Fans want expansîon to perth and brisbane

[oikee]

The Storm aren't cemented enough yet.

Placing a second team in Melbourne would probably just cannibalize the Storms support and create a situation similar to the Swans and GWS, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if we were willing to underwrite both clubs until they became stable, which could take decades. However I don't see why the NRL would take that route if they didn't have to as it's incredibly expensive and it's a terrible look for the sport.

A well thought out relocation plan similar to this might work to make a club in Adelaide possible a lot sooner, hell the NRL could place a team there in 2018 with extra grants from the NRL for relocating and a Sydney membership deal that gets members into all of their away games in Sydney.

Yes agree. I dont expect the NRL to put a second team into Melbourne like toomoorow, but at least they can think about having the second team no later than say 10 years from now.

The support, as in derby, sponsors, extra fans and a game every weekend for Melbourne, all has to be a factor for a second team. It just makes sense.

As for Adelaide, for fakes sake, forget faking Adelaide.
We dont want to make the same mistake we have made in NZ and Brisbane, not having a second team in the one city.

Expanding to Adelaide over Melbourne will just hinder growth for another 10 years.
We needs derbies in the one city. Adelaide would be a 30 year project to build a support base, 5 times as hard as Melbourne would be.
Why would you want to shoot yourself in the faking foot.
Forget faking Adelaide, stop talking about this faking one-eyed city that supports one code, and we basically hear nothing about unless they have found a barrel.

Perth i can live with. Only because they have rugby union team their, so it makes sense to help with the growth of the word rugby.

We can expand to Adelaide by taking World Cup games, Nines tournaments, test matches NRL games their.
That is enough, the people in this city are braindead AFL fans, lets leave it at that.

 

[oikee]

We (the general public) will probably never know the NRL's full expansion plans, if they even design a plan for expansion that is.

If they do create a long term strategic expansion plan to grow the game and competition, the public will only see parts of the plan when it's necessary to show us.

So I wouldn't get your hopes up for a document describing the full extent of the NRLs expansion plans to be released if I was you.

True.
The NRL (Dave Smith) has recently said the game is now in a position to look at a 20 year plan.
The game is strong, the strongest it has ever been (kind of scary because i think it can be a lot stronger) , so strongest it has ever been and he said they were looking at plans for the future expansion of the game.
Bloody awesome.
Here is my wishlist for a 20 year expansion.
2x 10 team conference, that rotates teams halway through the season and rotates over a 2 year period so every team plays each other team at both home and away over those 2 years.

The new expansion teams will be Perth, Brisbane2, Melbourne2, Auckland2.

Any team that might happen to fold, then Central QLD is automatically invited. No questions asked, no other areas need to bid.

We have a 19 NRL game season,,,, plus the finals.
We stop for origin and internationals over a 3 week middle of year stoppage. (island of origin and pacific games for world cup selection can also be played at this time, so we are thinking about world cups)
We celebrate Anzac day (much like we are doing)
Our pre-season starts with World Club Challenge, All-stars and (3 weekend Nines blockbuster with faking huge prize-money).

Any players who drop out of any event needs a doctor's certificate, this is their job after all.
They either promote our code or fake-off.

Every team has to take one game to another state or country town area.
So small country towns have a proper NRL game, not trail games.
Thats my vision, my future.

 

[Perth Red]

You over rate derbies! How well is the GC v Broncos derby going? Some sydney derbies draw 10k. If you only have x amount of fans, splitting them between two clubs is just dumb.

 

[papabear]

imo oikee does overrate derbies

however his point regarding population is very valid.

The population and interest in rugby league in Melbourne compared to radelaide makes it quite an obvious choice for a second side before Adelaide got a side.

I don't like the continual poopooing on the sharks.
Easts and manly have less juniors, and if they were going through the same 40 yr drought they would have half the fans of the sharks.
Penrith was also really battling for a while. I just don't think the sharks are far below every other weak Sydney club.

An issue that oikee never touches on is why was the last qld expansion such an abysmal failure. The CC bears imo would have done so much more for the comp both juniors and interest wise then the GC.

The worst the about the GC is that a second Brisbane should be in there ASAP but the abysmalness of the GC might slow that process down.

I think it is a given that perth will get a license for the next tv contract the big question is whether the nrl will give an 18th or wait a year before putting another one in.

Back on oikee though, I also agree with his point that Auckland should get a second side before a south island rugby league side.

