A look back at 1990's expansion

[davi]

An interesting article and a look back at expansion in the 90's.

The article makes some interesting points: Clubs that were axed Rams, Reds, and Crushers had the most potential for success. Hunter Mariners were the worst choice for expansion going up against and a Newcastle Knights which had a loyal fan base it was as if the Mariners were a ghost that never existed and were bogged down from Newcastle Knights confetti after they won their first premiership in 1997.

The obvious lesson from this is that Superleague was a terrible time for expansion when Rams, Reds, and Crushers needed all their support. I wonder about the Crushers, a lot of people suggest that it was politics with the Broncos they were pushed out. But they certainly had their problems and were not going smoothly which didn't help their cause. Poor signings, financial problems, crippling debts, from the outside looking in it would seem they were not managed well and blew it.

Warriors, Storm. and Cowboys still exist today, the Cowboys have been turned into the most powerful club from the era. What they have developed up there with North Queensland is now in the towns DNA. Storm have been great too, but they had more difficult battle then the Reds, Rams, and Crushers getting worse crowds in their first season. The fact they are still in the competition is a credit to some smarter operators, and on field success from Craig Bellamy and the big three no doubt has played a big part. Yes they had the salary cap scandal, but you can't take away the fact John Ribot did a very good job it what was most difficult task in managing their transition.

Any thoughts? Any lessons that can be taken out of it apart from Superleague?


http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/10/01/remembering-rugby-leagues-failed-expansion-clubs-1990s-sunday/

 

[Stallion]

An interesting article and a look back at expansion in the 90's.

The article makes some interesting points: Clubs that were axed Rams, Reds, and Crushers had the most potential for success. Hunter Mariners were the worst choice for expansion going up against and a Newcastle Knights which had a loyal fan base it was as if the Mariners were a ghost that never existed and were bogged down from Newcastle Knights confetti after they won their first premiership in 1997.

The obvious lesson from this is that Superleague was a terrible time for expansion when Rams, Reds, and Crushers needed all their support. I wonder about the Crushers, a lot of people suggest that it was politics with the Broncos they were pushed out. But they certainly had their problems and were not going smoothly which didn't help their cause. Poor signings, financial problems, crippling debts, from the outside looking in it would seem they were not managed well and blew it.

Warriors, Storm. and Cowboys still exist today, the Cowboys have been turned into the most powerful club from the era. What they have developed up there with North Queensland is now in the towns DNA. Storm have been great too, but they had more difficult battle then the Reds, Rams, and Crushers getting worse crowds in their first season. The fact they are still in the competition is a credit to some smarter operators, and on field success from Craig Bellamy and the big three no doubt has played a big part. Yes they had the salary cap scandal, but you can't take away the fact John Ribot did a very good job it what was most difficult task in managing their transition.

Any thoughts? Any lessons that can be taken out of it apart from Superleague?


http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/10/01/remembering-rugby-leagues-failed-expansion-clubs-1990s-sunday/

The agreement reached to bring "peace"was disastrous for rugby league. It sent a negative message to all fans. The neutrals thought 'Whats wrong with this game? Why are they getting rid of their clubs!' It still defies logic especially as the Knights v Manly grandfinal was such an epic. With the general public won back courtesy of such an epic grandfinal and for the ARL to let the game down so badly with a capitulation to superleague thinking. It was unbelievably demoralising. I for one shook my head when they came to agree to cull, merge and eliminate so many great clubs! A real pity for a great code.

 

[The Great Dane]

The agreement reached to bring "peace"was disastrous for rugby league. It sent a negative message to all fans. The neutrals thought 'Whats wrong with this game? Why are they getting rid of their clubs!' It still defies logic especially as the Knights v Manly grandfinal was such an epic. With the general public won back courtesy of such an epic grandfinal and for the ARL to let the game down so badly with a capitulation to superleague thinking. It was unbelievably demoralising. I for one shook my head when they came to agree to cull, merge and eliminate so many great clubs! A real pity for a great code.

