Reds 2016

[Jets]

How much would one of these contracts be worth? Seems like a big risk both ways. Reds would end up with lots of players on their books who don't play for them. It's an interesting idea though.

 

[Braveheart81]

Oakland has a population of about 400k and has Golden State Warriors, Oakland A's (see "Moneyball") and Oakland Raiders.

I read somewhere that a GM once said "we only need to win a majority of our home games; if we do that, the fans will keep coming".

Oakland is just one easy example.

The football team that recently beat Man U using statistics about undervalued players could be another worthy of a look.

It seems reasonably logical to me that a sporting organisation cuts its own throat if they are not actively engaging with and listening to their "constituents" firstly, and then looking to expand their "constituency" as a secondary objective.

In other words; listen to/do not take for granted the people who stump up their "hard earned", and then look to grow that support base.

Anyway, that is enough from me for today.

The Bay Area has a population of 7 million people.

The Warriors are the best team in the NBA and don't compete with a San Fran team.

The Raiders compete with the 49ers who are terrible and the NFL is massive that they easily have the population for two teams.

The A's compete with the Giants who are good but again, it's a big population to draw from.

I went and watched the A's play when I was staying in San Fran. It's a short commute. It took me a similar amount of time to get there as it does to get to Homebush to watch sport there.

The mentality of the GM saying that we just need to win a majority of games is fine but citing Oakland's population and comparing it to the success of the teams based there is a huge furphy. They have a massive population to draw on relative to a lot of US teams.

 

[fatprop]

contracts for kids under the age of 18 are difficult to enforce

 

[Strewthcobber]

The ARU would never countenance such contracts because it would kill their other super Rugby assets. (All rugby players sign a contract with the ARU too)

They want young Queenslanders moving to the force/brumbies/rebels. It helps the game across the country.

 

[Braveheart81]

This latest social media stunt to has proven to me that Reds are in strife and fans have spoken.
A 'sweet as kiwi membership

The past years at home games show the amount Kiwis that call Brisbane home. If you have ever been to a kiwi v reds game they don't need a special membership to come and watch. They will turn up spite what part of NZL that are from and what NZL team is on the field.

They might come anyway, but by getting them to buy a particular membership gets them on your database, allows you to interact with them through the Reds email list and the content you push out to members and gives you an opportunity to turn them into full members in the future.

Improving your membership numbers is one thing but the biggest part is giving you a better opportunity to engage with them in your team and sell more to them in the future.

One thought was put to me recently (by a potential investor) that talented lads finishing school should be signed to a 5 year (UNBREAKABLE, ENFORCEABLE) deal (taking them to about 22 or 23). Some of those lads could be "lent" to overseas clubs in Japan and elsewhere for a year or two increasing the Reds profile and brand in far off places. The players get the opportunity of maturing into men and probably playing rugby more frequently. Obviously, financial success underpins the process.

Unless the dollars are massive, who signs that contract unless they aren't good enough to get a better opportunity?

Players and their managers aren't stupid enough to sign their lives away for peanuts if there's the potential for a much better offer.

The most power rests with the most talented players. They know how good they are relative to the other kids in their age groups and they have some idea of their potential earnings and future based on players who were in similar situations at the same age.

The only good 18 year old rugby players who would be likely to sign a contract like that are the ones that are far less certain that they have a chance of making it big in the future.

 

[Woopsie]

The bay area is 19,000 square km ish
Brisbane 5,000 square km ish
The bay area has 7mill
Brisbane has 1.5mill?

Don't lost the forest for the trees.

My point is that Oakland and the Bay Area have multiple teams all looking to gain marketshare.

Surely, there is something that the front office could learn.

 

[Scrubber2050]

All points above are relevant.

Contract worth depends on the financial resources of a privatised Reds. It may be that the contracts would be paid for by the overseas clubs or at least subsidised by them.

Some lads would go for the deal for sure. A chance to be a "professional" rugby player for a year or two in France, England, Ireland, Georgia etc with the HOPE and EXPECTATION of returning to the Reds in the near future. How many of these lads really get a full contract when they are 18 or 19. Obviously the contracts would be flexible in that , based on performance payments mat, if warranted, extend to a full Super contract. at OUR chosing.

Just because a kid signs a contract like this it doesn't mean the Reds HAVE to send him overseas. We keep who we want to keep

 

[Happy to Chat]

IMO privatise the Reds. Instead ofa "Tinkler" the option of a consortium is much better. Blokes with serious $$$$ who also have a love of rugby. Don't have a problem with the group making a shitload of money (as it is a large financial investment) as long as substantial money is funneled into grassroots to perpetuate the game and the future success of the Reds.

