'Our home, always will be': Staggs' message to Dolphins

Kotoni Staggs is the proven 'Battle of Brisbane' specialist so it is only natural that he wants to add another chapter in the new book of feuds with the Dolphins.

The Broncos centre will be integral to his sixth-placed side's chances of making a statement on Saturday night at Suncorp Stadium.

His message to the eighth-placed Dolphins about stadium rights is clear.

"It has been our home for a long time and always will be," Staggs said.

"They are a team from Redcliffe and they just come over and play on the same field."

One thing we know about Staggs is that home is where the heart is.

The inaugural clash in 2023 between the cross-town rivals demanded an iconic moment to base a new rivalry upon.

Staggs provided it with a length of the field try in the 78th minute to secure an 18-12 win.

It was what he did next that said everything about his passion for the club.

Pointing at the hallowed turf Staggs exclaimed, 'this is our home'. There was an expletive thrown in for emphasis.

At that moment the gun centre enunciated exactly what he thought of the talk from the Dolphins in the lead-up that they were co-tenants of Suncorp Stadium and that it was their home too.

It is, of course, but Staggs was having none of it. The Broncos fans salivated over that moment and still do.

"When they first came in, there was talk about who owns Suncorp and the first game we ever played, you can't take that away," Staggs said.

"That try and what I did in that game was something that came to me when I scored and I said, 'this is our home'.

"It just came straight to me to say what I said and I pointed to the ground.

"Every time we play the Dolphins I am always up for it, the boys are as well and it's going to be no different come Saturday."

The 26-year-old was at it again in round four this year when he barged his way over for a try in a 20-12 win and pointed at the hallowed turf with both hands and reiterated what he had said two years previously.

Staggs is a proud Wiradjuri man from Wellington, NSW and this week's Indigenous round is also one he looks forward to.

"My dream was to play one game here and being here for eight years I have loved every minute of it," he said.

"Now being part of the leadership group and asked to design Indigenous jerseys, I don't do it just for myself. It is my family I am representing. Indigenous round means a lot to me and we will just go out and be proud of where we come from and who we are representing."

Staggs has matured immensely and while Pat Carrigan will captain the side on Saturday night, he is a candidate to do so in the future.

"It would be a big honour to captain the club here, the Brisbane Broncos being the organisation that it is," he said.

"Maybe later down the track who knows. I would love to lead this club."

The agenda first-up is adding another chapter in his Dolphins feud. What has he got up his sleeve this time?

"I don't know," Staggs grinned.

"I will see what I can pull out of my pocket. We will just wait and see."

Canberra Times

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

you really should quit while your miles behind.

I haven't been given one example yet of it not being successful...

Will this happen? No. Not in my wildest dreams. But can it, yes, it can, as the original post was about. It's PROVEN. ive shown ACTUAL EVIDENCE. I'm still waiting on it from the other side, not luton town in the epl to try to manipulate a point lol

Let's be conservative....

30,000 x 100 = 3,000,000
3,000,000 x 12 = 36,000,000

Yes, this will be minus costs but stadiums are making huge money worldwide. Do a quick google. Will take you 5 seconds lol.

$100 is very consecutive given food, alcohol + ticket on average. Then they dont need to pay rent for merchandise stores and sales, can have bars on the perimeter to get extra income. Finals, Nrlw finals games could draw a crowd, concerts is a big big big money maker for the stadiums, other sports (eg international soccer or union, naming rights, corporate is huge. Youre talking about that number at the top and doubling or even tripling it. There's a reason more and more and more and more clubs are doing it. They'd pay back the loan in 30-40 years. You know, like a home loan lol. It could be a 35,000 seat stadium.

 

[Foordy]

I haven't been given one example yet of it not being successful...

You have but you refuse to listen, because your happy to make a fool of yourself ... but in case you've been blind

Let's be conservative....

30,000 x 100 = 3,000,000
3,000,000 x 12 = 36,000,000

now let's use you conservative figures, which are unrealistic because no one is selling out any stadium frequently when the cheapest seats cost you $100 ... you also haven't accounted for running costs which would run into the millions over 12 games when you consider staff salaries, maintenance costs (including ground care), utility costs, advertising, public liability insurance etc.

so when the cost to build a stadium is about $2 billion (conservatively speaking). it would take a club 55.5 years before they make one cent profit. (likely much longer because that takes into account your figures which assume it costs you nothing to run the stadium and you sell out every match for the year.

as is I said while you are miles behind

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

You have but you refuse to listen, because your happy to make a fool of yourself ... but in case you've been blind