Lol, if they had capitulated to "Super league" thinking then we'd only have 3-4 clubs in Sydney and at least one club in every other major Australian city, we'd be constantly playing cross comp games with the poms, we wouldn't have any teams in South East Queensland apart from the Broncos, we'd be courting corporate interest much more aggressively, a handful of people from Sydney wouldn't run the game, etc, etc.

I'm not saying that things would be better if SL had truly won the "war" (in some ways it probably would be better, in so ways it'd be the same, and in some ways things'd be a lot worse), but to suggest that the ARL capitulated to the Super League is simply false.

 

[Perth Red]

I think the expansion of 1995 shows that you better have deep pockets if you want to expand.
ARL were nervous about Perth and its costs. They saddled the club with having to pay the travel and accomodation costs of visiting teams as well as their own for away games. That's three teams of players plus staff every game at a time a flight from Sydney to Perth cost around $1200 return. Clearly the ARL didn't have the revenue to cover the costs of bringing in a Perth club
Auckland, cowboys and crushers all faced significant financial problems but SL caused such turmoil it's hard to say how much was SL war was to blame and how much would have happened anyway. It took Cowboys and warriors a lot of years to break even.

Adelaide was the one I found interesting. They came in late in the piece and seemed to financially and supporter base wise be a success. I wonder what the thinking was behind their cutting?

Mariners were a SL Farce to challenge knights and deserved to have been cut at first chance.

 

[Perth Red]

If you're interested in thenReds short history this site has good info. Final ever game against Raiders we drew over 12k, sigh what might have been.

http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/teams/western-reds/results.html

 

[Perth Red]

Lol, if they had capitulated to "Super league" thinking then we'd only have 3-4 clubs in Sydney and at least one club in every other major Australian city, we'd be constantly playing cross comp games with the poms, we wouldn't have any teams in South East Queensland apart from the Broncos, we'd be courting corporate interest much more aggressively, a handful of people from Sydney wouldn't run the game, etc, etc.

I'm not saying that things would be better if SL had truly won the "war" (in some ways it probably would be better, in so ways it'd be the same, and in some ways things'd be a lot worse), but to suggest that the ARL capitulated to the Super League is simply false.

They needed to have the ten none Sydney clubs locked in then let Sydney figure out what it did with the remaining 6 places. Ideally they would have gone to 18 and had 9 places for nsw 4 for Queensland, WA, Vic, SA, ACT and NZ. That would have been the best case scenario for the sports growth. Will likely take us 30-40 years to get back to that, if we ever do!

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Its still amazes me to think how shit Quayle and Arthurson must have been at their jobs to allow this catastrophe to happen...

In the 80s, they had to chance to massively cull the Sydney comp. in introducing the QLD teams, they could have simply created an ARL and invited only the best NSWRL clubs to join. In one stroke, they could create their perfect national comp and who is there to complain. Huge opportunity missed, but anyway, we move on.

Then we get the 95 expansion and the desire to cull Sydney teams. I get the idea of only givong one year contracts to the shitty clubs, but why did they not lock the good clubs in long term?!?!?

They were begging for a coup like SuperLeague, then they act the victim when it did...

 

[Stallion]

Once again the history and longtime rivalries are being ignored by the comments. These clubs in Sydney are vital for credibility and sustained growth. Without the foundation the competition has no substance. These clubs have support not just in Sydney. Tampering with established markets and people's affiliation and memories is shear lunacy. Genuine expansion through additional clubs is still and should be the way to go. The lack of feeling and understanding of this situation and the expansive nature of Australia and its densely populated cities with massive distances isn't being recognised in the discourse provided by the 'destructionist ' thinking.

 

[siv]

A lot compromises were negotiated during the "cull"

Broncos were promised Brisbane market for 20 years

So Crushers gone

As part of that deal Mariners got culled from Newcastle

Then 2 more went with new clubs Adelaide and Gold Coast

Both parties agreed on Melbourne so Perth was the sacrifce there

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Mariners wanted to merge with Chargers didn't they? Offered them the staff and players and GC said no. So most of them went to Melbourne to join the Perth Reds moved on over.

So whilst we talk about short sightedness, it came from both sides and from all angles.