If maccas or subway took a dots on the map approach as opposed to putting franchises to where the demand was they would have ended up like sizzler or red rooster.

 

[papabear]

the notion that central qld should get into the nrl before the cc bears is imo insanity.

 

[Perth Red]

There is nothing to suggest a second team in auckland or melbourne would have enpugh fans to sustain it. Maybe if the storm and warriors were getting 25k plus there might be an argument but as both regularly get crowds u der 15k where are the other 20k fans going to come from in those cities that are not currently watching those clubs? Personally I'd prefer to see storm and warriors getting 30k crowds rather tha. Dilute the fanbase and have two clubs drawing 10-15k.

 

[The Great Dane]

Yes agree. I dont expect the NRL to put a second team into Melbourne like toomoorow, but at least they can think about having the second team no later than say 10 years from now.

Unless current treads change dramatically I can't see Melbourne being a realistic option for expansion until the late 2020's at the very earliest.

Any talk of a second Melbourne team entering the competition before 2028ish is just bravado of the kind that saw GWS enter the AFL before 2025ish.

The support, as in derby, sponsors, extra fans and a game every weekend for Melbourne, all has to be a factor for a second team. It just makes sense.

The problems with your logic here are numerous.

For starters take the "extra fans" bit, in the case of cities that already have clubs there's already a directly accessible club for fans of the sport to support and adding another club doesn't just magically generate new fans for the sport, the people that will be interested in supporting the new club are already fans in some capacity.

So what needs to be established before a second team is put in place is how much of an impact on the original clubs fan-base would a second club have and whether or not there're enough fans of the sport in general in the city to support two clubs. Otherwise you may end up effectively just cutting one clubs supporters base in two to support two club, which creates the classic two weak clubs instead of one strong one.

You also ignore the possibility that there may not be demand for a game every weekend in Melbourne (or any other city) and also that for a derby to be valuable their needs to be either a vehement sub-cultural divide within the city or a tribalised geographical border within the city otherwise the derby isn't seen as a big deal as all a derby is is a rivalry that takes place between two clubs that happen to be from the same city, if there's nothing to create a rivalry then there's no rivalry and if the clubs in question aren't rivals there's no derby.

As for Adelaide, for fakes sake, forget faking Adelaide.
We dont want to make the same mistake we have made in NZ and Brisbane, not having a second team in the one city.

Expanding to Adelaide over Melbourne will just hinder growth for another 10 years.
We needs derbies in the one city. Adelaide would be a 30 year project to build a support base, 5 times as hard as Melbourne would be.
Why would you want to shoot yourself in the faking foot.
Forget faking Adelaide, stop talking about this faking one-eyed city that supports one code, and we basically hear nothing about unless they have found a barrel.

Perth i can live with. Only because they have rugby union team their, so it makes sense to help with the growth of the word rugby.

We can expand to Adelaide by taking World Cup games, Nines tournaments, test matches NRL games their.
That is enough, the people in this city are braindead AFL fans, lets leave it at that.

I don't really understand your anti Adelaide stance, and I don't think I want to. So I'll just address some points that have been bolded.

Firstly, there is no reason why we'd have to choose between expanding to Adelaide and Melbourne, within a 20-30 year time period we could do both.

Secondly, as I very briefly addressed above derbies don't always work, aren't always worth the money it would take to put them in place, aren't a necessity and aren't always possible to create.

Thirdly, it wouldn't take 30 years to prepare Adelaide for an NRL team, provided that more funds and resources were given to the NRLSA and professional people picked by the NRL were instilled to oversee the preparations, it'd take roughly the same amount of time that it took Perth to get ready for an NRL team, so only the better part of a decade.

Backward argumentation like "faking one-eyed city that supports one code" is incredibly simplistic and if taken seriously could be used to shutdown any expansion opportunity.

Finally, SA is a valuable market, admittedly not as valuable as Brisbane, Auckland, the rest of NZ, Perth and Melbourne, but still valuable none the less and it's worth placing a team in Adelaide to tap into that wealth. Realistically A second Auckland team and a second Melbourne team are a decade and a half away from being viable expansion options and in the meantime we have three areas (Brisbane, Perth and a Wellington based NZ2) that need and can sustain clubs. So we've got an odd number and need another club to makeup numbers unless we're satisfied with a bye (which I am not as it's a waste of potential) and the next largest market that could support an NRL club within the next 30 years is Adelaide! As I stated before with the right support they could be ready to go within the a decade and they offer the NRL a truly national footprint, the opportunity to be able to create equal conferences (when we inevitably need to) on top of the a fore mentioned access to a valuable market.

