History repeating as NRL recycles 1994

Play on words .......... "rather than plonk" was your wording not mine AR. No I am not bagging that club or any club for that matter , for not drawing locally grown products FFS.Although I noted the Storm were accused of that,and by some suggesting only Pacific Islanders were spectators ,and in fact playing the game. You are going off in your usual tangent again. Else I would be open to ridicule with the Storm not having locals .My argument has been from day one, the manner the whole thing was arrogantly done and the financial support provided by a State govt out of touch, which was ironically not available to older well established codes within Sydney.The Swans had a different approach,yes plenty of hype,but none of the arrogance. We are discussing Perth,for rl crowds in Perth seeing they do not have an NRL team ,have been well supported ,consistently so.If you are trying to suggest they are good compared to AFL,I am not that silly.You brought up GWS I responded on the crowd front.. I am well aware of the crowd situation in Sydney ,which BTW had zero to do with Perth figures,but the poor performances of Parra,Tigers and Panthers,the wrestling and slowing down in the PTB and the very poor weather in rd 1,usually the best attended. The Sharks crowds are up at this stage,so it is meaningless exercise til years end. No 21,380(with 1,000 who couldn't get in) in a local derby is a good crowd Sharks v St George,both performing.Do you think I am cheering the crowd to date figure at this stage? 15,000 in Perth for rl is a good crowd for rugby league ,where it is a niche sport.10,000 is a good figure for Darwin and 14,000 was an excellent figure for Hobart.But Perth is Perth. Combat GWS??? Perhaps the AFL holding their official launch in Sydney,spending $200m ,getting Folau ,have Brereton state rl is in real trouble,tell everyone in Sydney we are the ones who can pay top money for the best young athletes, and Sheedy talking about GWS v Swans becoming the biggest contest, was not to be combative but to be friendly.Pull the other one,it plays Swanee. Your last paragraph only emphasises the ignorance displayed by supporters of your code,as to the impact of the SL war in 1996/7 and beyond on rugby league. Just about every rl writer of note has mentioned it over the years,as have many fans. .It is not worth typing reams of responses to naivety.I attended the first SL meeting at the Sharks and the decision to go to SL,and heard the anger in the club as to the decision.Some I know never go to games.And you have the audactiy to tell me about crowds being empanelled.It was all over the media,you couldn't miss it.That is an insult to passionate rl people,who were horrified by the tiurn of events . You came on board stating the crowds would be similar to the Glory,not only I but the Link begged to differ, and gave the reasons why. If the Perth bid team believes the club will average 9,000 they would withdraw their bids tomorrow.. I know who is defensive,someone who spends a lot of time on another code's thread,spinning the spin.If I have to resort to that ,I have a problem.

My point, obviously, was to compare ready-made teams vs embryonic teams which develop slowly...(you're obsessing over the word "plonk"...which is missing the point completely). Interesting that you bag GWS just because the team is "not drawn locally"...and the Storm were? The following GWS players were born in NSW: Anthony Miles, Kurt Aylett, Mark Whiley, Jacob Townsend, Tim Segrave, Israel Folau...and Captain, Phil Davis was born in Canberra. Has there been 1 Storm player in 15 years born and bred in Melb? You also claim: "The crowds since SL have been consistently good.We are talking this year as the most recent example and last year." Well, we might differ on what is a "good" crowd...but there's an article on the League thread today which says "This year’s total after round seven is 17,437 less than at the same time last year." And this year the NRL have focussed on derby games and traditional rival games, mostly to combat GWS in Sydney. Again, 15,000 to a derby is not a "good" crowd. You also ask people to only view the debut season of the Reds to gauge local interest via the crowds, and ignore the other 2 seasons (because they're tainted in your view): "1996 year of court cases and appeal." - were the crowds empanelled in the jury? You've previously commented on the Suns crowds being "down this year" (after 1 game)...so I guess it's horses for courses then. Any other contradictions to offer up?