And problem was, Sydney clubs in 1994 already knew they were in the crosshairs with the 4 team expansion in 1995. How were Souths, Balmain, Wests going to compete? And they were the teams most likely to die or get moved. So I understand their side. And Roosters and Eels saw the writing on the wall and went all out to rebuild their clubs almost over night in 1995/96.

I also understand the expansion teams issues and even the problems / friction the Broncos had.

So it's not easy to say where all the blame is and what is and isn't short sighted.

I agree that Brisbane not having more than 1 team was wrong. I believe culling Perth and Adelaide was wrong and GC to a lesser extent. I liked that Melbourne came in. I think the mergers were rushed and silliness making absolutely no sense at all. In retrospect the Tigers / Magpies merger and Manly / Norths mergers were wrong. I also think it was wrong that the NRL didn't say to Northern Eagles that the franchise was a CC licence only, so if they folded, the licence reverted to NRL for a CC based team. But there you go. I think kicking out Souths was wrong too because it galvanised them to fight back and eventually win and get back in (not that I'm complaining as a Souths supporter) but they would have withered on the vine and died like Newtown.

Even when I talk with people about expansion today, a lot are still "ohhh...do we really need a Perth or Adelaide team? Will it work...I doubt it. They just don't care."

SL stuffed the game, no doubt. I detested it at the time. But they did a smidgen of good. And the ARL weren't the bad boogie men everyone seems to want to make them out to be. As early as 1982 they were expanding. Canberra, Illawarra, Newcastle, Brisbane, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Townsville, Perth, Auckland and Brisbane 2 all in the space of 13 years is a pretty good get in that time. Problem is, the local comps suffered at the expense of those new NSWRL/ARL teams. But still...they expanded and got a national footprint. Problem is, they culled Newtown and Wests, and Wests fought back. They didn't cull anyone before 1995 to make way for these new teams, with an eye to Melbourne and Adelaide.

So as a RL fan, they're all a bunch of merkins who set the game back 25 years.

 

[Stallion]

A lot compromises were negotiated during the "cull"

Broncos were promised Brisbane market for 20 years

So Crushers gone

As part of that deal Mariners got culled from Newcastle

Then 2 more went with new clubs Adelaide and Gold Coast

Both parties agreed on Melbourne so Perth was the sacrifce there

The Mariners were not a real factor . The Brisbane monopoly is farcical although the Crushers were not an attractive option for the anti Bronco public. Poor colours, name and had little media support due to News ltd interest in Broncos. Melbourne was a good move! Out of the mess probably the Mariners and to a lesser extent the Crushers should have been culled. The others including the crushers (in another look and name),same with Adelaide and Perth, should have been given a timeline for re entry. It was this abandonment that did alot of damage. Same for the merging and culling of longstanding Sydney clubs. It was an out and out disaster for rugby league. The game most people used to affectionately refer to as 'footy' in years gone by!

 

[The Mad Hatter]

And as I see it:

12 city/regions:

1. Nth Qld
2. Brisbane
3. Brisbane 2
4. Gold Coast
5. Newcastle
6. Canberra
7. Illawarra / South Coast (St George)
8. Auckland
9. NZ 2 (a relocated team?)
10. Melbourne
11. Adelaide (a relocated team?)
12. Perth

=======

Leaves Sydney

1. Wests Tigers
2. Cronulla-Sutherland
3. Parramatta
4. Canterbury-Bankstown
5. South Sydney
6. Sydney Roosters
7. Manly-Warringah
8. Penrith Panthers

So we could have a 20 team comp.

But if we look at least 1-2 Sydney teams relocating to Adelaide, NZ2 and maybe 1 to CC, then we have an 18 team comp.

There doesn’t need to be bloodletting. There just needs to be clear definition of regions teams are growing / covering (like Manly looks after the Peninsula, North Sydney, Chatswood, Hornsby AND Wests Tigers looking after Narellan/Macarthur/Campbelltown).

The NRL need to be strategic and grow their game and markets.

 

[Stallion]

Mariners wanted to merge with Chargers didn't they? Offered them the staff and players and GC said no. So most of them went to Melbourne to join the Perth Reds moved on over.