Also if we choose to expand to Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane 2, NZ 2 and in a decade or two Auckland 2 and Melbourne 2 instead of a relocating to any of them, that leaves us with roughly 3-5 Sydney based clubs that will eventually need to relocate for the competition to be sustainable, that we can arrange relocation to smaller markets (such as the CC and CQ) that couldn't support NRL clubs on their own, thus giving us sustainable constant access to 3-5 more markets on top of the aforementioned markets that we wouldn't have whilst still sustaining an even number of clubs for easy scheduling.

Unless realistic expansion opportunities in Asia and the South Pacific come a lot earlier then I or anybody else anticipate, having a team in Adelaide is the best way forward without over diluting markets such as Brisbane, Melbourne and NZ with third clubs before both the NRL and the markets themselves are ready for it.

 

[The Great Dane]

Any team that might happen to fold, then Central QLD is automatically invited. No questions asked, no other areas need to bid.

That's bad policy.

You don't promise a license to an area unless that area is the best option of that license, and there's absolutely no way we could know ahead of time that CQ will be the best option for the license of a folded club then ahead of time, let alone if we want the license to move at all.

Something catastrophic could happen and the Broncos could fold tomorrow and the NRL would be up sh!t creek without a paddle because they'd have promised CQ the license, thus leaving them in the lose lose situation of either not having a presence in Brisbane and loosing hundreds of millions of dollars in income every year and having to deal with the media storm about not having a presences in Brissy or going back on their word and pissing off every person involved in RL in CQ and every fan in CQ and having to deal with the media storm about going back on their word to CQ.

Things like these need to be taken on a case by case basis, and promising licenses ahead of time is bloody terrible idea.

Every team has to take one game to another state or country town area.
So small country towns have a proper NRL game, not trail games.
Thats my vision, my future.

I've been over this a hundred times and cannot be bothered to explain all the arguments, but it isn't always realistic to take a home game away from every club every year and there're better ways of planing and implementing programs that allow for games to be played in target areas then just forcing clubs to take home games away when that may be detrimental.

 

[oikee]

the notion that central qld should get into the nrl before the cc bears is imo insanity.

I had the bears in mind when i wrote that. I was going to include the Central NSW coast.
So yes, the Bears are a team i would like to see back in the game.
So the Bears would be in the race against central Queensland, i agree with you, i was too bendered to change my post again.
Looks like some of my posts are gone.
No worries, i was talking rubbish .

 

[oikee]

Unless current treads change dramatically I can't see Melbourne being a realistic option for expansion until the late 2020's at the very earliest.

Any talk of a second Melbourne team entering the competition before 2028ish is just bravado of the kind that saw GWS enter the AFL before 2025ish.



The problems with your logic here are numerous.

For starters take the "extra fans" bit, in the case of cities that already have clubs there's already a directly accessible club for fans of the sport to support and adding another club doesn't just magically generate new fans for the sport, the people that will be interested in supporting the new club are already fans in some capacity.

So what needs to be established before a second team is put in place is how much of an impact on the original clubs fan-base would a second club have and whether or not there're enough fans of the sport in general in the city to support two clubs. Otherwise you may end up effectively just cutting one clubs supporters base in two to support two club, which creates the classic two weak clubs instead of one strong one.

You also ignore the possibility that there may not be demand for a game every weekend in Melbourne (or any other city) and also that for a derby to be valuable their needs to be either a vehement sub-cultural divide within the city or a tribalised geographical border within the city otherwise the derby isn't seen as a big deal as all a derby is is a rivalry that takes place between two clubs that happen to be from the same city, if there's nothing to create a rivalry then there's no rivalry and if the clubs in question aren't rivals there's no derby.



I don't really understand your anti Adelaide stance, and I don't think I want to. So I'll just address some points that have been bolded.

Firstly, there is no reason why we'd have to choose between expanding to Adelaide and Melbourne, within a 20-30 year time period we could do both.

Secondly, as I very briefly addressed above derbies don't always work, aren't always worth the money it would take to put them in place, aren't a necessity and aren't always possible to create.