Defensive please!, due to misleading facts provided by you.Suggesting the team was not plonked down when it plainfully was.In a debate there are pros and cons,you are receieving the cons,due to errors . I am responding to those points to which I disagree.Never mentioned your Tv comment was right or wrong. In fact never mentioned TV.Nor did I state union was not more popular than rl there ATM. One point for missing AR. ""Rather than plonk a ready made team into new areas (a la Storm)they opted to create etc". The operative word is create.And that is exactly what it is, a head office creation(something plonked there).It doesn't matter whether it is filled with kids, dwarves,Nepalise backpackers,they are not drawn locally . If a ready made team was relocated you would have an argument. If it has to start from scratch sorry not so.Whether it is by virtue of a draft or based on salary cap and availability of players,there is not an established team already in situ. The Titans when they joined up secured some good players,but aso relied on youngsters from the surrounding areas.You still have to rely on availability of talent .The team was a community driven one. Well you were proven wrong with the low crowds with your " persist with it " argument.The crowds since SL have been consistently good.We are talking this year as the most recent example and last year.Well in excess of Glory crowds.No wonder Sage wants to get involved.. . You still can't get it through you head, that the 2nd year season involved the year of court cases,people were dropping off in droves,not only in Perth but east coast and Auckland. 1996 year of court cases and appeal. 1997 the one and only tyear of SL.. You exhibit the usual typical AFL spin habit ,of introducing GWS whenever the opportunity arises.We are discussing rugby league and history repeating itself. It is not the first time,modus operandi is well known. You implied naively that GWS was not plonked down,when it plainly was.I responded giving my reasons,and if introducing the poaching of an NRL player as part of the argument is considered and act of "tyranny " in your words,take it any way you wish.It is what it is. I noted the community(locals) 2 million of them if you will.They are a proud community embarrassed by the form of the Eels and Panthers.They want competitive teams. And I happen to think GWS will do Ok long term.That does not mean I sit back and nod my head in agreement to your every word,especially when the formation of GWS is brought in.If I did that in AFL threads,the hounds would be unleashed . Please read,mark and inwardly digest, what is stated ,to get the gist.

Yet another defensive post from CC. How odd..? Here's what my post actually said: - "Rugby is certainly favoured over League" (no arguments there) - "early tv ratings results have been encouraging for the NRL" (they have) - "given there’s no draft, an NRL team would be ‘ready-made’ and basically plonked into the area" (would anyone dispute this or do u just not like the word 'plonk'?) - "if they can persist with it and deal with low crowds and poor performance (like the AFL is now) I think it’s the right move" (translation: I am in favour of Perth expansion) As for crowds, the link you provided show that after Season 1, the Reds crowds were almost exactly on par with the Glory...so not sure why your knickers are in a knot over that. As for the GWS team, I described it as: "expensive, a slow burn and risky…and the results won’t be known for probably 20 years". In response, you wailed on about how the AFL is a tyrant and how they've insulted the GWS community. Puh-lease

Have to respond to the Perth post from AR. The figures I will provide a reference point ,suggest the figures will not be around those of the Glory :- http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/western_reds.html The significance of the figures that shows out markedly,that the highest numbers crowdwise achived in Perth at the WACA(nor a rl friendly ground) were in the 1995 year,the year prior to the full SL legal stoush,and the generally lower crowds were in the main 97 year( the first and only year of the SL) .The figures were sekwered downwards by the SL war,and this happend oz wide. The numbers of people from the east coast moving to the WA region since 97 runs into the tens of thousands and so it continues.This applies to a lesser degree to kiwis. The crowd numbers for both trials and NRL matches,reinforce the Link's crowd argument.They will not be playing at the WACA another plus.. What a load of crapola,the GWS was plonked down in Sydney,even insulting the locals by calling it Greater,and and to add insult to injury included bleeding Canberra.There was none whatsoever, as to general community driven local push nor a bid by locals to establish the team,such as happened with the Titans.This was a creation of Vald and his impalers,the Swans didn't want them initially and neither did more than a couple of other AFL clubs. And they plonked in an untried and extremely expensive NRL player to stir up a hornets nest. People want to see the best or at least 1st graders represent their local team,not generally some raw unshaven kids who may or may not last the distance.At least the Storm had first graders.You can fool some of the people,by saying here is a team,they are good young kids but will be flogged for some time yet,and expect people to be enthused!' Spectators since I can remember, look for a contest not a thrashing.The crowd so far says it all. Rugby league has been in schools in Victoria,and more so in WA for quite some time.There are a couple of specialised rl sport schools in Perth:Rockingham and this year Clarkson.RL develpment officers are not sitting on their backsides.Kids to Kangaroos programs have been going for yonks. . The code started as an amateur one in 1948 in WA and has been part of the city's sporting niche since then.They have teams from u6 through to u18s to seniors and womens and girls tag league.Plus the Pilbarra league. They have local rl people and business people and the backing of local rl clubs,who are bidding for entry to the NRL.It is up to the ARLC to determine their eligibility.Whilst players may well come from the eastern states or even Darwin,they will be not raw recruits,just as happened with the Swans and Lions. The fact the Reds have an u18 comp,competing with the east coast sides,suggest they are building a base for the future.

