the way they have gone about it so far has been dishonourable. And it takes more than ambition for a project to be viable.
greennick
7 Nov 2007, 22:47
Are you calling me stupid? How hypocritical.
This is the fact you people are missing- Brisbane has an entire market to itself and so its increase of 20,000 represents the total increase of support the market has shown for Aussie Rules. Meanwhile, down in the heartland, where North are in a 'saturated market', there has been a 45,000 person increase in attendances per weekend- and that is despite the fact that footy is available every weekend (not just once a fortnight like in Brisbane).
Why is this important? Because it completely debunks the myth that support for Aussie Rules is growing faster in SEQLD than it is in Melbourne. This myth is plain wrong. Support for the Brisbane Lions may be increasing faster than it is for North, but the question of viability (which is what this is all about) is one of support within the market (SEQLD) and on this front Melbourne is creaming SEQLD.
What part of this don't you understand?
But why turn an increase for clubs into the region? The important thing here is the increase in the attendances of clubs! The point of contention is that the increase in the attendances of the northern clubs has been increasing faster than the Melbourne clubs. The increase in the interest in the whole region of Melbourne is irrelevant as North sees SFA of this increase. It is the increase in each club which is relevant in what we are discussing. The fact of the matter is that an increase of 5k for each club in Melbourne is not as good as an increase of 20k+ in the northern clubs.
What part of this don't you understand?
It is the increase in each club which is relevant in what we are discussing. The fact of the matter is that an increase of 5k for each club in Melbourne is not as good as an increase of 20k+ in the northern clubs.
What part of this don't you understand?
And if the increase of 20k+ on the Gold Coast comes at the expense of 30k+ in Melbourne (putting aside growth)?
And IMO it will take decades to consistently get 20k+ on the Gold Coast.
ChrisFooty
7 Nov 2007, 23:15
It's a hit and hope kind of thing aint it. Throw a bit of money here and hope the AFL reap some rewards in more supporters/sponsors/corporates/interest in SE QLD.
I can't see how an extra Gold Coast team will improve TV right dollars. The next TV rights deal will be lucky to match the 780mil/5 years. TV ratings in Sydney/Brisbane have stalled and are declining. Wasn't a large reason for the inflated figures for the last TV rights deal because of the potential for growth in NSW, QLD. The AFL are up against it now.
I fail to see how an extra QLD side will boost tv ratings? They are already low for Lion/Swan matches.
yioughtta
7 Nov 2007, 23:23
But why turn an increase for clubs into the region? The important thing here is the increase in the attendances of clubs! The point of contention is that the increase in the attendances of the northern clubs has been increasing faster than the Melbourne clubs. The increase in the interest in the whole region of Melbourne is irrelevant as North sees SFA of this increase. It is the increase in each club which is relevant in what we are discussing. The fact of the matter is that an increase of 5k for each club in Melbourne is not as good as an increase of 20k+ in the northern clubs.
What part of this don't you understand?
First of all, let me remind you that Brisbane's average home game attendance has increased less than 9,000 over the last 10 years.
Secondly, I have to remind you that this increase is indicative of the total increase in interest in the game in the region. If there were another team in the region over this period, this increase would have been shared. As a rough guide, divide that 9,000 by 2. Then you will see that this much-touted 'growth' in SEQ is not any better than in Melbourne.
These are the simple facts of the matter.
It's a hit and hope kind of thing aint it. Throw a bit of money here and hope the AFL reap some rewards in more supporters/sponsors/corporates/interest in SE QLD.
I can't see how an extra Gold Coast team will improve TV right dollars. The next TV rights deal will be lucky to match the 780mil/5 years. TV ratings in Sydney/Brisbane have stalled and are declining. Wasn't a large reason for the inflated figures for the last TV rights deal because of the potential for growth in NSW, QLD. The AFL are up against it now.
I fail to see how an extra QLD side will boost tv ratings? They are already low for Lion/Swan matches.
What a bunch of rubbish. Ratings are declining? Prove it. Low for Lions/Swans? Compared to what? ^The next TV deal will be lucky to match the last? Wanna bet? You cant see how another team will boost ratings? Oh man, you are kidding right?
I have never seen so much stuff made up in a single post. Not a bit of evidence for any of it.
