I agree the biggest is TV revenue. And in other posts here I have argued that more teams in NSW will not get more eye balls on TVs for the NRL. The four markets in order of revelance i would look at expanding to, that would have an increase in TV revenue are as follows: –
1. Perth (1.8 million, highest % growth rate in Aust Capitals)
2. Brisbane (gives an immediate impact – safe bet)
3. Adelaide (1.2 Million, would give national presence, although low growyth rates)
4. Wellington (smallest of these, but taps into NZ rivalry, game in NZ each week etc)

But existing clubs need to grow there revenue streams outside of TV revenue (individually a club has little to no impact on growing TV revenue, as that is a league wide job – not a club job)

Look at the AFL, with at least half a dozen have now turnover of $50 million a year.
The areas NRL clubs then need to look at – is where are the areas we can grow our revenue.
They can directly grow the 3 areas I mentioned: –
1. Memberships
2. Gate receipts
3.Sponsorships

With Memberships the aim should be in 3-5 years have a minimum of 20,000 members. In the AFL you have Collingwood with 70,000plus members, Hawks with 60,000 plus. One of the reasons they are so high is that over time they have targeted a ground that can embrace a large audience in modern facilities. Turning the occassional and curious into people who go on a semi regulr to a regular basis. Suburban grounds do not have the facilities to do this. Ground rationilisation then comes into.
Gate receipts – you only have limited upside in grounds with 20,000 capacity with sub standard facilities.
Sposnsorship – again rusted on support will always buy in, but each year, migration inflows into Australia is over 200,000, these are people who are generally uninformed and intially not watching the game. With these inflows comes new multi national companies, with people leading these companies also not aware of the game. Show them sub standard faciliities and gues what, they will not come back. Clubs limit there sponsorship appeal by this. Also by addressing the number of members and increase game patronage – you can show these figures to the coporates to make it more appealing.
Think a new multi national company comes to Australia. Collingwood goes, we have 70k members, on average to a home crowd we get 60k plus. Manly go we have 10k members, and average 12k to game. Collingwood go look at the modern stadium we play in, Manly go look at the decrepet stadium we play in. Where is the unaligned coporate going to do his Coporate box.

Yes I agree minimum standards need to be set, all clubs should be looking at year on year growth from a bums on seat.Aiming for a minimum 20k per game no matter who the opposition is, which would generally lead to larger stadia needed.

An NRL club needs to look at multiple revenue streams
1. memberships
2. gate receipts
3. sponsorship
etc

The clubs can all improve in the above 3 categories and staying put in current facilities will not assist in the endeavour

Most areas of NSW already are watching the NRL anyway – putting teams in some of those regional areas will not add much to the number of people watching the game. People will be able to watch games locally, but that is all.

If the NRL want to grow beyond – then teams in areas where it will add value need to be looked at. These areas may intially be loss leaders, but the long term benefit is that if developed properly they will not be for ever like that.

The Melbourne storm is worth more to the NRL TV rights and future growth of the game than any individual Sydney based club. That may sound extreme, but if any Sydney club dropped off, only a percentage of those club supporters would stop watching and within a generation the whole that that club created will have gone. If the Storm are lossed, the 2nd biggest market in Australia is lost, which it will make it harder to ever regain that market.

The NRL going to Gosford is the same reason in AFL terms whilst the AFL will not bring in a team to Tassie. They are already watching games, Gosford side will not increase the TV dollars paid whats so ever.

Expansion needs to look at areas where it will increase viewership and support. Brisbane have 1 team for 2 million. Although it is already watching NRL games and going there is an argument this would increase with a properly located team.

Perth will soon pass 2 million residence. Has a large Sth Africian/English community (higher than average compared across Australia) This in short term will not deliver much, long term has a greater potential to grow the pie exponantially bigger than any cnew club in NSW (and Brisbane for that matter)

If you are only going to expand to Rugby Legue territories, you are never going to expontatially grow the pie – people there are usually already watching the product, so it doesnt equate to more eyeballs.

