Adelaide & Perth: Part 2

[Alan Shore]

Do you think we should have Adelaide and Perth teams?

IMO we should. At the moment we're little more than an East Coast comp and in the long run it'll generate extre revenue in terms of sponsorship, and can only make the game stronger. Plus it ensures that the AFL never take over NSW or QLD.

 

[southern warrior]

yea i think they should they let us in.

 

[Special K]

For sure but it needs to be planned well...

* Like each team has to release a player who has played x amount of games

* the teams should have a higher salary cap

and say the clubs were to come in, in 2006 and they make their minds up about the clubs next year. The clubs should be able to sign players in advance. What I mean is the clubs should be able to sign players who are coming off contract in 2005 for 2006 before the other clubs get a chance.

By doing this it makes sure they have a good team. A good team will bring bandwagon fans(See swans) and it would make our comp look a lot better in these states as no body wants to see a team that gets flogged each week. But i'm sure everyone would bitch about this as each club is out for themselves which blows goats.

 

[Bengal]

If the game can afford them yes.

If the teams can operate profitably yes.

 

[Stevo_G]

the nrl should never of axed adelaide or perth
why was the rams axed they were in the nrl for one year then in 1999 they were axed due to losing main sponsor what a load of shit

 

[Alan Shore]

the nrl should never of axed adelaide or perth
why was the rams axed they were in the nrl for one year then in 1999 they were axed due to losing main sponsor what a load of sh*t

They didn't lose sponsors, they were just a sacrifice. And the NRL bullied Balmain out of a merger with Adelaide and of course subsequent relocation. Their playing staff for 1999 was awesome and would have made the finals.

 

[Razor]

the nrl should never of axed adelaide or perth
why was the rams axed they were in the nrl for one year then in 1999 they were axed due to losing main sponsor what a load of sh*t

They were axed as part of the plan to reduce to 14 teams.

At the end of 1998 both ARL and News Ltd had to punt a team - The ARL chose the Gold Coast and News Ltd chose Adelaide.

 

[dimitri]

news ltd punted

perth
adelaide
and hunter


so much for their idea of a national comp

:roll:

 

[Alan Shore]

news ltd punted

perth
adelaide
and hunter


so much for their idea of a national comp

:roll:

I don't understand why we had to axe teams for the sake of reunification in the first place. The only logical team to axe was Hunter.

 

[King Tigerman]

the nrl should never of axed adelaide or perth
why was the rams axed they were in the nrl for one year then in 1999 they were axed due to losing main sponsor what a load of sh*t

They didn't lose sponsors, they were just a sacrifice. And the NRL bullied Balmain out of a merger with Adelaide and of course subsequent relocation. Their playing staff for 1999 was awesome and would have made the finals.

but adelaide couldnt fill an 8000 seat stadium

neither city should be considered for at least 10 years remember theres at least 5 sides that are in line to get included in the competition before them

 

[sydraider]

From what has been brought to my attention in recent times is that there are a few players coming out of the SA and WA league competitions and signing with NRL clubs. These leagues esp the SA one desperatley need funds to continue, they are struggling. I feel that the ARL/NRL should prop up these comps and build a bigger junior base, then in the future as the NRL grows then add your ADELAIDE and PERTH teams. The junior base would already be there and a reasonable infrastructure in place, i feel it should start from the ground up.

 

[Alan Shore]

the nrl should never of axed adelaide or perth
why was the rams axed they were in the nrl for one year then in 1999 they were axed due to losing main sponsor what a load of sh*t

They didn't lose sponsors, they were just a sacrifice. And the NRL bullied Balmain out of a merger with Adelaide and of course subsequent relocation. Their playing staff for 1999 was awesome and would have made the finals.

but adelaide couldnt fill an 8000 seat stadium

neither city should be considered for at least 10 years remember theres at least 5 sides that are in line to get included in the competition before them

Yes they did.

And what 5 sides? Name them. The only team ahead of them is Gold Coast. After them, Perth and Adelaide MUST take priority.

 

[dannyboy]

Stop kidding yourselves that it could be a truly NATIONAL rugby league. Face the facts that it is & always will be a predominantly eastern sea-board sport (& for that matter really only north of Woodonga).

Yes there are supporters in those other states (WA, SA etc) who would love to see & support a team of their own BUT really the sports mad folk of those states are by & large just like those Mexicans (read Victorians) who will bleed AFL, crawl across broken glass & support more AFL and then when there's nothing else to do they'll watch some League while they patch up the cuts from the broken glass.

Sponsorship in those states will go to AFL first, second & third before League is even considered because of it's wider support network.

Costs of transporting team(s) around Australia will be too pricey...I'm talking more "Reds" & 'Rams" costs...at least the Sydney, Canberra & Newcastle teams are only a road-trip apart....SA & WA would need extra funding above all other teams and the fickle supporter mobs of all other teams will very quickly get browned off about that ("why should they get more money???").

