2018 Brisbane Broncos Thread

No Worries wrote:Genuine question, not trying to highlight the overwhelming advantage the Broncos have being a 1 team town in Australia's 3rd biggest city, but the responsibility they have to the game in QLD.

During last night's WC coverage a player was mentioned who plays or played for East Tigers (?) a Broncos feeder club. I'm sure I've heard Redcliff or other clubs mentioned as Broncos feeder clubs. This got me thinking, in NSW each NRL team has a feeder club and this distributes talent across the competition keeping it even. If the Broncos were to only have 1 feeder club, this would give that club a clear unfair advantage. So my question is:

How many feeder clubs do Brisbane have and how to they determine who goes where ?

Whilst it is meant to be a mutually beneficial arrangement, in my mind the main benefit goes to the feeder club rather than the NRL side.

What advantage would having lots of feeder clubs be?
Do you think the other clubs wouldn't have access to watch/scout these players?

The only advantage I can see is that the club may get easier access to information about how players are going but I don't think that would increase a clubs ability to sign those players.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Whilst it is meant to be a mutually beneficial arrangement, in my mind the main benefit goes to the feeder club rather than the NRL side.

What advantage would having lots of feeder clubs be?
Do you think the other clubs wouldn't have access to watch/scout these players?

The only advantage I can see is that the club may get easier access to information about how players are going but I don't think that would increase a clubs ability to sign those players.

It most certainly is a disadvantage doing it the way Broncos does. If you had just one feeder club you'd have a lot more input as to the style they play so that when guys get called up they are already familiar with the plays, calls etc. You'd also have more input as to where people play. e.g. you could say that you wanted Marshall playing halfback rather than 5/8 and Pearson playing fullback if that's where you want them to fill in during origin (though I'm sure that already happens to some extent). Clearly Broncos spreading the talent to maximise the strength of the QCup is another example of Broncos doing something for the good of the game even though it is to their own detriment. You're welcome NRL.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Whilst it is meant to be a mutually beneficial arrangement, in my mind the main benefit goes to the feeder club rather than the NRL side.

What advantage would having lots of feeder clubs be?
Do you think the other clubs wouldn't have access to watch/scout these players?

The only advantage I can see is that the club may get easier access to information about how players are going but I don't think that would increase a clubs ability to sign those players.

Who suggested there would be ?
Yep no club has ever bought or graded a player who hasn't come from a feeder club, that's what I think.

The advantage comes from being the only team in Australia's 3rd largest market, that was a statement, not to be confused with my question which was about feeder clubs and the burden the Broncos bare to keep the game alive and viable at the lower level. But I knew I'd get a bite.

Having supported a club who bore a similar burden with 2 feeder clubs, I know when a player was  graded/bought (because they don't always come from feeder clubs) they were assigned to one of those clubs and it never changed. Ryno has provided a great explanation on how all teams are kept competitive which leaves the "How do they determine who goes where". I would think having 5 clubs this would be no mean feat. Who gets MILF, who gets Holmes ? Who wants Pieday ?

No Worries wrote:

Who suggested there would be ?
Yep no club has ever bought or graded a player who hasn't come from a feeder club, that's what I think.

The advantage comes from being the only team in Australia's 3rd largest market, that was a statement, not to be confused with my question which was about feeder clubs and the burden the Broncos bare to keep the game alive and viable at the lower level. But I knew :fishing: I'd get a bite.

Having supported a club who bore a similar burden with 2 feeder clubs, I know when a player was  graded/bought (because they don't always come from feeder clubs) they were assigned to one of those clubs and it never changed. Ryno has provided a great explanation on how all teams are kept competitive which leaves the "How do they determine who goes where". I would think having 5 clubs this would be no mean feat. Who gets MILF, who gets Holmes ? Who wants Pieday ?

Purely guesswork but I imagine each player's registered contract would have to state who their feeder club is. It would need to for insurance purposes, surely. That means a player would get to choose when they sign their contract?

It should also be noted it's P51

I know Brisbane have a stack of disadvantages, as testament to those regularly pointed out as rebuttal when others (not me) suggest that one particular thing or another is an advantage. But can any Broncos fans think of anything they might have that might actually be an advantage?

Ice wrote:I know Brisbane have a stack of disadvantages, as testament to those regularly pointed out as rebuttal when others (not me) suggest that one particular thing or another is an advantage. But can any Broncos fans think of anything they might have that might actually be an advantage?

A superior team is certainly beneficial

Ice wrote:I know Brisbane have a stack of disadvantages, as testament to those regularly pointed out as rebuttal when others (not me) suggest that one particular thing or another is an advantage. But can any Broncos fans think of anything they might have that might actually be an advantage?

Once upon a time I would have said access to third party agreements and corporate sponsorship, but the Roosters have shown you can still have that in Sydney so I guess that's good management rather than something only the Broncos have access to, so you can't really call it an unfair advantage. If a team which is basically at the opposite end of the spectrum to the Broncos with the smallest support base, and virtually no local juniors and leagues, can also have massive corporate support, then surely you can't attribute that to something unfair that the Broncos have. If Newcastle or the Dragons for example had Nick Politis or Paul White as CEO's, perhaps they'd be in the same position.

Access to the best venue in the world perhaps. Although I guess that was brought on in large part by them averaging 40K+ in the mid 90's, so I suppose again that's not really an advantage other than one they created themself.

