Expansion Armageddon the Doomsday Document

[cos789]

Radical plan for code's survial
By Steve Mascord
July 18, 2008 SELECTED NRL club bosses have been shown a radical "Doomsday Document" which plots a course for the game if several Sydney clubs collapse.

Gold Coast CEO Michael Searle has admitted working on a discussion paper which advises traditional clubs to merge or relocate to the Sunshine Coast, Darwin and Papua New Guinea or New Zealand in the event of complete bankruptcy.

Among other recommendations, it calls for the NRL to give teams that move $40 million to $50 million and those that merge a double grant every year for a decade.

The Daily Telegraph understands Brisbane's Bruno Cullen, Melbourne's Brian Waldron, North Queensland's Peter Parr and Wests Tigers' Steve Noyce are among the handpicked group to have seen the paper.

Searle did not want to discuss his exact involvement in the document but admitted he knew it intimately.

"This is a plan in case Armageddon comes," Searle said.

"We have to plan for the possibility the financial pressures on clubs in Sydney become so great, with the poker machine tax and the sponsorship squeeze, that they cannot survive.

"The AFL talks about geographic dominance. With the sea change theory that people are moving to the eastern seaboard, I believe we can have demographic dominance.

"As a game, we have to decide what our core market is. We have a different market to the AFL. Melbourne have been successful in the NRL but have cost a lot of money.

"We need more Gold Coasts, not more Melbournes, coming on line right now."


http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24036728-23214,00.html?from=public_rss

 

[Doctor Jolly]

It great that the NRL have finally tabled their plans for public review.

 

[genghiskhan]

Radical plan for code's survial
By Steve Mascord


"As a game, we have to decide what our core market is. We have a different market to the AFL. Melbourne have been successful in the NRL but have cost a lot of money.

"We need more Gold Coasts, not more Melbournes, coming on line right now."


http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24036728-23214,00.html?from=public_rss

There is a lesson in this for the AFL. Throwing a team in a foreign region costs a lot of money, finds it difficult to convert fans and when it struggles, is emotionally unappealing to the rest of the code's community.

Rugby league needs a team on the Central Coast, then Sunshine Coast and perhaps a second team from New Zealand. If it looks after its heartlands it will remain strong and slowly build a following as people move from those heartlands to new regions or watch on pay TV/internet.

The AFL is taking a different course. Instead of looking after Tasmania, it is going into Sydney and he Gold Coast. Sydney I can understand as it is a big market and has lots of immigrants. Gold Coast will fail and the failure is going to put an emotional dampner on many AFL fans in Melbourne.

 

[Fire]

There is a lesson in this for the AFL. Throwing a team in a foreign region costs a lot of money, finds it difficult to convert fans and when it struggles, is emotionally unappealing to the rest of the code's community.

Rugby league needs a team on the Central Coast, then Sunshine Coast and perhaps a second team from New Zealand. If it looks after its heartlands it will remain strong and slowly build a following as people move from those heartlands to new regions or watch on pay TV/internet.

The AFL is taking a different course. Instead of looking after Tasmania, it is going into Sydney and he Gold Coast. Sydney I can understand as it is a big market and has lots of immigrants. Gold Coast will fail and the failure is going to put an emotional dampner on many AFL fans in Melbourne.

There is too much interest int he AFL up here for a 2nd AFL team to fail.

it will struggle to begin with. But it will never fail.

 

[cos789]

There is a lesson in this for the AFL.

Obviously there are many models to look at . Certainly the AFL would have analysed what right and what went wrong for Sydney and Brisbane .
I'm sure they did/doing a lot more in depth research than they did for those
two teams . The AFL would be able to hazard a guess at the Storm's setup .
The rl world says the Storm are worth the expense .
The AFL would be saying that the GC and WS are worth the risk .
The Swans became successful without a lot of junior growth .
Now that junior growth is happening , those juniors need a figurehead which can only be realistically achieved by a local team .
.

 

[cos789]

There is too much interest int he AFL up here for a 2nd AFL team to fail.

it will struggle to begin with. But it will never fail.

Success is sometimes hard to quantify .

.
Success usually means being in the black and having big crowds .
Yet clubs are more profitable with smaller crowds at smaller venues .
Then there is the external value of the club .
The Sydney Swans were always valuable because they were the only
televised FVL game on a Sunday .
Then there is the indirect value of a club.
The Storm would be considered a success because they exist .