View attachment 35011





now let's use you conservative figures, which are unrealistic because no one is selling out any stadium frequently when the cheapest seats cost you $100 ... you also haven't accounted for running costs which would run into the millions over 12 games when you consider staff salaries, maintenance costs (including ground care), utility costs, advertising, public liability insurance etc.

so when the cost to build a stadium is about $2 billion (conservatively speaking). it would take a club 55.5 years before they make one cent profit. (likely much longer because that takes into account your figures which assume it costs you nothing to run the stadium and you sell out every match for the year.

as is I said while you are miles behind

READ my message. $100 includes food and beer lol. Read. And I also acknowledged costs. You think the stadiums are running at losses? You are surely joking aren't you.

The sharks are your example? They have secured their ENTIRE future. 10 years ago there was talk of them folding! Have you heard they are folding lately? They have ASSETS worth $100 million. Again. There are 1000s of examples overseas. Because it doesn't happen in Australia it doesn't mean it doesn't work lol... Australia is not the centre of the world, especially the sporting world.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

You have but you refuse to listen, because your happy to make a fool of yourself ... but in case you've been blind

View attachment 35011





now let's use you conservative figures, which are unrealistic because no one is selling out any stadium frequently when the cheapest seats cost you $100 ... you also haven't accounted for running costs which would run into the millions over 12 games when you consider staff salaries, maintenance costs (including ground care), utility costs, advertising, public liability insurance etc.

so when the cost to build a stadium is about $2 billion (conservatively speaking). it would take a club 55.5 years before they make one cent profit. (likely much longer because that takes into account your figures which assume it costs you nothing to run the stadium and you sell out every match for the year.

as is I said while you are miles behind

And 55 years is BAD?! If that's what your saying is bad you realise how crazy that is. In 55 years they will start to make profit FOREVER. And if they dont they have AN ASSET they can part sell or sell entirely for at least 5x more then they built it for, real estate doesn't go backwards.

Again, why are clubs WORLDWIDE doing it? 30,000 is conservative for the broncos given the average home crowd is more every year lol
and 2 billion, it isn't an Olympic stadium. AND your reply didn't even talk about other events, naming rights, and the other profitable avenues.

READ before we answering next time please

 

[Foordy]

And 55 years is BAD?! If that's what your saying is bad you realise how crazy that is. In 55 years they will start to make profit FOREVER. And if they dont they have AN ASSET they can part sell or sell entirely for at least 5x more then they built it for, real estate doesn't go backwards.

Again, why are clubs WORLDWIDE doing it? 30,000 is conservative for the broncos given the average home crowd is more every year lol
and 2 billion, it isn't an Olympic stadium. AND your reply didn't even talk about other events, naming rights, and the other profitable avenues.

READ before we answering next time please

you know it is so smart and so profitable for clubs to own their own stadiums that 8 out of the top 10 most valuable sporting organisations in the world DO NOT own their own stadiums ... and these are clubs who's values range from USD$10.1 Billion to USD$6.8 Billion ...

but i guess you're smarter than people who own and run multi billion dollar organisations

 

[1910]

The huge fly in the ointment for the Sharks is the long overdue completion of their $750 million leagues club development on the land they own adjacent to Shark Park. Broken promises from the developer and builder have led to the inordinate delay and cost blowouts by $30 million, with no finish line in sight.

The longer the club remains unfinished, the longer the financial pain will deepen for the Sharks, particularly with being unable to trade on game days.

The ground can currently hold 13,500 people, down from 20,000 because of ongoing construction.

The limited capacity, alongside maintenance costs and a lack of corporate facilities are reasons to believe that the historic ground is becoming more of a hindrance than a benefit for the Sharks.

"The Sharks own their own stadium and it has been a downfall in the end. Originally, ten years ago when I was at the Sharks, it was always that we're the only club that own their ground, but I don't know if that's an advantage," said Flanagan.

"Because the cost, they spend $1 million a year in maintenance, and they can't keep up with the maintenance and then they can't rebuild. Yes, while they've got this asset, I don't know if it is an asset."

The Australian's Brent Read also made comments on the podcast about the struggles that have faced the team's supporter base.

"I feel sorry for Sharks fans. I mean, because I think we all thought when they sold that land around the ground that they'd end up with this stadium that was, I wouldn't say cutting edge, but would be at least able to hold 16, 17, 18,000 people and the facilities would be really modern but it just hasn't turned out that way," said Read.


Sounds awesome!

