2016 Brisbane Broncos Resurrection Thread

ASIO wrote:
With 1/8th the population.

Just on this... The NRL is a business. Any club can sign star players from another club regardless of that cities population. Frowning upon a club for doing so is absolute stupidity or a lack of business sense/knowledge.

Bren wrote:

ASIO wrote:
With 1/8th the population.

Just on this... The NRL is a business. Any club can sign star players from another club regardless of that cities population. Frowning upon a club for doing so is absolute stupidity or a lack of business sense/knowledge.

No issue with that side of it, sign away mate, like you say, it's a business.

Just not an apples for apples comparison with Pain saying Newey and Brisbane are both one team towns when one has 300k to draw members and crowds and sponsorship from when Brisbane has 2,000,000 plus to do the same thing.

ASIO wrote:
No issue with that side of it, sign away mate, like you say, it's a business.

Just not an apples for apples comparison with Pain saying Newey and Brisbane are both one team towns when one has 300k to draw members and crowds and sponsorship from when Brisbane has 2,000,000 plus to do the same thing.

I find this intriguing. The Cowboys (well Townsville) has a smaller population then Newcastle right? Yet they have had the same success in the last 16 years as Newcastle and their current squad is ridiculously good.

Bren wrote:

ASIO wrote:
No issue with that side of it, sign away mate, like you say, it's a business.

Just not an apples for apples comparison with Pain saying Newey and Brisbane are both one team towns when one has 300k to draw members and crowds and sponsorship from when Brisbane has 2,000,000 plus to do the same thing.

I find this intriguing. The Cowboys (well Townsville) has a smaller population then Newcastle right? Yet they have had the same success in the last 16 years as Newcastle and their current squad is ridiculously good.

2/3rds the population yes, not 1/8th.

ASIO wrote:
2/3rds the population yes, not 1/8th.

Crowd numbers or population does not equal success. The Roosters are a prime example of that.

Bren wrote:Storm had their Premierships taken off them because they cheated the salary cap, plain and simple. The Broncos have won more Premierships then the Storm since the year 2000, that is just a plain undeniable fact. Using them as an example is not a cop out despite your opinion of it being so. They cheated  the salary cap therefore any Premierships they won during that period do not count. You cannot argue against that.

Individually the Broncos have won more Premierships then the Storm, Raiders, Cowboys, Warriors and Knights - all one club cities since the year 2000 therefore you must, no, you have to also include them as "underchieving at the absolute highest" despite your personal hatred / vendetta against all things Broncos/fans.

You're shifted the goals to suit your point though, they won all those premierships over ten years ago. For a team that has so many pros going for it, both earned themselves and gifted to them they're underachieving now.

I know the Storm cheated, that's why using them as an example isn't worth anything. Those are dead years for the Storm.

The Raiders are based in Canberra and have a history of having to overpay people just to live there, plus a long history of hardly any FTA games.

Cowboys have struggled despite having the best player in the world playing, possibly due to travel.

Warriors have underachieved massively, despite travel being a huge issue they still have enough star power and junior nursery that they should have a premiership to their name.

You cannot deny that in the last ten years the Broncos will everything they have going for them should have won a premiership, they've only been in one grand final in ten years. That isn't Broncos bashing, this is fact. They're a league powerhouse and should have been in more than one and won a premiership.

Bren wrote:Storm had their Premierships taken off them because they cheated the salary cap, plain and simple. The Broncos have won more Premierships then the Storm since the year 2000, that is just a plain undeniable fact. Using them as an example is not a cop out despite your opinion of it being so. They cheated  the salary cap therefore any Premierships they won during that period do not count. You cannot argue against that.

Individually the Broncos have won more Premierships then the Storm, Raiders, Cowboys, Warriors and Knights - all one club cities since the year 2000 therefore you must, no, you have to also include them as "underchieving at the absolute highest" despite your personal hatred / vendetta against all things Broncos/fans.

I think a better measure would be of how many rep players they have had over that period in terms of measuring the under or over achievment.

Would be interesting to see.

Honeysett wrote:

You're shifted the goals to suit your point though, they won all those premierships over ten years ago. For a team that has so many pros going for it, both earned themselves and gifted to them they're underachieving now.

I know the Storm cheated, that's why using them as an example isn't worth anything. Those are dead years for the Storm.

The Raiders are based in Canberra and have a history of having to overpay people just to live there, plus a long history of hardly any FTA games.

Cowboys have struggled despite having the best player in the world playing, possibly due to travel.

Warriors have underachieved massively, despite travel being a huge issue they still have enough star power and junior nursery that they should have a premiership to their name.