Thirdly, it wouldn't take 30 years to prepare Adelaide for an NRL team, provided that more funds and resources were given to the NRLSA and professional people picked by the NRL were instilled to oversee the preparations, it'd take roughly the same amount of time that it took Perth to get ready for an NRL team, so only the better part of a decade.

Backward argumentation like "faking one-eyed city that supports one code" is incredibly simplistic and if taken seriously could be used to shutdown any expansion opportunity.

Finally, SA is a valuable market, admittedly not as valuable as Brisbane, Auckland, the rest of NZ, Perth and Melbourne, but still valuable none the less and it's worth placing a team in Adelaide to tap into that wealth. Realistically A second Auckland team and a second Melbourne team are a decade and a half away from being viable expansion options and in the meantime we have three areas (Brisbane, Perth and a Wellington based NZ2) that need and can sustain clubs. So we've got an odd number and need another club to makeup numbers unless we're satisfied with a bye (which I am not as it's a waste of potential) and the next largest market that could support an NRL club within the next 30 years is Adelaide! As I stated before with the right support they could be ready to go within the a decade and they offer the NRL a truly national footprint, the opportunity to be able to create equal conferences (when we inevitably need to) on top of the a fore mentioned access to a valuable market.

Also if we choose to expand to Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane 2, NZ 2 and in a decade or two Auckland 2 and Melbourne 2 instead of a relocating to any of them, that leaves us with roughly 3-5 Sydney based clubs that will eventually need to relocate for the competition to be sustainable, that we can arrange relocation to smaller markets (such as the CC and CQ) that couldn't support NRL clubs on their own, thus giving us sustainable constant access to 3-5 more markets on top of the aforementioned markets that we wouldn't have whilst still sustaining an even number of clubs for easy scheduling.

Unless realistic expansion opportunities in Asia and the South Pacific come a lot earlier then I or anybody else anticipate, having a team in Adelaide is the best way forward without over diluting markets such as Brisbane, Melbourne and NZ with third clubs before both the NRL and the markets themselves are ready for it.

Look, i bolded a couple of your points because you have too much trivial amounst it, without any facts or truth.

Yes it is simplistic, because this works. And it is the reason why derbies work.
I mean how much faking proof do you need.
Manchester united, Manchester city.
Sydney FC, Wanderers.
Essendon, Carlton
Collingwood, Carlton,.
Melbourne city, Melbourne FC
Swans Giants

They are all working and will grow.

So it is now back to you, show me where derbies dont build support and crowds and fans. Show me.

South OZ a valuable market. ?? Really.
It is a city of 1 million, and has grown little over the last 2 decades.
It is hardly talked about, they just spent a faking fortune on a round ground, (so investment in a rectangle ground wont come easy).

I mean shite, it took nearly a decade for the Storm to get out of a round training track and into a new 30 thousand stadium.
They could not build a bigger one because Melbourne have in place a monopoly for round grounds and stadiums because of a clause for etihad.

As i pointed out in my city and stadium rant yesterday.
Melbourne has shite stadiums for rugby league, union and even soccer to use. (big grounds over 30 thousand)
We should be looking at now the use of the new stadiums in Perth and Adelaide.
For big games.
As for giving them a team. again, what is the sense of games that need to be played in rectangle grounds, played in round grounds where our atmosphere is lost.

This goes back to my lack of marketing and promotion managers.
I mean the AFL would never play a game on a rectangle field, ? no, they are not that stupid.
We are "that stupid", we do it all the time and whinge like crap because it is souless. (SCG, ANZ, round grounds)

 

[Canard]

AAMI Park is the 2nd best rectangular stadium in the Country.

 

[Perth Red]

you can tell he's never been! He's talking capacity when in reality RL needs a bigger capacity stadium in Melbourne once every blue moon. aami is the perfect size for RL. Every club in Sydney should be playing in an aami quality stadium

 

[The Great Dane]

Look, i bolded a couple of your points because you have too much trivial amounst it, without any facts or truth.

Pot, kettle, black.

Yes it is simplistic, because this works. And it is the reason why derbies work.
I mean how much faking proof do you need.
Manchester united, Manchester city.
Sydney FC, Wanderers.
Essendon, Carlton
Collingwood, Carlton,.
Melbourne city, Melbourne FC
Swans Giants

They are all working and will grow.

So it is now back to you, show me where derbies dont build support and crowds and fans. Show me.

Firstly Swans vs Giants is probably the least successful derby in the Country.