So we have now established the estimates (which also vary wildly)on what the NRL /ARLC will secure in the next Tv deal, have been promoted by wait or it, 4 AFL flag wavers,who have formed what appears to be a debating ambush. I know what the figure is on the last tv deal Cattery ,and its closer to $100m pa than to $89mpa.And I never stated the last deal was 5 years.the next one will be. Sky News $12m pa needs to be included. I sincerely hope Cattery you are not GOGWS,or the guy from WA that knows the inner workings of every thing NRL making the admin appear irrelevant.. And Cattery tell me as you know all the facts and figures,what will the code receive from Sky NZ,which was $12m pa and what will be the internet/mobile/facebook (now in ch10 planning)be worth.surely you know those figures. The first bids by 9 and Foxsports have to be more than solid ones..Regardless of the size of the initial bids expiriing end Apr/early May,if they are gazumped by 20% or more on the initial bids in May ,everything is thrown open to negotiations.The offerings can be split,offered on a simulcast basis,offered to a combined 7 and 10 conglomerate. 9 and 10 are on more than tension,but in financial survival mode based on their current form. I repeat monotonously,the other FTA stations have suggested that ch9 will have to pay $120m pa to secure rugby league.And that is based on 16 teams -8 rounds. Sky NZ used to pay $12m pa,lets say they remain the same.Foxsports Pays around $42-45m pa and even if they only increase by an extremely very conservatie 50%,that means another $65m pa.Plus throw in internet rights and if the code can't secure close to $20m there is something wrong.So even if 9 only paid $100m pa,that is a bare min of $197m pa,so close to the $200m pa needed,one could sniff it. Should the next Tv deal be well under expectation,you will read my rants and they will be directed at Kim Williams.I wonder what your response will be should the code achieve $1bn. Please fellas forget the last NRL deal.There is a totally different landscape in operation.A history of high TV ratings,3 FTA bidders ,plus 1 FTA and Pay and one Pay,plus the almost certain inclusion of expansion teams in 2015, possible provision for ad times/and or adjustment to breaks and two FTA stations absolutely desperate for high ratings sporting content.. The irony of it Masters was bagged relentlessly because his estimates, were well under the actuals for the AFL.Should estimates be well under the actuals cited here,can we invoke the same level of froum abuse as Roy received.I am prepared to take the death of a thousand cuts.

LInk that $500 mill was for six years, not five years, that's why I corrected your calculation. CC Surely you will recall that I have estimated $850 million for 12 months, consistently, have never waivered on that number, and I have stuck to that precisely because of what I said that at around a 115% increase, you are getting to the extremities of what is possible, it's unrealistic for people to be expecting increases in the range of 150% to 200% in one hit. Now I accept there is plenty of competitive tension (you can cut it with a knife), and as you know, there's the first a last rights for Nine, with this 20% buffer. This is the interesting bit- Nine and Fox have to go relatively high because they can't afford having Seven and Ten gazumping them with an overbid of 20%, where they lose the last bid option (as I understand it). So Nine and Fox have to have a solid first bid, if Seven and Ten go the full 20% above, then you really are talking about a higher than expected boost, and you provabaly are talking about breaching $1 billion. But that's the big unknown isn't it? Can Seven and Ten afford to go to $1 billion? If Nine and Fox surmise that they can't, then you're back at $800 million, so for mine: 90% chance of $800 million 10% chance of $960 million and then you can add online rights on top of that.

Based on the Reds getting 10k averages through the debacle of the SL war and average 15k to RL games in the last few years then a Perth RL team is more likely to have crowds on par with the Force than Glory. Same argument was made about the Rebels and Storm in Melbourne, but their crowd averages are likely to be pretty similar this year.

Last RL deal was worth 500m. TV ratings for AFL in their markets (Aus metro and regionals) and NRL in their markets (Aus and NZ metro and regionals) are not miles apart for the respective competitions as is often claimed. AFL may have a slight edge but the gap is not huge. Of course RL has extra content on top which will make the next overall TV deal for RL pretty competitive.