 

[1910]

Difference between the Sharks and Dolphins is the Sharks sold their land and the Dolphins rent it. That shopping centre with their name and Dolphin on keeps making them money every week.

Coles are paying for their football team.

Sharks have a Leagues Club they can't open, a ground that doesn't hold people and no corporate sales for game day- all their assets aren't assets because they're not making money.

 

[Nashy]

QLD does it right. Stadiums should be public property, not private owned.

 

[Organix]

The huge fly in the ointment for the Sharks is the long overdue completion of their $750 million leagues club development on the land they own adjacent to Shark Park. Broken promises from the developer and builder have led to the inordinate delay and cost blowouts by $30 million, with no finish line in sight.

The longer the club remains unfinished, the longer the financial pain will deepen for the Sharks, particularly with being unable to trade on game days.

The ground can currently hold 13,500 people, down from 20,000 because of ongoing construction.

The limited capacity, alongside maintenance costs and a lack of corporate facilities are reasons to believe that the historic ground is becoming more of a hindrance than a benefit for the Sharks.

"The Sharks own their own stadium and it has been a downfall in the end. Originally, ten years ago when I was at the Sharks, it was always that we're the only club that own their ground, but I don't know if that's an advantage," said Flanagan.

"Because the cost, they spend $1 million a year in maintenance, and they can't keep up with the maintenance and then they can't rebuild. Yes, while they've got this asset, I don't know if it is an asset."

The Australian's Brent Read also made comments on the podcast about the struggles that have faced the team's supporter base.

"I feel sorry for Sharks fans. I mean, because I think we all thought when they sold that land around the ground that they'd end up with this stadium that was, I wouldn't say cutting edge, but would be at least able to hold 16, 17, 18,000 people and the facilities would be really modern but it just hasn't turned out that way," said Read.


Sounds awesome!

After all that strange peptide scandal, and salary cap scandal and winning the comp in the one year in the middle while compliant with players who had been caught doping, and they still can't get anything right because there is corruption and "bureaucracy" involved. Hahahaha I hope the club goes under. Cheating pricks.

 

[Nashy]

After all that strange peptide scandal, and salary cap scandal and winning the comp in the one year in the middle while compliant with players who had been caught doping, and they still can't get anything right because there is corruption and "bureaucracy" involved. Hahahaha I hope the club goes under. Cheating pricks.

Cheating both years before and after, but 2016 they were all good

 

[I bleed Maroon]

QLD does it right. Stadiums should be public property, not private owned.

Bingo.

What are we missing out on by the Broncs not owning Suncorp? There isn't a giant horse on the exterior? It belongs to us because the history of the ground says it does, and that should be the end of that.

 

[simplythebest]

And 55 years is BAD?! If that's what your saying is bad you realise how crazy that is. In 55 years they will start to make profit FOREVER. And if they dont they have AN ASSET they can part sell or sell entirely for at least 5x more then they built it for, real estate doesn't go backwards.

Are there any 55 year old stadiums still around that don't need rebuilding?

 

[tommy]

Unfortunately staggs is setting us up for future embarrassment. I can only imagine the carry on next time dolphins beat us about how it's theirs now.

 

[simplythebest]

Unfortunately staggs is setting us up for future embarrassment. I can only imagine the carry on next time dolphins beat us about how it's theirs now.

All in good fun. That's the kind of stuff that makes rivalries great. We need more characters in the game.

 

[BroncosFever]

Unfortunately staggs is setting us up for future embarrassment. I can only imagine the carry on next time dolphins beat us about how it's theirs now.

You'd think that but he did the same a few years ago when he scored a length of the field match winner and he's still backing it up, so he can do whatever he wants as far as I am concerned. As long as he backs it up, keep on doing it. Kotoni's got his critics, some of them he just rubs the wrong way, others have been offside with him ever since that off-field toe fiasco but you can see one thing, he cares about the club. Give me more of that.

When they get a few more people to the ground, they can lay claim to it. Right now I reckon it's doing them more harm than good. You ask most teams if they'd rather play at Suncorp or Kayo, they're playing at Suncorp every single time. It's far less hostile and obviously a better venue.

 

[Scorchie]

Difference between the Sharks and Dolphins is the Sharks sold their land and the Dolphins rent it. That shopping centre with their name and Dolphin on keeps making them money every week.

Coles are paying for their football team.

Sharks have a Leagues Club they can't open, a ground that doesn't hold people and no corporate sales for game day- all their assets aren't assets because they're not making money.

I remember living in Sydney when the Sharks proposed to redevelop their ground/area to ensure their long term financial future. I cannot fathom how badly they stuffed it up.