Secondly I already briefly explained when and why (in most cases) that derbies don't work. When dumbed down as much as possible, it's a basic lack of rivalry that causes them not to work on occasion.

But if you want a list of derbies that don't work and aren't the great sellers you make them out to be then here-

Broncos vs Titans.
Sharks vs Bulldogs.
Roosters vs Eels.
Sharks vs Rooster.
Manly vs Dragons.
North Melbourne vs Wests Bulldogs.
Demons vs NM.
St Kilda vs Geelong.
Eels vs Rabbitohs
Etc, etc, etc, etc.

South OZ a valuable market. ?? Really.

When compared with the other options for expansion, the restraints of previous mistakes and the reality that we need an even number of teams for the competition to run smoothly, yes it's a valuable market to the NRL.

In fact it'd be in the top three untapped markets that are realistic options for NRL expansion- Perth, Wellington-South Island, Adelaide.

It is a city of 1 million, and has grown little over the last 2 decades.
It is hardly talked about, they just spent a faking fortune on a round ground, (so investment in a rectangle ground wont come easy).

There's this mythical rectangular stadium in Adelaide called Hindmarsh (which I believe may be getting a redeveloped some time soon)!

Sure it's no Suncorp or AAAMI, but it could be used as a short term solution until a new rectangular stadium is built.

I mean shite, it took nearly a decade for the Storm to get out of a round training track and into a new 30 thousand stadium.
They could not build a bigger one because Melbourne have in place a monopoly for round grounds and stadiums because of a clause for etihad.

As i pointed out in my city and stadium rant yesterday.
Melbourne has shite stadiums for rugby league, union and even soccer to use. (big grounds over 30 thousand)
We should be looking at now the use of the new stadiums in Perth and Adelaide.
For big games.
As for giving them a team. again, what is the sense of games that need to be played in rectangle grounds, played in round grounds where our atmosphere is lost.

Yeah AAMI is easily the second best rectangular stadium in the county that I've ever been too, behind Bruce of course .

I think maybe you should go and watch a game there before bagging it out.

This goes back to my lack of marketing and promotion managers.
I mean the AFL would never play a game on a rectangle field, ? no, they are not that stupid.
We are "that stupid", we do it all the time and whinge like crap because it is souless. (SCG, ANZ, round grounds)

Of course they don't, rectangular fields are to small to play an AFL game on, so even if they wanted to they couldn't.

It's got nothing to do with marketing, it's just maths.

 

[papabear]

There are 300k ppl in Wellington and they have a pro soccer team pro rugby side
Over a mill in Auckland with only a pro rugby and league side and more of a league friendly city.

Same argument could be made for Adelaide v melbourne 2. Keep in mind just like Melb has a ton of afl Vfl clubs SA has heaps of safl clubs.

even the nfl has two clubs in ny... A second side in a city doesn't have to can cannabalise support if it is done correctly.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

There are 300k ppl in Wellington and they have a pro soccer team pro rugby side
Over a mill in Auckland with only a pro rugby and league side and more of a league friendly city.

Same argument could be made for Adelaide v melbourne 2. Keep in mind just like Melb has a ton of afl Vfl clubs SA has heaps of safl clubs.

even the nfl has two clubs in ny... A second side in a city doesn't have to can cannabalise support if it is done correctly.

NY NFL teams arent a great example to use here, but you are right in saying that multiple teams per city can help each other....

The rivalry between the two will benefit in multiple ways:
- the admin of each side is will be more adventurous and forward thinking as neither will want to be the "little brother" (we've seen in the Broncos the effect with complacency; a city of 2 mil to themselves and they are happy with a half full Suncorp)
- The same "Little brother" mentality will drive fans to be forward about their support (State of Origin is an example of this; the competitive hate for the opposition does far more than state parochialism alone)

A second Aukland team would be worth considering. Im not saying it NEEDS to happen, but it has potential and should be examined, maybe even ahead of a Wellington team...

 

[The Great Dane]

Just want to clarify that I'm not opposed to the idea of either Auckland or Melbourne getting second teams, in fact I would support both cities getting second clubs in time.

Rather I'm opposed to rushing ahead and placing a second clubs in each city before they are ready to support a second club and then watching them never meet their full potential because of that, all the while at the same time ignoring other markets that should be targets for expansion that will be ready to support clubs sooner then Auckland and Melbourne will be ready to support their second clubs, just because they're smaller markets then Auckland and Melbourne.