You cannot deny that in the last ten years the Broncos will everything they have going for them should have won a premiership, they've only been in one grand final in ten years. That isn't Broncos bashing, this is fact. They're a league powerhouse and should have been in more than one and won a premiership.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have won a premiership tho. But then we made a GF. And lost to a team with the best player in the comp. And you won't find any Queenslander that'd complain about it. And that's before we take into consideration that there's a whole lot more than just a playing roster that goes into winning a premiership. Cos if we're just worrying about the roster we've had, what's the Knights excuse back in the Johns era, the Waa Waa's excuse and so many other teams?

I do like how people call Brisbane a one team town while they field professional teams in 13 different sports, Newcastle is a true one team town, the Knights have that whole 300,000 people all to themselves.

Mate newcastle is a City of 300k people.
Brisbane alone has 2.1 million.

You cant just say - "One team town" as if its comparable, especially when one is a capitol city and one is essentially a large town.

surmo13 wrote:I do like how people call Brisbane a one team town while they field professional teams in 13 different sports, Newcastle is a true one team town, the Knights have that whole 300,000 people all to themselves.

Out of curiosity, what are the 13 "Professional" sports you speak of?

Rugby, League, AFL, Soccer, cricket......??
Are you including netball and hockey or something? Basketball? They havent had a basketball team since 2008, its back this season.

Newie have a soccer team, you could even include the central coast mariners there - its that fucking close.
Not sure what else.

Honeysett wrote:

You're shifted the goals to suit your point though, they won all those premierships over ten years ago. For a team that has so many pros going for it, both earned themselves and gifted to them they're underachieving now.

I know the Storm cheated, that's why using them as an example isn't worth anything. Those are dead years for the Storm.

The Raiders are based in Canberra and have a history of having to overpay people just to live there, plus a long history of hardly any FTA games.

Cowboys have struggled despite having the best player in the world playing, possibly due to travel.

Warriors have underachieved massively, despite travel being a huge issue they still have enough star power and junior nursery that they should have a premiership to their name.

You cannot deny that in the last ten years the Broncos will everything they have going for them should have won a premiership, they've only been in one grand final in ten years. That isn't Broncos bashing, this is fact. They're a league powerhouse and should have been in more than one and won a premiership.  

I would not criticize my point of including a broader margin of results to suit my point when you are doing the exact same thing. To do so implies double standards and is beneath you. I believe in allowing a greater margin of results to be displayed gives a fair and reasonable grasp of the situation. Now back to the topic at hand...

The last ten years for the Broncos have been somewhat lean however if you can cast your mind back to 2011 and the run the Broncos had that year I truly believe they would have won a Premiership had Lockyer not been injured in the game vs the Dragons at Suncorp. One wonders whether your opinion of the Broncos being massive underachievers (or whatever the terminology was) would be entirely different hinging upon that one single injury / result? Or maybe if the Broncos won the GF last year your opinion would also be different?

A perfect example of this is the Cowboys who up until their win last year were being labelled as pretenders (not by yourself but by a large portion of the rugby league community as a whole) when on paper they had the squad to win a Premiership yet due to their on field performances or possibly even certain calls by the refs (hello 7 tackle try) were unable to do so.

The Broncos not winning a GF since 2006 is disappointing as a fan yet I still don't believe we should be labelled as under achieving at the absolute highest when you know as a rugby league fan how hard it is to win a Premiership. I am however glad to see that you have now also included other clubs in that same basket when it comes to not winning a Premiership in a while and not reaching the desired expectations and results hoped for by the fans.

Pieman wrote:Mate newcastle is a City of 300k people.
Brisbane alone has 2.1 million.

You cant just say - "One team town" as if its comparable, especially when one is a capitol city and one is essentially a large town.

The NRL should put a team in Perth. With a population fairly similar to Brisbane (it would also be a one club city) they surely they would be able to gather enough support from the fans etc to ensure it became a fairly profitable business.

Pieman wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are the 13 "Professional" sports you speak of?

Rugby, League, AFL, Soccer, cricket......??
Are you including netball and hockey or something? Basketball? They havent had a basketball team since 2008, its back this season.

Newie have a soccer team, you could even include the central coast mariners there - its that fucking close.
Not sure what else.

Netball is a professional sport. The QLD Firebirds are also back2back Championship winners.

Ice wrote:

I think a better measure would be of how many rep players they have had over that period in terms of measuring the under or over achievment.

Would be interesting to see.

I don't believe that term of measurement would be entirely successful considering Jamie Buhrer could be counted as a rep player.

Bren wrote:

Netball is a professional sport. The QLD Firebirds are also back2back Championship winners.

Not knocking its professionalism, but I dont think that there would me many full time professional netballers getting around.
From what I understand, the minimum wage for the netballers is 15k. The cap is 270k and every year all but 8k must be spent.
So on average, thats a wage of 22k per player.
So they HAVE to pay 15k to 12 players - which is 180k, which leaves a whopping 90k left over to split between players.
So im going to have a guess here and say that there are ZERO full time netball players (unless they play for Aus etc.)