So whilst we talk about short sightedness, it came from both sides and from all angles.

And problem was, Sydney clubs in 1994 already knew they were in the crosshairs with the 4 team expansion in 1995. How were Souths, Balmain, Wests going to compete? And they were the teams most likely to die or get moved. So I understand their side. And Roosters and Eels saw the writing on the wall and went all out to rebuild their clubs almost over night in 1995/96.

I also understand the expansion teams issues and even the problems / friction the Broncos had.

So it's not easy to say where all the blame is and what is and isn't short sighted.

I agree that Brisbane not having more than 1 team was wrong. I believe culling Perth and Adelaide was wrong and GC to a lesser extent. I liked that Melbourne came in. I think the mergers were rushed and silliness making absolutely no sense at all. In retrospect the Tigers / Magpies merger and Manly / Norths mergers were wrong. I also think it was wrong that the NRL didn't say to Northern Eagles that the franchise was a CC licence only, so if they folded, the licence reverted to NRL for a CC based team. But there you go. I think kicking out Souths was wrong too because it galvanised them to fight back and eventually win and get back in (not that I'm complaining as a Souths supporter) but they would have withered on the vine and died like Newtown.

Even when I talk with people about expansion today, a lot are still "ohhh...do we really need a Perth or Adelaide team? Will it work...I doubt it. They just don't care."

SL stuffed the game, no doubt. I detested it at the time. But they did a smidgen of good. And the ARL weren't the bad boogie men everyone seems to want to make them out to be. As early as 1982 they were expanding. Canberra, Illawarra, Newcastle, Brisbane, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Townsville, Perth, Auckland and Brisbane 2 all in the space of 13 years is a pretty good get in that time. Problem is, the local comps suffered at the expense of those new NSWRL/ARL teams. But still...they expanded and got a national footprint. Problem is, they culled Newtown and Wests, and Wests fought back. They didn't cull anyone before 1995 to make way for these new teams, with an eye to Melbourne and Adelaide.

So as a RL fan, they're all a bunch of merkins who set the game back 25 years.

Interesting point you bring up about the local competitions. I believe that the local competitions made a mistake by not choosing to play Saturday only football. This tact would have strengthened local clubs both culturally and player participation wise. Instead they continued on with mostly Sunday football and have lost alot of ground to other codes that play on Saturdays. Its a factor that has been sadly overlooked in this mess.

 

[davi]

The agreement reached to bring "peace"was disastrous for rugby league. It sent a negative message to all fans. The neutrals thought 'Whats wrong with this game? Why are they getting rid of their clubs!' It still defies logic especially as the Knights v Manly grandfinal was such an epic. With the general public won back courtesy of such an epic grandfinal and for the ARL to let the game down so badly with a capitulation to superleague thinking. It was unbelievably demoralising. I for one shook my head when they came to agree to cull, merge and eliminate so many great clubs! A real pity for a great code.

I'll say this ARL CEO Neil Whittaker had the thankless job of putting the two comps back together, whichever way he went and whatever decision he took he was going to be criticized. I mean really I don't think you could have a go at him for forwarding mergers, what was the game supposed to do continue with 11 Sydney teams in the comp?

A lot of fans and commentators have debated every scenario possible of which way the game should of went and what direction. I remember Gus Gould at the time was disillusioned with Sydney teams being culled or encouraged to go into mergers. He suggested he didn't have a problem with Whittaker but he had a problem with the people giving him advice suggesting they didn't have a clue about rugby league.

I have heard all sorts of theory's: "the ARL sold out to Newslimited, expansion teams should have been kept, Sydney teams should have been left alone, more Sydney teams should have been culled, more mergers should have happened, Broncos were news limited protected species". I actually think Whittaker did a pretty good job in what was a very difficult period for Rugby League. Pleasing everybody was never going to happen.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I still maintain that if the ARL had said no at the end of 1997 and persevered with their 1998 comp, they would have been in a stronger position.

The Newcastle win was like the tonic the game had needed, a salve as such.