One thought was put to me recently (by a potential investor) that talented lads finishing school should be signed to a 5 year (UNBREAKABLE, ENFORCEABLE) deal (taking them to about 22 or 23). Some of those lads could be "lent" to overseas clubs in Japan and elsewhere for a year or two increasing the Reds profile and brand in far off places. The players get the opportunity of maturing into men and probably playing rugby more frequently. Obviously, financial success underpins the process.

We do not have the money or particularly the spots to retain the talent Queensland produces and at least this way those players that reach their potential within that 5 years are still available to the Reds. If they don't reach that potential then they are then on their own (as currently happens)

There also needs to be a change (Cordingly) in the choice of young players and players in general.

Just my opinion guys !!!!!!

Agreed. There are ome players on a contract that probably will not succeed further than a few games and then drop off the radar to me is a waste of money. Pick the right players young and keep them for at least 5 years, but have a plan for them. Some players in the Reds squad on contract will not get to play much rugby (Magnay, Ballymore Kid etc) and it does little or nothing for their rugby not playing and sitting on the bench.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[suckerforred]

"Further, RG apparently only has 1 KPI to achieve to see him be considered to retain his job; top 6 finish or look for alternative employment.

And without any offence intended to the current playing roster; I just do not see that the first string team, nor the depth of the roster is strong enough, experienced enough nor skilled enough to seriously challenge for top 6."

Depends on which ladder you are counting the 6.
Top 6 over all - Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Top 6 Australian/NZ group - See Above
Top 6 in Australian Conference - Done

And the sceptic in me says that the last option is not beyond the realms of possibility........ Just Sayin'

 

[Highlander35]

Signing 18 year olds on 5 year deals makes me think of Feeder clubs in Football.

 

[Braveheart81]

"Further, RG apparently only has 1 KPI to achieve to see him be considered to retain his job; top 6 finish or look for alternative employment.

Seems like a weird KPI when the finals are now top 8.

Wouldn't that be harsh if the Reds snuck into the finals in 7th or 8th and RG got sacked because he didn't finish in the top 6!

 

[Sully]

Seems like a weird KPI when the finals are now top 8.

Wouldn't that be harsh if the Reds snuck into the finals in 7th or 8th and RG got sacked because he didn't finish in the top 6!

No. It wouldn't.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[suckerforred]

The way I am feeling today BH - Nope.

 

[Lindommer]

Was that KPI written when there WAS a 6 team final series? If so, why hasn't he been sacked by now? Just askin'.

 

[Braveheart81]

No. It wouldn't.

The way I am feeling today BH - Nope.

I completely get what you're both saying and maybe that would be the best outcome for every Reds fan. A season that exceeds expectations and you still get to ditch the coach everyone is done with.

Just seems like a KPI set by someone who hadn't looked what the format of the competition was like this year. Who knows, maybe RG came up with it himself!

 

[Happy to Chat]

Signing 18 year olds on 5 year deals makes me think of Feeder clubs in Football.

It does but where does your talent come from? If you look at the NRL model they are catching and keeping their players from as young as 16. It does not need to be huge contracts but pick then RIGHT and pick them YOUNG. Grow the code and grow the game from grass roots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

If they were into setting KPI's for Richard then by any measure he would've been gone a while ago.

No, it's up there with the real mysteries of the universe like what is inside a black hole? What is the meaning of life? And why does the word lisp have an 's' in it?

Why is Richard Graham still coaching the Reds?

We will never know.

 

[Braveheart81]

It does but where does your talent come from? If you look at the NRL model they are catching and keeping their players from as young as 16. It does not need to be huge contracts but pick then RIGHT and pick them YOUNG. Grow the code and grow the game from grass roots.

They're facing a backlash against that now because it's a deal that really only benefits the teams. They sign up all these kids for peanuts and then only a very few of them go on to get NRL contracts.

It dangles a carrot of becoming a professional footballer to a kid in their last couple of years of school when the reality is they're most likely going to get churned up and spit out and left with nowhere to go.

Like with all professional sports, the bulk of the money goes to the most talented guys and they're not on long term contracts (unless the dollars are huge).

It's an absolute pipedream to think that you're going to lock in the best young players for the long term just by signing them up a little earlier or by trying to have some sort of ironclad contract they can't get out of.

The reality is the best players have options and they know it and you have to pay what they're worth.

 

[Scoey]

It's also a pretty insular view to hold that we must retain all of our QLD developed talent.

 

[Scrubber2050]

It's also a pretty insular view to hold that we must retain all of our QLD developed talent.

Yep - agree Scoey.
I also buy Lotto tickets