IMO the GC will get reasonable crowds and boost AFL on television by 12%.
Longer term I see much greater benefits .I think the major influence on
costings will be ground infrastructure .EVen that can be tackled by different strategies .So success is probably where you put the break even point .

.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Rugby League sucks. Netball>>>>>>>>>>>>>League.

 

[Beckers]

I was unaware that NRL was struggling that badly? Surely they just need to change from pokies based revenue to membership and boutique stadiums?
NSW will always be a NRL heartland. The fight for SE Qld is hotting up but the NRL have a head start there too!

 

[littleduck]

Success usually means being in the black

Yeah, profitability.

and having big crowds .

define a "big crowd"?

Yet clubs are more profitable with smaller crowds at smaller venues .

They doesn't make sense does it?

The Sydney Swans were always valuable because they were the only
televised FVL game on a Sunday .

Valuable for who and what?

The Storm would be considered a success because they exist .

Aren't they succesful because they add value to broadcast revenue, give extra exposure to national sponsors, have good management, loyal fans, government funding for a purpose-built football stadium, and a competitive football team?

IMO the GC will get reasonable crowds and boost AFL on television by 12%.

12%... did you just pull that number our of your ass?

Longer term I see much greater benefits .I think the major influence on costings will be ground infrastructure .EVen that can be tackled by different strategies .

Ground infrastructure will not be a liability on the books of the West Sydney Aussie Rules Football Club.

So success is probably where you put the break even point .

Wouldn't that be the measure of profitability?

.[/QUOTE]

 

[littleduck]

There is too much interest int he AFL up here for a 2nd AFL team to fail.

it will struggle to begin with. But it will never fail.

What makes you say that?

The OzTam Brisbane television audience... which apparently includes the Gold Coast and has hardly changed for years?

Lions match day attendance.. we haven't seen a sellout in years and are regularly in the mid 20000s?

The reality of life is the Gold Coast Aussie Rules Football Club are not a fan-driven phenomena for an existing passionate fanbase like the Gold Coast Titans Football Club were. They will be a top-down success-push phenomena from a governing body flush with sufficient funds and the nous to make it happen.

 

[Fire]

What makes you say that?

The OzTam Brisbane television audience... which apparently includes the Gold Coast and has hardly changed for years?

Lions match day attendance.. we haven't seen a sellout in years and are regularly in the mid 20000s?

The reality of life is the Gold Coast Aussie Rules Football Club are not a fan-driven phenomena for an existing passionate fanbase like the Gold Coast Titans Football Club were. They will be a top-down success-push phenomena from a governing body flush with sufficient funds and the nous to make it happen.

As in there is an interest in AFL up here. Put the GC in, and people will talk about them. People will go. Its nothing like in Melbourne, of course, but its far from the vacuum some people like to pretend.

it wont be an overnight success, but they wont exactly be starting from nothing.

 

[cos789]

Yeah, profitability.

That criteria would see the Storm as being considered unsuccessful

define a "big crowd"?

Surely you can manage "big" crowd

They doesn't make sense does it?

The breakeven point in terms of crowds is higher in bigger stadiums .
North melbourne are in trouble , not beacuse they cannot draw big crowds
but because they have an expensive stadium deal .Geelong on the other hand are extremely successful at a small ground .

Valuable for who and what?

The Swans simply were valuable to the VFL and AFL

Aren't they succesful because they add value to broadcast revenue, give extra exposure to national sponsors, have good management, loyal fans, government funding for a purpose-built football stadium, and a competitive football team?

You just sated that profitability is the bottom line .Make up your mind .

12%... did you just pull that number our of your ass?

Simple arithmetic , is it beyond you ? One extra game a week on TV .

Ground infrastructure will not be a liability on the books of the West Sydney Aussie Rules Football Club.

No it won't be , because for starters it'll be the WS AFC .

 

[Hodgepodge]

I'm glad the Melbourne Storm is contributing to the demise of the game. Poetic justice anyone?

 

[Leagueworld]

I'm glad the Melbourne Storm is contributing to the demise of the game. Poetic justice anyone?

Can you actually read or you just write nonsense dribble to make others look good? The Storm have NOTHING to do with some of the struggles in RL. It is the Sydney based clubs who are having to rearrange and increase their finance otherwise they are in trouble.

