In an 18 team comp...

[Perth Red]

The trick is getting the balance between tribalism in the games biggest and most valuable market whilst ensuring the game grows and has a national presence. It is an extremely difficult balance to reach without upsetting someone but I think most can see that a 16 or 18 team comp that includes expansion into CC, Wellington, Perth and Brisbane2 is the ideal. How we create space for these 4 new teams without destroying the fabric of what makes the game special in Sydney is the hard bit and one I don;t really have an answer to!

 

[docbrown]

Given that there would still be 9 Sydney teams plus Newcastle and possibly Central Coast there's plenty of scope for maintaining traditional games and rivalry games every round. Central Coast also has the benefit of introducing 4 new rivalry games a season against Newcastle & Manly.

The added benefit of a 4th Qld team also means that they can have up to 12 derbies a year and that will only further help their crowd and television numbers.

A second New Zealand team means two derby games a year and a game in New Zealand every week to capture more attention over there. A team in Perth expands the game's national profile.

The draw can be scheduled such that each club plays 2 expansion teams at home and 2 away minimising any effect.

 

[davi]

Phil Rothfield suggests an 18 team comp would be the best way for the NRL to go. Another team in Brisbane and a team in Perth Rothfield suggests would be the best destinations.


"Monday Buzz: Why NRL needs two more teams
Phil Rothfield, The Daily Telegraph
April 3, 2017 7:29am
Subscriber only
FIVE years ago the independent commission released a strategic plan to grow the game of rugby league.

Crowds would average 20,000 by 2017. (They have fallen 20 per cent short with the average now around 16,000 in the past two seasons and no sign of growth, especially in Sydney).

Also $200 million would be available for investment in key projects. (This money is not available).

Club membership would reach 400,000 by 2017. (It’s now 270,000).


The point of this column is not to criticise the NRL but to look at the only way to achieve the goals from the strategic plan. And that’s by NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg putting expansion back on the table.

This rubbish that the game cannot afford another two teams comes from ill-informed officials who have not even bothered to look at the benefits of adding a Perth team and a second side in Brisbane.


BENEFIT ONE

The NRL would get an extra $50 million a year from the television networks by paying for nine games instead of eight each weekend.

The current $2 billion broadcast deal averages out at $2 million per game.

The NRL would give the new clubs $12 million each in grants (the recently negotiated 30 per cent more than the salary cap).

That leaves the game with an extra $125 million over the five years of the broadcast deal from having nine games once the new clubs have been paid.


BENEFIT TWO

By introducing a Perth side, the NRL gets closer to being a national competition which would attract bigger corporate dollars.

It also importantly opens up a new timeslot for the broadcasters. Sydney clubs would get less night football and more of the fan-friendly afternoon kick-off times.

It would allow east coast kick-offs on a Sunday at 2pm and 4pm before a 6pm game out of Perth.

With the Western Force set to be scrapped from the Super Rugby competition, the timing is perfect.


BENEFIT THREE

Having a second Brisbane side would take away the Broncos’ ridiculously unfair financial advantage over their 15 rivals.

We would not have to watch them every Thursday or Friday night and they would have to cope with the odd five-day turnaround.

The second Brisbane side would share the prime-time kick-off to give broadcasters the ratings they want across Queensland. It would mean Australia’s best rugby league venue Suncorp Stadium would be used every weekend, not once a fortnight.

An additional side north of the border would provide competition for the corporate dollar in Brisbane and not leave everything for the Broncos, who turn over almost $20 million a year more than rivals from the one-club, one city scenario.


BENEFIT FOUR

The salary cap fiasco is going to force clubs to offload star players in the near future.

It has taken the NRL until now to reveal the 2018 cap will be just $8.3 million.

Some clubs have already signed players thinking it would be $10 million.

The two new clubs would open up great opportunities for the players. Anyone who says there is not enough talent for 18 clubs hasn’t done their research.

Melbourne Storm came into the competition in 1998 and won a premiership the following year. There are too many borderline NRL players who don’t get an opportunity with 16 clubs.


BENEFIT FIVE

Potential increase to the game’s average attendances.

Sydney crowds have been on a gradual decline for three decades. Now they have to compete with GWS and the Swans, Sydney FC and the Wanderers.