In a perfect world it would be great to make it NATIONAL but this isn't a perfect world and egos, politics & power-plays will always rule - unfortunately a top grade football club is a business first & foremost before it's a team-sport

 

[Alan Shore]

Stop kidding yourselves that it could be a truly NATIONAL rugby league. Face the facts that it is & always will be a predominantly eastern sea-board sport (& for that matter really only north of Woodonga).

Yes there are supporters in those other states (WA, SA etc) who would love to see & support a team of their own BUT really the sports mad folk of those states are by & large just like those Mexicans (read Victorians) who will bleed AFL, crawl across broken glass & support more AFL and then when there's nothing else to do they'll watch some League while they patch up the cuts from the broken glass.

Sponsorship in those states will go to AFL first, second & third before League is even considered because of it's wider support network.

Costs of transporting team(s) around Australia will be too pricey...I'm talking more "Reds" & 'Rams" costs...at least the Sydney, Canberra & Newcastle teams are only a road-trip apart....SA & WA would need extra funding above all other teams and the fickle supporter mobs of all other teams will very quickly get browned off about that ("why should they get more money???").

In a perfect world it would be great to make it NATIONAL but this isn't a perfect world and egos, politics & power-plays will always rule - unfortunately a top grade football club is a business first & foremost before it's a team-sport

What a load of crap.

The AFL manages Brisbane-Perth travelling no problems.

WA & SA both have first graders in the NRL and there could be so much more if we actually had teams there. In fact by going National we get extra sponsorship. Crowds for both the Rams and Reds were excellent.

It is idiots like you who are letting AFL try and take over.

 

[XXXX]

Why start a second thread Tamazoid ? Couldn't handle the truth of the first thread .The first priority should be the Storm not risky ventures .
People quote the good crowds for the Reds but they ended with absolutely dismal crowds .This was at a time when RL did have a profile on TV .Good God the NRL GF isn't even live here!

 

[miccle]

I think we should worry about fixing up the east coast - get a team in Central nsw, the gold coast and a second nz team. When the league is strong enough, then venture west!

 

[Alan Shore]

Why start a second thread Tamazoid ? Couldn't handle the truth of the first thread .The first priority should be the Storm not risky ventures .
People quote the good crowds for the Reds but they ended with absolutely dismal crowds .This was at a time when RL did have a profile on TV .Good God the NRL GF isn't even live here!

Reds crowds only dimished because they knew they were to be punted. The fact the NRL GF isn't live in WA or SA is not a valid argument for not including these teams. Perth definently would NOT be a risky venture. There is a huge market there.

miccle, the East Coat market is solid and it can only be fortified by expansion.

 

[Mad Dogg]

I would definitely say Perth should be ahead of Adelaide if it came down to a choice between them. And over-all, I'd say it should only be behind the Gold Coast.

 

[XXXX]

OK Tamazoid
What would the crowd break-even point be ?
How long would you be prepared to prop up a new team ?
Also a few minor points .
Where would they play out of ?
What about sponsorship ?
What about travel equalisation ?
Who would be funding the new team ?
Where would the players come from ?
What about TV exposure ?
What about promotion ?

 

[Alan Shore]

OK Tamazoid
What would the crowd break-even point be ?

I'm not a stadium manager in SA or WA.

How long would you be prepared to prop up a new team ?

15-20 years.

Where would they play out of ?

Adelaide: Hindmarsh Stadium. Capacity of 15,000 and recently upgraded.

Perth: I believe a new rectangular sports ground was built, so there. Perth Oval is converted for Perth Glory matches, so we could probably play there. Capacity of 16,000. The WACA has a 22,000 capacity and the stands are now closer to the action. Arena Joondalup is in Perth's suburbs and can take 20,000.

What about sponsorship ?

It's not that hard to attract sponsors. It's not as if the people who jumped up and down for the Reds in the first place have died either.

What about travel equalisation ?

Sponsorship by Qantas or Virgin Blue. It's no big deal with the AFL.

Who would be funding the new team ?

Cutting costs by axing useless organisations and bring the game under one umbrella, the NRL. And the Christmas Party fund at Philip St that's funded by all those fines. It's $10m to run an NRL club annually. We could probably squeeze $5m out of the Belgian bloke in exchange for his Orcas.

Where would the players come from ?

There are more than enough players to accommodate them. Look at all the Aussies in England, and it would be motive to send talent scouts to places like PNG and Fiji.

What about TV exposure ?

Sign a decent deal with Seven/Nine/Ten that will increase the amount of money paid for rights, and clauses in the contract that make the station show matches at the worst on 90min delay.

What about promotion ?

News Corp.

And this can be covered by the new TV rights deal.