The Storm have cost alot of money (as have clubs such as Brisbane and Sydney Swans in the AFL) but it is successful, the only comment even that has any connection to the Storm is that the new ventures in some opinions should be focussed on safer, heartland style areas of which the NRL still has an abundance of options rather than expensive expansion options.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Can you actually read or you just write nonsense dribble to make others look good? The Storm have NOTHING to do with some of the struggles in RL. It is the Sydney based clubs who are having to rearrange and increase their finance otherwise they are in trouble.

The Storm have cost alot of money (as have clubs such as Brisbane and Sydney Swans in the AFL) but it is successful, the only comment even that has any connection to the Storm is that the new ventures in some opinions should be focussed on safer, heartland style areas of which the NRL still has an abundance of options rather than expensive expansion options.

The article says the Storms losses are hurting them.

 

[Leagueworld]

Where? Seriously where does it say that the cost of the Storm are hurting the NRL? It does say that they need easier start up teams like the GC (eg. ideas such as Sunshine Coast, West Brisbane etc). The costs of the Storm are covered by News not the NRL.

 

[Rob]

Where? Seriously where does it say that the cost of the Storm are hurting the NRL? It does say that they need easier start up teams like the GC (eg. ideas such as Sunshine Coast, West Brisbane etc). The costs of the Storm are covered by News not the NRL.

Perhaps News are getting sick of it.

 

[elbusto]

That criteria would see the Storm as being considered unsuccessful



Surely you can manage "big" crowd



The breakeven point in terms of crowds is higher in bigger stadiums .
North melbourne are in trouble , not beacuse they cannot draw big crowds
but because they have an expensive stadium deal .Geelong on the other hand are extremely successful at a small ground .




The Swans simply were valuable to the VFL and AFL



You just sated that profitability is the bottom line .Make up your mind .



Simple arithmetic , is it beyond you ? One extra game a week on TV .



No it won't be , because for starters it'll be the WS AFC .

Now lets get one thing straight here - COS is not here to be challenged - everything she says is correct if for no other reason than she says so. COS is omnipotent and cannot be challenged. All Hail COS - - lettuce all praise COS

 

[littleduck]

As in there is an interest in AFL up here. Put the GC in, and people will talk about them. People will go. Its nothing like in Melbourne, of course, but its far from the vacuum some people like to pretend.

it wont be an overnight success, but they wont exactly be starting from nothing.

yeah true, but its still not enough to make it a true bottom-up fan-driven team.

 

[littleduck]

That criteria would see the Storm as being considered unsuccessful

True.

Surely you can manage "big" crowd

what is a "big crowd" and how do you determine when you have one and when you don't??? I'd really love to know.

The breakeven point in terms of crowds is higher in bigger stadiums .
North melbourne are in trouble , not beacuse they cannot draw big crowds
but because they have an expensive stadium deal .Geelong on the other hand are extremely successful at a small ground .

Yeah, so it becomes a delicate balancing act.

The Swans simply were valuable to the VFL and AFL

Because they were pioneers.

You just sated that profitability is the bottom line .Make up your mind .

I dont think I did.

Simple arithmetic , is it beyond you ? One extra game a week on TV .

On your flawed logic, lets double the number of teams from 16 to 32 and double everything from crowds to television audiences to broadcast revenue.

No it won't be , because for starters it'll be the WS AFC .

West Sydney ARFC.

"Wests" for short.

 

[littleduck]

I'm glad the Melbourne Storm is contributing to the demise of the game. Poetic justice anyone?

I think you'll find it's in fact the precise opposite of your ill-informed view.

 

[littleduck]

Perhaps News are getting sick of it.

All the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[RUNVS]

what is a "big crowd" and how do you determine when you have one and when you don't??? I'd really love to know.

A big crowd is usually considered to be over 50,000.

 

[littleduck]

Now lets get one thing straight here - COS is not here to be challenged - everything she says is correct if for no other reason than she says so. COS is omnipotent and cannot be challenged. All Hail COS - - lettuce all praise COS

Debating with cos is like being flogged with a wet lettuce.

 

[littleduck]

A big crowd is usually considered to be over 50,000.

If so, there are only 2 clubs across 4 football codes that get "big crowds".