What a bunch of rubbish. Ratings are declining? Prove it. Low for Lions/Swans? Compared to what? ^The next TV deal will be lucky to match the last? Wanna bet? You cant see how another team will boost ratings? Oh man, you are kidding right?
I have never seen so much stuff made up in a single post. Not a bit of evidence for any of it.
Where is your evidence to say he is wrong. Thats right, you don't "do" evidence do you.
Doctor Jolly
8 Nov 2007, 09:49
What a bunch of rubbish. Ratings are declining? Prove it. Low for Lions/Swans? Compared to what? ^The next TV deal will be lucky to match the last? Wanna bet? You cant see how another team will boost ratings? Oh man, you are kidding right?
I have never seen so much stuff made up in a single post. Not a bit of evidence for any of it.
Ratings arent in decline, and during the previous 9/10 rights, doomsdayers like him said that the next rights will be lower, and they werent.
TV value will increase with a local GC team because the cost base will remain the same (all games are televised, AFL is shown in GC in prime time already), while the revenue will increase: More GC people will watch a local team, Melbourne TV viewers will get more of the more popular teams (ie not have to accomodate the Roos).
It will easily add $10 to $20m to the rights overnight, with that figure growing $2 to $3m per year if the Roos dont stuff it up. That money can be channelled directly back into the GC team for the first few years.
Where is your evidence to say he is wrong. Thats right, you don't "do" evidence do you.
I have to prove that he can't prove his claims? Now you are being rediculous. What I don't "do" is instructions from the peanut gallery. Worry about your own arguments.
I have to prove that he can't prove his claims? Now you are being rediculous. What I don't "do" is instructions from the peanut gallery. Worry about your own arguments.
Thought not.
He made the claim. If you think he's wrong then you should be able to come up with a reason why other than "he's wrong, he's wrong...waaaah".
It's a hit and hope kind of thing aint it. Throw a bit of money here and hope the AFL reap some rewards in more supporters/sponsors/corporates/interest in SE QLD.
I can't see how an extra Gold Coast team will improve TV right dollars. The next TV rights deal will be lucky to match the 780mil/5 years. TV ratings in Sydney/Brisbane have stalled and are declining. Wasn't a large reason for the inflated figures for the last TV rights deal because of the potential for growth in NSW, QLD. The AFL are up against it now.
I fail to see how an extra QLD side will boost tv ratings? They are already low for Lion/Swan matches.
honestly?
christ, where to start.
the only AFL games that rate in NSW and QLD are ones that feature the local teams. another local team will double the amount of games that feature local teams on tv in QLD. 2 per weekend and 2 derbys per year.
not only that but you double the amount of press the code gets also.
if you dont see how this will seriously increase the ratings in qld i dont know what will.
what do you think will happen?
0 people will watch the new team?
all the queenslanders that currently watch the lions will choose between the old club and the new and 0 will watch the other team?
what exactly do you imagine will happen so TV ratings WONT increase in QLD???
ChrisFooty
8 Nov 2007, 22:51
So a new Gold Coast team will boost ratings for one game (the bris/gold coast derby) Also the possibility of increased ratings in final matches (that involve both the gold coast and brisbane) Is it really worth it?
Unfortunley, ratings did decline in Sydney this year. Brisbane ratings are not at the level that were experienced duyring the 2001-04 years.
The next TV rights won't be worth that much - what happens if Ch.9 do not want to enter a bid? So Ch.7/ch.10 will be competing against ABC, SBS, ESPN. That would reduce the bidding amount by several million.
So a new Gold Coast team will boost ratings for one game (the bris/gold coast derby) Also the possibility of increased ratings in final matches (that involve both the gold coast and brisbane) Is it really worth it?
no, ratings will be boosted by one game per week. plus derbys and finals this will generate significant advertising revenue over the year
they go from moderate ratings for a single game in QLD to to TWO moderate rating games in QLD. because SEQLD is so populous, moderate ratings means alot of people, and the games together make for alot of people watching AFL for 4 hours every week. which brings in alot more advertising revenue to the broadcaster, and makes it more valuable
Unfortunley, ratings did decline in Sydney this year. Brisbane ratings are not at the level that were experienced duyring the 2001-04 years.