Most of the Sydney clubs are absolutely clueless about promoting home games.

They boast of increased membership but ignore the fact they are only picking up already rusted-on fans at reduced ticket prices.

Perth and Brisbane would surely attract bigger crowds than the 10,000 odd we often see in Sydney.

For too long expansion talks have been put on the backburner. Now is the time to strike. The aim should be to make it happen in 2020.

And it would at least give us hope of delivering the goals from the strategic plan."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/dc854060f8d8dcd75fdbc5b44d286323

 

[Jetka100]

I can't believe I find myself actually agreeing with him

 

[DiegoNT]

18 teams. An unofficial sydney division and un-official non sydney division.
9 sydney clubs play each other home and away for 16 fixtures. Would be higher crowds as sydney teams usually really struggle with getting fans from out of Sydney teams. Then they play the teams from the other divisions once, with home and away alternating every year ( for example 1 year raiders play bulldogs in canberra, the next year that game is at anz). If their are 4 qld teams then that would maximise the amount of queensland derbies. Melbourne and Perth have huge pockets of new zealanders to help boost crowds.

 

[IntRLEnthusiast]

I think in an 18 team comp you need to find a place for a second NZ team. This means 1 Sydney club relocating to make a Perth and Brisbane team fit. What i think BUZZ is right about is that by adding more teams you can chase the revenue for the extra game and from the wider TV exposure to pay for the teams. There is of course a limit to this but the current brand is tired. It needs revitalising and not in ten years time. Now! It's a sorry state that we are currently in with Sydney crowds going nowhere. A second NZ team doubles the NZ exposure and so surely thats worth more money from that end as well.

Can't believe main stream media has written it though!

 

[siv]

So we have a $8.3 mil Salary Cap in 2018

 

[The Mad Hatter]

In an 18 team comp, 9 games a week for 22 rounds gives more games than the current 26 week format (and byes). Those 4 extra weeks are SoO and Test rep rounds.

IMHO, def need a 2nd Brisbane and NZ side, as well as Perth. It may even be worthwhile investing in an Adelaide side, but not necessary.

The NRL really should be marking a line in the sand and saying here it is new regions. What can you offer us?
And then look at solidifying the Sydney base as well as ensuring non-Sydney teams are as strong as they can be. Everything else - sponsorship, scheduling, TV, marketing should be done out of NRL HQ.

 

[juro]

I can't believe I find myself actually agreeing with him

I prefer to think that he is agreeing with me...

 

[DiegoNT]

22 rounds at 9 games is 198 games. That's only 6 more games then we currently have, that won't be enough for an extra 2 teams. Each team will lose a home game each, and revenue that comes with it, less games per team means less value for sponsors, a shorter season time wise means less content (in the form of the magazine shows and what not). It's all a bit tricky.
Expansion needs to be sold on 2 things. That it's self sustaining, and that it's not affecting the current clubs.
For the self sustaining part, the money would have to come from tv, and if they are only gaining 3 extra games for each team they'd essentially be funding then it wouldn't be worth it. But if the were getting an extra fixture, at an average of the 200k per game, every round for 26 weeks then it's worth their money. The bids would also have to strong financial under-pinnings from the start.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the strength of the nrl is done to their clubs. This combination of 16 clubs has seen money poor in, each brings something to the table even if it's not aways obvious. So any expansion can't come at the expense of the current clubs. We can't say you are losing a couple of games, a home fixture and a percentage of the pie you helped create for the benifit of a new club. That extra money for new clubs has to be found first so it doesn't take away from our current clubs and it can be sold to them as a Perth team will be benificial to you.

 

[Perth Red]

NRL is too weak to expand. Both in terms of leadership and current club sustainability. Sadly until we get new commissioners and a new CEO with some vision the current malaise the game is in will continue. We hoped having more money would be the answer, not surprisingly it isn't and has made very little difference.