The ARL had a comp of traditional teams - Norths, Souths, Easts, Wests, Balmain as well as Saints, Manly and Parramatta, along with city/regions Illawarra, Newcastle, Brisbane (Crushers), and Gold Coast. They were also looking at a Melbourne expansion side. They possessed the history and probably had a bit more of the sentiment on their side. There were also (unsubstantiated - I can't find links) whispers that a couple of SL clubs were tentatively asking to return to the ARL.

So...whilst the ARL was still Sydney heavy, they did have a reach in to Qld and regional NSW, with an eye to Victoria.

SL was suffering its own losses and bleeding $$$. As I said, it'd have been interesting if 1998 was still a split comp.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

I think there's a video on Youtube pre Super League and it mustve been on Wide World of Sports. They talked about how the game was shaping and possibly of expanding into Adelaide and Melbourne, but most likely relocating Sydney teams.

So back then there's mustve been a warning to Sydney teams to step up or relocate/die. People had ideas of merging clubs and even playing GF's in Brisbane.

The game looked as though it was planning to go national after the 4 teams (Perth, Cowboys, Warriors and Crushers) were named.

 

[King hit]

I can't help but think what could've been for the Reds. It was the code not the club that failed. They started off with over 20k at the WACA and had a decent competitive team and could've built on it but the backlash in Perth against them because of SL was catastrophic and they bleed money with the costs of the war and flying clubs to Perth.

The Crushers were just f**ked sharing a city with the SL protoganist and I imagine everybody in Brisbane turned their noses up at the Crushers and strongly took the Broncos side.

At least the Cowboys and Warriors survived

 

[Stallion]

I still maintain that if the ARL had said no at the end of 1997 and persevered with their 1998 comp, they would have been in a stronger position.

The Newcastle win was like the tonic the game had needed, a salve as such.

The ARL had a comp of traditional teams - Norths, Souths, Easts, Wests, Balmain as well as Saints, Manly and Parramatta, along with city/regions Illawarra, Newcastle, Brisbane (Crushers), and Gold Coast. They were also looking at a Melbourne expansion side. They possessed the history and probably had a bit more of the sentiment on their side. There were also (unsubstantiated - I can't find links) whispers that a couple of SL clubs were tentatively asking to return to the ARL.

So...whilst the ARL was still Sydney heavy, they did have a reach in to Qld and regional NSW, with an eye to Victoria.

SL was suffering its own losses and bleeding $$$. As I said, it'd have been interesting if 1998 was still a split comp.

Absolutely agree. The agreement made was totally against the code's progress. I still have the deep feeling that the Super league "war" was a masked and well orchestrated exercise at weakening the code and its progress in Australia. This being backed by a 'rival' code with connections at the top end of town that was concerned at the progress being achieved by the ARL in 1995.That's my gut feel.

 

[Stallion]

I think there's a video on Youtube pre Super League and it mustve been on Wide World of Sports. They talked about how the game was shaping and possibly of expanding into Adelaide and Melbourne, but most likely relocating Sydney teams.

So back then there's mustve been a warning to Sydney teams to step up or relocate/die. People had ideas of merging clubs and even playing GF's in Brisbane.

The game looked as though it was planning to go national after the 4 teams (Perth, Cowboys, Warriors and Crushers) were named.

Funnily enough these "merger and relocation" talks were promoted by the Daily Telegraph. A News Ltd business. All very negative and undermining the genuine progress of the code that was witnessed up to 1995.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I have absolutely no qualms if the NRL decided to put the GF to tender on a yearly basis.

A GF in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne...even the new stadia in Perth and Adelaide...even Auckland, why not? The hosting city has to put everything on too - fan days, parade, Dally M, etc. The whole kit and caboodle. Surely as a code we can be able to do that? People say Sydney aren't invested in a GF, esp if no Sydney team. Well...move them around. Even on a rotating schedule of Sydney, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth...etc. And yes...there a couple more Sydney's up front so people get used to it. Wouldn't want the poor dears at News Ltd having a conniption that Brisbane is getting a GF. Or one with 2 Sydney teams in it.