For instance we look in Australia
Perth 1.8 million with a high growth rate
Adelaide 1.2 million with a low growth rate
Brisbane, close to 2 million, but only 1 team, provide a game each w/e, with associated viewership

Tasmania – largest town – Hobart 204k – not worth it

In NZ
Wellington, 400k – but the kicker behind this is could tap into a 2nd NZ team with one game a week in NZ during the season, provide a NZ derby. This would also help grow the TV audience.

If the NRL keeps expanding in NSW – it will not become a true National league.

Look at what the NSW gioverment has intimadiated – they want consolidations of grounds, not to keep the status quo. The reason is that spending money on a couple will provide more bang for there buck. I think this is where the author is going in saying clubs should be looking at what is best for the game – not always there own self interest.

In 10 years if clubs are still playing where they are now – where is the potential for growth with the Goverment not contributing any funds to the existing stadia. Fringe supporters – not the rusted on is where you want to attract. This is the growth area. If a fringe supporter wants to go to a suburban ground – the poor facilities may be off putting for that person to ever return. Remember – these people are not yet sold on the game – you want them back.

If less grounds are used in Sydney – pressure can be put on the goverment to improve those grounds, improve the infrstructure arond the grounds – public transport, road links, parking.

Also the state of coporate facilities – multi national companies are less inclined to invest in coporate boxes/invite corporate guests if the facilities are sub standard. The argument will be that, these people already are rusted on supporters. remember not all coporates are: – a new multi national coming into Australia to set up shop, they are given a tour of the Brookvale oval by the Manly CEO, then they are given a tour of the SCG by the Sydney Swans CEO – with some one with no knowledge of either game – which facilities would he/she be more impressed with? Based on the facilities shown – what would the persons intial impression be of each of the two competetions?

This is the competetion clubs face. But lets change the example, this new CEO tours ANZ Stadium – 83k capacity modern. he is shown through the coporate facilities available there – now where is the person going to look/think. He will be of the understanding that the NRL is one of the premier codes in the nation.

You need to ask – how can we grow the game for its betterment – ground rationilisation is a must. To attract those people who currently do are not rusted on, to get those coporates who currently have no passion for the game. To continue as we are now,. will only keep getting the same results.

With regards to Geelong – they would of asked the player what had occurred – and based on what was told, would then take action accordingly. A few years ago in the Lovett incident – he was suspended not for the rape allegation in the end but other puroprted incidents, been late to training, not informing the club as soon as he was aware etc – as such breaking team rules.

So without knowing the process that was undertaken, the incidents may not be as similiar as they look on the surface. For instance, Beale could be claiming self defense, whilst Stringer could be claiming (I am making up this now) yes I was drunk, I was out past X time, but I didnt hit her, so he was suspended for been drunk on a night he should not of been and out past a time that was determined. (Although the sentence is hrsh if this was the case)

Primus could be doing a Mark Thompson – continually pressuring Ablett, who whether he was going or not, in the end made it untenable for Ablett to stay at the same club as Thompson (who in the end left Geelong as well – whilst he was in contract while Ablett at least fulfilled all committments under his contract).

If Boak is teetering on the edge of stayiong or going, the pressure that Primus makes could force him over the edge.

It was OK last season for port to sign trengrove and butcher after the season. Its OK for Port to put off contract talks when it suits them, but its not ok when a player wants to do the same. How much of a double standard is that!!!!

The AFL are already using players such as nic Natinu, Edwards from North, now Folou to help with off season clinics throughout the Pacific. It will not take over from Union/League cultures but it can become a good alternate sport in those places.

I think it will not be long before you see an international rookie from one of the pacific islands.

The A league and there crowd sizes, dont lose anything from a gate point of view, many AFL clubs would lose significant amounts from a gate receipt of doing this in season. Collingwood even when they play a Gold Coast etc – gets 40k to there game – which would equate to a gate receipts in the 100s of thousands.