The next TV rights won't be worth that much - what happens if Ch.9 do not want to enter a bid? So Ch.7/ch.10 will be competing against ABC, SBS, ESPN. That would reduce the bidding amount by several million.
ratings have declines, but a new team will more than make up for the interest in the lions and swans slowing down. thats the idea
and the chances of channel 9 not bidding against 7/10 next time are very slim i would think, but we shall see. certainly if they dont bid then the value will decrease, and the final sum could be significantly lower
if the size of the AFL economy contracts in this way, then the poorer vic clubs could be in ALOT of trouble. because i tell ya, the players wont be taking pay cuts, and the interstate clubs, who provide ratings thoughout the country and make AFL the countrys most popular TV sport, THEY wont be in any trouble.
no, any squeeze will hit the victorian market first. i daresay CBF funding would be trimmed. and if that happens, then there could be court action over the state of the draw....and if that happens and the AFL is forced into showing alot more unpopular teams on TV, then the value of the broadcasting dollar is hit again....as broadcasters dont want to show roos games when collingwood games are on.....and we spiral down into crisis, and **** knows what will happen
now the roos might not want to go, and fair enough, and they might get their act together in melbourne, so it might be the dogs, or the dees, or the saints or hawks that feel the pinch if and when the times of plenty we are living in right now end...
as jolly says, the amount of value that a new northern team IMMEDIATELY adds to the TV rights (and the stop loss) will cover the amount required to prop them up and a fair bit more besides.
thats why the GC is viable, and its why we will have a GC team in 2010!!!
im hoping its southport, and the roos get a fair chance to make it in melbourne + canberra. i think that if you add a national level brand + sponsorship and the dividend to the existing income of southport then you are already on the way to being a financial AFL football team.
leave the roos alone! bring on the gold coast sharks!
as jolly says, the amount of value that a new northern team IMMEDIATELY adds to the TV rights (and the stop loss) will cover the amount required to prop them up and a fair bit more besides.
I agree that it might increase TV Rights in Queenlands, but I don't think it would be significant. Certainly nowhere near what I think the cost of propping up a new or relocated team will be. Remember it's not the biggest market there, and while I concede that some non GC supporting Queenslanders will tune in each week I don't think the numbers are going to be that much.
Remember that AFL is already being shown live into SEQ, so there is going to be a market there already. And remember the value of the rights is currently $116m a year for the millions that are already interest in football. Is another 100k or so (and I'm being generous here) going to make that much difference to the value of the rights.
Remember that AFL is already being shown live into SEQ, so there is going to be a market there already. And remember the value of the rights is currently $116m a year for the millions that are already interest in football. Is another 100k or so (and I'm being generous here) going to make that much difference to the value of the rights.
generous... right
actually, the rights are worth 150 mill a year, and a significant proportion of that is because of QLD, which population-wise is about 17% of the 5-city ratings
now if the inclusion of a new team in a new city increases the overall value by 3%, and prevents it contracting by 3%, then its worth 10 million a year.
another way of looking at it, if qld is worth 20 million of the 150 million a year, and a new side increases that by 50% (which i think is the lower, early years estimate), then thats 10 million a year as well.
as i say, i dont know if these figures are realistic, but i daresay the league wouldnt be pushing for a new team and expecting to put a new club on a multi million dollar drip for 10 years if they only expected to get 100k a year out of it, as you seem to think
as jolly says, the amount of value that a new northern team IMMEDIATELY adds to the TV rights (and the stop loss) will cover the amount required to prop them up and a fair bit more besides.
thats why the GC is viable, and its why we will have a GC team in 2010!!!
im hoping its southport, and the roos get a fair chance to make it in melbourne + canberra. i think that if you add a national level brand + sponsorship and the dividend to the existing income of southport then you are already on the way to being a financial AFL football team.
leave the roos alone! bring on the gold coast sharks!
Thats fine but the CBF will be cut and go to the GC Sharks, leaving North and to a lesser extent Melbourne and WB where?
actually, the rights are worth 150 mill a year, and a significant proportion of that is because of QLD, which population-wise is about 17% of the 5-city ratings
My mistake, got my sums wrong. Population wise Queensland may be 17% of the 5 city ratings but you would dreaming if you thought that they added 17% of the value of any TV contract.