Well with 9 out of 16, it's pretty good odds that a Sydney team will win it. The fact that a Sydney team does not win it every year says more. Hats off to Melbourne. No one is questioning that Sydney does not love their rugby league. I am questioning the large amount of Sydney teams in a national competition and its many associated problems. To suggest we can't expand - and provide rugby league to the either new regions (Perth, Adelaide, Darwin etc) or loyal regions (Wollongong, Central QLD, Central Coast, Brisbane) - due to player depth issues resulting from supporting 9 Sydney teams, is basically giving up on the sport. It means we don't think the sport is good enough to attract new people. It means we really want a Sydney Comp, plus a few extras. Which is what it is now, A Sydney Comp, plus a few extras and it doesn't matter how much anyone outside Sydney loves the sport, because we're told to shut up as Sydney is calling the shots. But we outside Sydney have been told, "we're not the NSWRL anymore, we're not the ARL or Super League, we're the NRL". The National Rugby League. The dictionary tells me that: National Adjective: - Of or relating to a nation; common to or characteristic of a whole nation. So going by the very definition of that word, I could assume that the sport would identify with it, but as we all know it does not. I am therefore left to assume that it is an objective. Therefore we must expand, with or without 9 Sydney teams. If the player depth suffers, then be it. Its fault will lie with the Sydney power brokers who are forcing us to have our cake and eat it too.

Both AFL fans and NRL fans can both argue that their sport rates higher. Here's why: If you compare the competitions round by round, including finals - AFL are clearly in front with ratings. The NRL also has 26 rounds, compared with AFL's 23. However, if you look at the entire product cumulatively (i.e add together all games, finals, exhibition games, SoO and Tests)...then naturally the NRL accumulates higher numbers (and that's pretty much due to SoO alone). So it can be spun either way.

BJT, the results in Grand Finals since the Super League war indicate that rugby league is still very strong in the Sydney region. Since 1998, the premiers have been from outside Sydney on only 5 occasions (Broncos 1998, 2000, 2006; Newcastle 2001; Melbourne 1999) In the same time period, 6 different Sydney clubs have won the premiership; Roosters, Penrith, Canterbury, Wests Tigers, Manly and St George.

Earthling, to answer some of your questions... Perth has a greater metropolitan population of about 1.7M people (pub transport not great...generally, you need a car) 2011 Perth average home attendances: WCE - 37K Freo - 34K Force - 16K Glory - 8K Given the significant Sth African ex-pat community in Perth, Rugby is certainly favoured over League, although early tv ratings results have been encouraging for the NRL. That said, I would not expect League crowds to be much above the Glory numbers...and they have been in Perth for years. The AFL is going thru an interesting phase. Rather than plonk a ready-made teams into new areas (a la Storm), they opted to create very young but promising teams (via the draft) and a few senior players. It's expensive, a slow burn and risky...and the results won't be known for probably 20 years. Things like Auskick and school participation have been the focus of investment for the past 5 years in these areas. Your "nursery" comment is a valid one...but given there's no draft, an NRL team would be 'ready-made' and basically plonked into the area. Risky by the NRL but if they can persist with it and deal with low crowds and poor performance (like the AFL is now) I think it's the right move...otherwise you're giving up on one half of the country for your National competition.

Crosscoder, FWIW I've stated I think the NRL will get about $840m (not including selling the rights internationally) and I stand by that.

I am amused how you detect anger AR ,if that means robust debate is getting to you.I stated the $700m figure that was quoted on these boards ,and has been updated since,which is perhaps as the saying goes "covering the rear ". The ARLC is going in with Tv ratings based on historical facts. A decision is to be made mid year re expansion.If as expected there is from 2015, the contract will be finalised on that basis. Discussions have been ongoing for months before the finalisation of the Commission. There has been on the odd thread on this site going back GOGws was one ,the low figure stated.It was not a figment of my imagination. Big growth areas ,so is WA and Queensland.Being in a big growth area in a non football state,is no guarantee of eyeballs on the TV in that state.The tv ratings to date suggest such. You quoted a figure and stated the combined bid would be $950m,based on what ?.. 9 teams,more ads,Sky NZ.There is a miriad of ways the code can increase revenue.ch10 have stated they have the finance to bid for the rights in toto. I stated if there is no expansion,the $1b will be hard to achieve.The AFL contract figure is $1.25B.No confusion on my part. The rugby league fans are hardly obsessed with the figure,they are realists to see the Tv ratings since the last Tv deal(involving having people on both sides of the table)l ,draw comparisons with another code. In fact one could argue the obsession appears to emanate from the AFL people, who are vigorously trying to put down the bid value on this thread.I detect concern. I will quote Smith of Lek when asked if the NRL was ahead of the AFL to which he responded. " Ïn television audience it is.You have got three great products -the NRL,home and away finals,State of Origin and then internationals.This is a fantastic television sport.It is the leader." Sorry champ citing one round(involving an extremely hyped and promoted Sydney stand alone) ,rather than a year of NRL/Soo/Tests/All stars is the true refelection of what a code is worth. . ie one round does not a season make,that is being selective. Just some extracts this year from various sources. .1.3m tune into all stars a one off,that figure continues to grow. ch10 is emphatic it has the money to make a full scale assault on 9 and rugby league. The sky NZ ratings are up on rd 1 last year by 62% and for the various games up 79%. Frmo the AFR Premier executives have indicated they want to increase the number of live games shown on Fox Sports from five to eight a week.No doubt a 9th will addfurther value. Regardless of the combined bid by 9 and Foxsports,the ARLC is expected to go out into the market place and consider other bids.sunday would be dependent on two additional . there is now talk according to Chris Barrett of the SMH,of 7 and 10 combining to bid teams ,including Perth to create a 9th game.