In addittion the AFL has committments to stage X amount of games per year at venues. To meet that criteria, on top of games already sold may not be applicable. I think you will find especially with the Adelaide oval redovelopment and new Perth stadium, there is a committment of 22 AFL games at these venues each year. Otherwise there wouldnt be the committment to build/redevlope the venues.

Yes – that is why Port is the away team in one of the Bulldogs games there each year. It would be a strong argument that Port will benefit long term from this arrangement moreso than the Bulldogs.

The other point about Princess Park is that it is not centrally located. It is close to the CBD but many people catching public transport need to catch multiple forms – thats why Doclands and MCG work so well – most only need to catch one form of public transport. For the number of games there would be no incentive by the Goverment to increase the public transport around the ground either – as the ground would be used less than 10 times a year.

Secondly – the car/road access to princess park was and always has been pitiful. Parking is poor, it became a traffic nightmare around the ground before and after wards – and would be even worse now with the increased flows of traffic from the non football public that occurs around the ground.

The third point is that the cost of maintaining the ground, especially when the AFL will soon (13 years is not long in the scheme of things) take over there own ground. The number of event days at Doclands per year is over 50 (40+ for AFL plus other games, soccer, NRL, cricket – big bash, concerts) the maintenance costs would be spread over a large number of events – these are usually fixed costs, more events mean costs are spread, less events (taking 10 odd games from this ground) means a higher per game cost. So that means the break even point would be higher for the games that stayed there.

Once the AFL take over Docklands, they will not be beholden to hold certain number of high profiled games at the venue per year – which they are now. With a third ground the total number of games that clubs would be pushing to hold at the ground may be lessened to a number that is not feasible (say 20, 10 games moved to the MCG, 10 moved to Princess Park)

With Melbourne/Victorian projected population to reach 6.5million to 7.2 million by 2050, the expectation would be the crowd size of all clubs and games should exceed the need of a boutique stadium capacity in the next 20 years – thus only providing a short term costly fix for a temporary issue. If a club cant get most of there games to exceed 25000 in the enxt 20 years they should seriously look at there model they have and see where they need to change it to reach this target. (There would be an odd game that will get below this number even then depending on events, but majority should exceed it)

Which doesnt leave many people available. Only those that were really previously involved in the last NRL, AFL, ARU or cricket Australia television contract would have any experience at this – thus get the tick on this point.

Based on the stats from last year a club coming off a bye is more likely to lose than win. So in the case of Carlton v WC, WC is disadvantaged as its the one coming off the bye.

Yes logic will dictate that WC is advantaged in this scenario, but last year with the bye (especially earlier in the season) it favoured the club who was playing week in week out, rather than the fresher club.

The reason Hawks have done it and continue to do it – is to grow the membership (and support) base above the average which would of occurred if it was just located in Victoria.
This year we have 9000+ Tassie members. It has been mentioned that 33% of aus kick kids in Tassie are Hawk supporters. People in the age bracket of 18 to 30 move from Tassie to Melbourne each year – If Hawks have a significant proportion of these people alreadys as supporters/members, it grows the Hawks base above the average return based on just Victorian growth. Thus moves the Hawks up in a financial and an ability to get better fixturating and so called block buster games.

My problem is that clubs selling games into places like darwin and Cairns, does not provide the same benefits as the locals dont migrate to Melbourne in any numbers. Canberra for GWS is a different story. I believe there would be a good migration flow from Canberra to Sydney (and also vice versa). This would help GWS short and long term in developing there supporter base.

The Saints to Wellington is more applicable as there is a strong migration link from Wellington (and elsewhere in NZ) to Melbourne. This can provide a link to those migrants, when they move.

The selling of games should always be linked to the migration flows to maximise the best return/growth prospects in these ventures. Otherwise its just a straight cash grab and provides no long term fiscal hit – only a short term one.