Consider it this way if you were a TV station and you were going to televise into two regions with the same population, one where the vast majority is passionate about your product, and the other where they have a much smaller number that are passionate about the product then you are going to put more money into the first.
now if the inclusion of a new team in a new city increases the overall value by 3%, and prevents it contracting by 3%, then its worth 10 million a year.
as i say, i dont know if these figures are realistic, but i daresay the league wouldnt be pushing for a new team and expecting to put a new club on a multi million dollar drip for 10 years if they only expected to get 100k a year out of it.
The figures did seem to have pulled out of a hat somewhere. I don't know how realistic they are, but I suspect it's very much along the not lines.
Remember that Gold Coast people already watch AFL, and many Bears supporters already watch their couple of games a week regardless of the fact that a Queensland team isn't playing. You're not going to be able to magic up a huge number of people that will suddenly be interested in watching any more footy than they did before. On the GC you'll get a few, but then we have the population issue. And you might think it insignificant but there will be a lot of North people who won't watch the footy any more if this goes through.
And I'm afraid the "AFL want it to happen therefore it must be a good idea" argument just isn't a valid one in my book. It's been used way too many times on this board, it's time for us as a community to grow back a bit of spine and not just automatically believe everything the big bossman tells us.
My mistake, got my sums wrong. Population wise Queensland may be 17% of the 5 city ratings but you would dreaming if you thought that they added 17% of the value of any TV contract.
Consider it this way if you were a TV station and you were going to televise into two regions with the same population, one where the vast majority is passionate about your product, and the other where they have a much smaller number that are passionate about the product then you are going to put more money into the first.
well of course, which is why WA and SA have two teams. and of course the ratings are comparatively low in QLD due to lower interest, but once again we are talking about proportion, small ratings in QLD is still alot of people, brisbane is oz' 3rd most populous city and the GC is the 6th, and the biggest non capital, and moderate ratings there represent alot of people, more even than good ratings in smaller markets, and alot of value to the rights.
miserable ratings in QLD of 4% of 2.5 milllion people is the same amount of TV viewers as great ratings of 10% of 1.1 million adelaide people.
you say its worth 100k (?), i say it will likely be at least a few percentage points overall... i would think 5% is very reasonable and probably after 5 to 10 years of development is will be more than that. especially if the new club has some success and a few home town heroes (come on down, nick riewoldt)
anyway, my point was that is the scale we are working on here, not in the hundreds of thousands.
The figures did seem to have pulled out of a hat somewhere. I don't know how realistic they are, but I suspect it's very much along the not lines.
fair enough if you think that, but iv been following this stuff for many years, whereas alot you guys seem to be very new to this stuff
the GC and SEQ are growth markets, with already sizable populations, and the code is slowly increasing in popularity there. the new side will push this alongnot by magic, but slow development
Remember that Gold Coast people already watch AFL, and many Bears supporters already watch their couple of games a week regardless of the fact that a Queensland team isn't playing. You're not going to be able to magic up a huge number of people that will suddenly be interested in watching any more footy than they did before. On the GC you'll get a few, but then we have the population issue. And you might think it insignificant but there will be a lot of North people who won't watch the footy any more if this goes through.
as i said a few pages back, while not insignificant the roos small following will be split, some will stay, some will return later, some will refugee to a new team and some never watch AFL again. a measured loss for a potentially sizable gain
but i digress, this thread is about the viability of the GC, not the roos.
Thats fine but the CBF will be cut and go to the GC Sharks, leaving North and to a lesser extent Melbourne and WB where?
will it? i think the AFL is bluffing on that, if that is what has even been threatened, which they deny
if the sharks come in, and in a couple of years a western sydney side, i think the expansion of the tv rights will continue, and there will be plenty enough for the CBF to even expand a little and support the poorer clubs for another 10 years.
i think the contraction will come, and things will get bad for the poor vic clubs, but while we are expanding they are generally safe, IMO. just like the roos are actually safe right now and for the next 10 years, if they dont want to go
I would assume that the gold coast team (whether new or relocated) will have all of it's games on FTA TV into the home state the same as Brisbane , Sydney and the WA/SA teams.
That would certainly get the team exposed to the new market and new sponsors.