True, Melbourne Storm did very well in their first few years in the comp however their team was made up mostly of players from the teams that had become defunct when the super league war finished whereas any new teams coming into the comp now would have to try and convince established players to be part of their new team. I just worry that with this mooted expansion the quality of games will drop substantially and there will be a lot more blowouts due to the lack of decent players involved. I would hate to see it end up like the AFL where the top 6 and bottom 4 is decided before the start of the season and players don't go to the struggling clubs unless they get a truckload of dollars or are heading to retirement. Granted the AFL comp may be great in 10 years time but that's a long time for fans to put up with mediocre contests and clubs to convince sponsors to pay money to them. I just don't feel the NRL are only looking at expansion for any other reason then to try and keep up with the AFL and make more money from the TV rights.

CC, Not sure what you're angry about... Re 9 games...The difference between negotiations is that the AFL went into discussions with 2 new teams already in palce (in big growth areas, GC and W.Syd). The NRL is going in with "a promise" or intention to expand, and not before 2015. That's a big bargaining difference. I'm not sure why you're quoting $700M? That's far too low (you cite "AFL people" but don't provide examples). I stated $950M. It seems so many NRL fans are obsessing over this $1B figure simply because it's what the AFL was worth. As for the boring ol' ratings argument and your comment: "it is quite easy to be selective on a particular weekend". I wasn't being selective...I chose Round 1 for both competitions. If you prefer I take out the GWS game the figures are still 4.3M(AFL) & 3.4M(NRL)...Round 2 is 4.04M(AFL) & 2.75M(NRL)...that's not selective, it's an exact comparison.

. Whatever the final tally is Cattery and the Link and I note both of you remained quiet on the $700m commen thrown up by fellow coderst,it is going to be a darn side larger than before. I further emphasise the comment made by Gyngell that his station would need to be around the $100 -$120m mark.As they are currently paying $45m.That is more than double even if it was only $90m. Anything north of $780m was gravy, based on Pay Tv ratings.The substantial increase last year from a very substantial base was indeed gravy. The Cattery notes 115% would be pushing the limits of what is possible.I would please like him to source his info, as to where he knows "what is possible". Hearsay? Gut feeling?Source within ch9/7/10 and Foxsports? Conversations with Colin Smith of Lek?Private conversations with ch9 backers ? Dinner with David leckie of 7? Lunch with Warburton and Murdoch of 10? Or genuine concern rugby league will have money to throw around?That Austar now absorbed into Foxtel, will not have the financial clout and economies of scale? In fact if the Sky NZ was also taken into account,the figure would not be a 115% increase. As you well know, there were plenty who thought your code would get nowhere near what they achieved(and i plead guilty),with 2 FTA and a pay Tv company,compared to 3 FTA and a Pay company involved in the rl bidding process.. The test for Foxsports is to see how much they want rugby league,and we know or should know the answer.Two words"financial viability". Delayney by virtue of his latest comments exhibits a touch of nervousness ,indicative of perhaps someone losing a prized possession. That media outlet has had years of consistently high ratings for rugby league ,in fact dominatiing in the main,and achieving a financial windfall as a result.They ignore at their own peril,as the enemy is banging at their gates.

$900 mill would actually represent a 115% increase, which is pushing the limits of what is possible.

Melbourne won the comp in their second year.