I guess you could argue that having the best weather in Australia helps by having better conditions for try scoring football, though that is someone negated by not playing day matches at home that often. I guess you could say the weather makes it a liveable place for footballers and their families to want to relocate to if all other things were the same. Shame we don't have DLS to really take advantage of it.

A huge supporter base certainly helps, but who wouldn't want to support the Broncos with the terrific style they've traditionally played. Given before 1988 most football supporters had a different team to support but the style the Broncos played encouraged them to change, and that is supported by the Crushers having next to no support in an identical market. I guess that again is an advantage they've created themself.

So I guess through all of that it seems like the "advantages" we have are more rewards for what we've done over the last 30 seasons rather than unfair advantages.

Wait! I've got one! Manly take one home match a year to our home ground, so effectively 13 home games a year instead of 12. That's an advantage. Not as much as an advantage as Souths, Bulldogs, Tigers, Parramatta, Dragons and Roosters get, but an advantage over the other 9 teams for sure. That and Queenslanders are generally smarter, so the players don't have to put up with idiots like Phil Rothfield on a day to day basis. And Queenslanders don't have an inferiority complex like others do, so the players don't have to put up with stupidity surrounding them 24/7. Other than that I can't really think of anything. Certainly nothing major.

Ice wrote:I know Brisbane have a stack of disadvantages, as testament to those regularly pointed out as rebuttal when others (not me) suggest that one particular thing or another is an advantage. But can any Broncos fans think of anything they might have that might actually be an advantage?

I think that what helps, as with North QLD and Melbourne, is that the culture can be better fostered within the club. You don't have dickheads from other teams hanging out together midweek and undermining the efforts of the coaching staff and the leadership team. Newcastle and Canberra have both had this at times too, not sure what went wrong there.

What an absolutely brilliant troll post Dippy. Well done.

Ice wrote:I know Brisbane have a stack of disadvantages, as testament to those regularly pointed out as rebuttal when others (not me) suggest that one particular thing or another is an advantage. But can any Broncos fans think of anything they might have that might actually be an advantage?

Obviously 1-team-town, being backed by a big leagues club and being in a world class stadium are advantages but they aren't exclusive or unique to Brisbane... Having Alf, Locky and Wally involved in/around the club would help players catch the eye of influential people for rep football? But that's not really exclusive either, and irrelevant for cockroaches.

Is proximity to the Down Under Bar an "advantage"? We certainly have that.

While he will most likely end up at Manly the Brisbane Broncos should do everything within their power to get Mitchell Pearce at the club for 2018. If it means releasing a few players to get him on board then so be it. If Bennett and the Broncos are serious about a Premiership within the next few years they must sign him at all costs. If the Broncos could sign Pearce it would be their biggest signing in the last 10 years.

Come to the real heartland of Rugby League Mitch. I for one will welcome you with open arms. A Premiership with the Broncos awaits.

Yep, Pearce would make them contenders for sure. Broncos will not win a Premiership with Nikorima as their first choice half. Maybe they can pull the pin on Bird?

Moose wrote:While he will most likely end up at Manly the Brisbane Broncos should do everything within their power to get Mitchell Pearce at the club for 2018. If it means releasing a few players to get him on board then so be it. If Bennett and the Broncos are serious about a Premiership within the next few years they must sign him at all costs. If the Broncos could sign Pearce it would be their biggest signing in the last 10 years.

Come to the real heartland of Rugby League Mitch. I for one will welcome you with open arms. A Premiership with the Broncos awaits.

Would really be the missing link in our team but I would also love to see what Pearcey could achieve under Bennett, particularly as he will be hitting his prime now as a playmaker.

Absolutely they should go after him. They would be fucking stupid not to.

Bennett's reason for not going after him is that he thinks Pearce wouldn't fit the culture.. odd IMO

Pieman wrote:Bennett's reason for not going after him is that he thinks Pearce wouldn't fit the culture.. odd IMO

Whats odd about it? Bennett sets high standard for the culture of his leadership group. Outside the leadership, not so much... but Pearce would need to be in that group or not at all.

ryno_ wrote:

Whats odd about it? Bennett sets high standard for the culture of his leadership group. Outside the leadership, not so much... but Pearce would need to be in that group or not at all.

Well its odd considering some of the characters in the side currently. Some people who you would assume are in that "leadership group" are guys who have had some pretty nasty incidents or accusations in the past.

Also its basically saying:

Pearce has not changed since the "dog incident" 2 years ago and us unable to change. (Its pretty obvious that he has IMO).
He assumes pearce would be in the "leadership group", and right away I might add.
Its saying that a player doing some shit (like, I dont know, abusing bar staff etc) doesnt effect the team if someone isnt in the "leadership group" which is wrong imo

On the field in club land, Pearce has an impressive resume and he is one of the best halfbacks in the league, coming into his prime. Just odd to think that Bennett wouldnt trust himself enough to bring a class club level player like Pearce to the club and think that he couldnt influence Pearce how he wanted to off the field.

i think bennett is really saying "how can i be a massive troll"


he even acknowledged that roberts might make him to look like a hypocrite knowing full well people would be pointing more towards the guy they signed a week ago.

i actually think its a pretty funny dig at pearce

or it could be that when talking about Pearce, he's not referring to culture in the 'criminal history' sense, but in the 'my team just signed a player that could take my team and my game to the next level, but i won't be the be-all and end-all of the playmaking duties, so i'm gunna put my ego ahead of the team and bail' sense