Netball may have come on in leaps and bounds coz of the ANZ championship (I think) and it most certainly is a professional sport, but they are not professional athletes if they arent getting paid to play full time.

Plus, what exactly is netball taking away from the Bronco's?
I can understand say Rugby or AFL or even soccer at a stretch taking players/supporters away but netball.....

Rather then Googling Netball wages you should have been looking up Laura Geitz instead

Bren wrote:
I would not criticize my point of including a broader margin of results to suit my point when you are doing the exact same thing. To do so implies double standards and is beneath you. I believe in allowing a greater margin of results to be displayed gives a fair and reasonable grasp of the situation. Now back to the topic at hand...

The last ten years for the Broncos have been somewhat lean however if you can cast your mind back to 2011 and the run the Broncos had that year I truly believe they would have won a Premiership had Lockyer not been injured in the game vs the Dragons at Suncorp. One wonders whether your opinion of the Broncos being massive underachievers (or whatever the terminology was) would be entirely different hinging upon that one single injury / result? Or maybe if the Broncos won the GF last year your opinion would also be different?

A perfect example of this is the Cowboys who up until their win last year were being labelled as pretenders (not by yourself but by a large portion of the rugby league community as a whole) when on paper they had the squad to win a Premiership yet due to their on field performances or possibly even certain calls by the refs (hello 7 tackle try) were unable to do so.

The Broncos not winning a GF since 2006 is disappointing as a fan yet I still don't believe we should be labelled as under achieving at the absolute highest when you know as a rugby league fan how hard it is to win a Premiership. I am however glad to see that you have now also included other clubs in that same basket when it comes to not winning a Premiership in a while and not reaching the desired expectations and results hoped for by the fans.

Regardless to whether anyone thinks they may of won or not with Lockyer in the side, they didn't. Records only show the winners, they may have gone close but who knows what would have happened? Heresay and we can't use that when talking about facts.

If the Broncos won last year I would not class them as underachievers, I would say they have performed as they should and have done well to win a premiership in a hard climate. However, again, they didn't. I think for all they have going for them, like I have said though they've most certainly earned the majority of what they have they have underachieved massively in the last ten years to have only made one GF and not have won any.

As an added example, I think the Dogs have performed better than the Broncos despite not having the advantages that I view as superior (pretty much a set friday game slot on FTA - however one could agree the Dogs don't need to travel as much of which is another argument and is a valid point as well) They've made two GFs and despite not winning one have still performed better. As an example.

Pieman wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are the 13 "Professional" sports you speak of?

Rugby, League, AFL, Soccer, cricket......??
Are you including netball and hockey or something? Basketball? They havent had a basketball team since 2008, its back this season.

Newie have a soccer team, you could even include the central coast mariners there - its that fucking close.
Not sure what else.

Professional sports teams based in Brisbane:

Brisbane Bandits Baseball
Brisbane Bullets Basketball
Brisbane Barracudas Water polo
Queensland Breakers Water polo
Brisbane Broncos Rugby league
Brisbane Lions Australian rules football
Brisbane Roar Football
Queensland Blades Hockey
Queensland Scorchers Hockey
Queensland Bulls Cricket
Brisbane Heat Cricket
Queensland Fire Cricket
Queensland Firebirds Netball
Queensland Reds Rugby union
Brisbane City Cobras Touch Football
Triple Eight Race Engineering Motorsport

so just to clarify, when i said 13 i meant 11, because the format was shoddy and had water polo teams all over the place and thus i counted seperately, and no i didn't count the V8 Supercars team, because, and i might be wrong, i give exactly 0 shits about motorsport after all, i don't think supporting a 'team' because they they are based in your city is a thing in motorsports.

Oh right, the Newcastle Jets, I thought they folded when Tinkler blew all his money, shows how much attention i pay about soccer, but my jibe about Newcastle was sub-serviant to the point anyway, people act like the Broncos have all 2,000,000 people in that city to themselves because they are the only rugby league team, when the residents of the city have a treasure trove of professional sports team to choose from.

Bren wrote:

Pieman wrote:Mate newcastle is a City of 300k people.
Brisbane alone has 2.1 million.

You cant just say - "One team town" as if its comparable, especially when one is a capitol city and one is essentially a large town.

The NRL should put a team in Perth. With a population fairly similar to Brisbane (it would also be a one club city) they surely they would be able to gather enough support from the fans etc to ensure it became a fairly profitable business.

Honeysett and I disagree on this.  I don't think it would.  

Melbourne with 2 and a half times the population and a ridiculously successful team still only manage to average 13k or something at AAMI.  We get really excited when we get 20k to and NRL game here twice a year, but it is only twice a year and those crowds are primarily due to it being the Rabbits and/or Warriors playing.