The idea of promotion and relegation is to keep the excitement levels up, and keep all areas interested.
I know, I like promotion and regulation and think it's a great idea.
Unfortunately we simply don't have the means to sustain PAR without it destroying the integrity of the competition.
I dont understand your thinking. You dull down excitement,.
What's there to not understand?
I'll place down what I said in my other post more clearly for you.
. Australia and NZ don't have populations large enough to produce enough players to support enough team of a high enough quality to support PAR in the NRL.
This means that there'd be an inherent unevenness in the competition as there wouldn't be enough top quality player to support enough teams to make PAR worth the investment.
. Australia and NZ don't have populations large enough to support enough large fan bases to support enough clubs of a high enough quality to support PAR in the NRL, and those populations aren't spread out enough geographically to support PAR.
In very simplified terms (without taking into account other sports demographics) this means that there aren't enough people in Australia and NZ to support enough clubs to make PAR worth the investment and risk, and of those people that are here the majority live on the East coast of Aus and on the upper part of the North Island in NZ which would cause an imbalances in the spread of clubs in the competition
. The popularity of RL isn't spread evenly enough across Australia and NZ to support PAR.
Basically what I said in the previous point, but pertaining to the popularity of the sport instead of the population it's self.
There're a handful of other smaller issues with PAR in Australia and NZ that I won't get into here.
So taking all of the above into consideration if we were to introduce PAR in the NRL right now the results would be disastrous, we'd have a competition where there was a small group of rich clubs, most likely all of which whom hail from Sydney and Brisbane that would smother out all the other teams, they'd suck up all the talent, sponsorship, coverage, support, etc, etc, then you'd have the rest clubs, none of which would have the means to be able to compete with the rich clubs unless they were bought by a billionaire.
The dream of any team at any level being able to go as high up the pecking order as possible if they are good enough would be corrupted be simple demographics and large amounts of money, and we'd be further away from that dream coming fruition then we were in the first place.
It works in England for a smaller comp, why wouldn't it work in Australia and NZ.
The PAR that they had in RL in England never really worked, and the reintroduction of it in the ESL is a mistake that was brought about by bowing to the will of the masses.
If they don't mange to get at least a couple teams from London into the SL1 within the decade it will cost them hundreds of millions of pounds and likely force them to once again change the structure of the competition back to a franchise based one.
You could keep the second division teams local until they need to travel. The better teams are the ones who move up and get a shot at being admitted.
Those local divisions wouldn't be the second division though would they, it'd be the competition of the better teams that moved up and got a shot at being admitted into the NRL that would be the second division. :lol:
As for losing teams like Melbourne or Perth, by having more feeder teams you have better chance of having at least one team in the top flight.
No not at all, by having more feeder teams you just create more teams that would be pillaged by richer teams for any good players that come though that club, and that pillaging by larger clubs would happen long before they got anywhere near the NRL.
Look, thinking negative all the tuime is why our code is not bigger.
There's thinking negatively and then there's thinking sensibly, I'm doing the later.
Being overly optimistic is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous then being overly conservative.
You talk about Brisbane or Queensland becoming saturated, mate look around. I just explained that the NRL is faking losing money because Brisbane only has one faking game a fortnight played at Suncorp.
Even if you wanted to follow the NRL in faking Brisbane, you might not see a game for 3 weeks some times.
That is dumb, that is the dumbest thing i think i have ever seen.
If you turn up for a stopover in Brisbne, there is a good chance you cant go to a live game of NRL that weekend.
Now tell me, is that dumb or what.
And your trying to tell me that Queens,land is saturated.
Here is my other leg, pull it, it plays tinklebells.
I'm not saying that Queensland or more specifically Brisbane is over saturated, simply that if we were to add more then one more team to South East Queensland, SEQ would either become over saturated or that we'd have wasted an expansion spot on a teams that we don't really need in South East Queensland as two in Brisbane and one on the GC (or representing another population if things really go to sh!T on the GC) is enough to meet our needs for the time being.
That statement doesn't rule out more expansion in to Queensland in the future, it simply says that the 4 clubs that we'll have after the second Brisbane club is introduced will be enough for at least the next couple of decades, and the only way that more clubs should be introduced into Queensland is if it is through the rationalization of Sydney.