I feel that some people are either mistakenly seeing this as an either or question when it's not, expanding to Adelaide doesn't make expanding to Melbourne impossible or vice versa, or they are IMO mistakenly of the opinion that we should expand to the largest markets first simply because they are the largest, when that may not be in our best interests.

 

[Canard]

NY is a city of half the population of Australia and NFL is the major football code of that city. That's not the case at all for Melbourne and Auckland.

It's decades before they are expansion candidates. Similarly with Wellington to be honest.

 

[oikee]

There are 300k ppl in Wellington and they have a pro soccer team pro rugby side
Over a mill in Auckland with only a pro rugby and league side and more of a league friendly city.

Same argument could be made for Adelaide v melbourne 2. Keep in mind just like Melb has a ton of afl Vfl clubs SA has heaps of safl clubs.

even the nfl has two clubs in ny... A second side in a city doesn't have to can cannabalise support if it is done correctly.

Mate save your breath.
I just finished trying to explain why Melbourne and Auckalnd are better options and got belted down by the great dane, only for him to say he is not against these two cities.

Mate his trying to explain to us that Wellington, a city of let's say 300 thousand is abetter option than a city of 2 million Auckland,, ? and our heartland.

And he is trying to sell us Adelaide that is one-eyed towards AFL, and it would take us 50 faking years to even get the average crowd to 10 thousand. He thinks that is good economics,
He wants us to plonk teams in places where we have to win support over 30 faking years, compared to where we can create instant derbies.
He also tried to say derbies dont build fans or tv viewers or crowds.

The guy is the Hellrider, i am convinced, he is here just to cause hell for anyone who has a better plan than his dopey ideas.

You know why they dont like common sense on this site, ? because they have never seen it before, it scares them.

Just imagine this scenario , imagine if the a-league or even the afl or union, beat Brisbane to a second team.

That is how dopey not having two teams in your heartland.
As each year rolls by, and as the AFL derbies in every city get bigger and bigger, Eddie Mcguire laughs his faking tits off because rugby league has only got one city that can perform a proper city derby.
And that one city has that many to a point that nobody gives a shite.
As Great Dane pointed out nicely.
He showed how Sydney derbies suck, their are two many teams, two many derbies, people got bored.
That is another issue, for another time.

 

[Perth Red]

And he is trying to sell us Adelaide that is one-eyed towards AFL, and it would take us 50 faking years to even get the average crowd to 10 thousand.

Adelaide Rams - avg attendance 15,330
1997 9 137968 15330

Just saying lol

 

[Perth Red]

Mate save your breath.
I just finished trying to explain why Melbourne and Auckalnd are better options and got belted down by the great dane, only for him to say he is not against these two cities.

Mate his trying to explain to us that Wellington, a city of let's say 300 thousand is abetter option than a city of 2 million Auckland,, ? and our heartland.

And he is trying to sell us Adelaide that is one-eyed towards AFL, and it would take us 50 faking years to even get the average crowd to 10 thousand. He thinks that is good economics,
He wants us to plonk teams in places where we have to win support over 30 faking years, compared to where we can create instant derbies.
He also tried to say derbies dont build fans or tv viewers or crowds.

The guy is the Hellrider, i am convinced, he is here just to cause hell for anyone who has a better plan than his dopey ideas.

You know why they dont like common sense on this site, ? because they have never seen it before, it scares them.

Just imagine this scenario , imagine if the a-league or even the afl or union, beat Brisbane to a second team.

That is how dopey not having two teams in your heartland.
As each year rolls by, and as the AFL derbies in every city get bigger and bigger, Eddie Mcguire laughs his faking tits off because rugby league has only got one city that can perform a proper city derby.
And that one city has that many to a point that nobody gives a shite.
As Great Dane pointed out nicely.
He showed how Sydney derbies suck, their are two many teams, two many derbies, people got bored.
That is another issue, for another time.

So you'd base NRL expansion on two games a year? hmmm some logic somewhere I'm sure lol.

of course Brisbane needs a second team, but its got sweet FA to do with two derby games a year. The idea of Auckland or Melbourne being able to sustain another team anytime in the next 20-30 years is ridiculous. People say fish where the fish are, no good if it is also where all the fishermen are! At the moment we have some major population centres with zero exposure to regular NRL and no choice for Rl fans or kids in that area to follow NRL locally. That is where we need to dip our rods!