 

[IntRLEnthusiast]

The current clubs have held the game to ransom, sure money has come in but it's clear now that things are going backwards especially in Sydney and at the point where clubs are not performing like they should off the field they are asking for more money in general and all this while other clubs are being propped up. If we expand into new markets we have the opportunity to significantly grow the game and lift the standard across the board. Sure it's a risk but if we are serious about building the sport you can't just sit on your hands for decade after decade. The problem is that too many people are happy with the sport being basically an eastern seaboard and north of england game and to spend most of our time talking about State of Origin. For me thats not enough, for me thats weak leadership. John Quale had it right, lets actually expand the game. Find a way to get it done and do it!

 

[taipan]

NRL is too weak to expand. Both in terms of leadership and current club sustainability. Sadly until we get new commissioners and a new CEO with some vision the current malaise the game is in will continue. We hoped having more money would be the answer, not surprisingly it isn't and has made very little difference.

Mate you're a broken record.We all agree that an 18 team is the ideal, but it's not going to happen til the money is available, and under current circumstances 2018-2022 it's not.During that period grassroots has to start growing again with the infusion of funds, plus the insatiable appetite of the current NRL clubs and their caps.

If the money is not there now ,no matter how good or terrific the CEO is they can't expand ATM.The AFL would not have expanded into the GWS/Suns if there was no money to back it up.OK one can argue don't do anything about digital investment and leave it with Telstra.The money is still marking time.

New commissioners and CEOs is not going to change the current TV monies, in fact some may end up being be anti expansion.

The only way you can expand now is to cut or relocate clubs,with our current struggle with crowds ATM and competition from other codes, if you believe that a good idea,to undermine further your support base, then good luck.
OK get in early say 2020 with the next TV deal/digital mob,let them know you are expanding to 18 teams form 2023,and you want X amount with 9 slots per week.

That may well be future planned in the pipleline ,but for now priorities are ensuring all NRL clubs are financially secure, juniors and regionals are well looked after,digital organised, secure more non broadcast income, then you are in a much stronger position to decide on expansion.

Our biggest clubs such as the Eels,Dogs and Roosters rely on big amounts from their licenced clubs.Do we flick them? I doubt it.

The S18 is a mess,the Suns and GWS are still struggling,the A League has to rely on Melbourne V and GWS for crowds.It isn''t all rosy ,but it is costly as other codes have found out some to their detriment.

 

[Marlins]

I would love to see the result of Two new Brisbane sides.
Ipswich Jets
Redcliffe Dolphins
4 games each at their home grounds and the rest at Suncorp and other towns in QLD Sunshine Coast, Mackay, Towommba, Rocky etc.

Butttt probaly should go with with PERTH & NZ2.

 

[Marlins]

Wait a minute does the Nrl have a 8.3mil salary cap for 18'?

 

[IntRLEnthusiast]

Money is there, they just gave it all to the existing clubs

 

[Perth Red]

Mate you're a broken record.We all agree that an 18 team is the ideal, but it's not going to happen til the money is available, and under current circumstances 2018-2022 it's not.During that period grassroots has to start growing again with the infusion of funds, plus the insatiable appetite of the current NRL clubs and their caps.

If the money is not there now ,no matter how good or terrific the CEO is they can't expand ATM.The AFL would not have expanded into the GWS/Suns if there was no money to back it up.OK one can argue don't do anything about digital investment and leave it with Telstra.The money is still marking time.

New commissioners and CEOs is not going to change the current TV monies, in fact some may end up being be anti expansion.

The only way you can expand now is to cut or relocate clubs,with our current struggle with crowds ATM and competition from other codes, if you believe that a good idea,to undermine further your support base, then good luck.
OK get in early say 2020 with the next TV deal/digital mob,let them know you are expanding to 18 teams form 2023,and you want X amount with 9 slots per week.

That may well be future planned in the pipleline ,but for now priorities are ensuring all NRL clubs are financially secure, juniors and regionals are well looked after,digital organised, secure more non broadcast income, then you are in a much stronger position to decide on expansion.

Our biggest clubs such as the Eels,Dogs and Roosters rely on big amounts from their licenced clubs.Do we flick them? I doubt it.

The S18 is a mess,the Suns and GWS are still struggling,the A League has to rely on Melbourne V and GWS for crowds.It isn''t all rosy ,but it is costly as other codes have found out some to their detriment.

We got a massive increase in revenue from 2012, we'll have another massive revenue increase in 2018. There will never be enough money if you don't have a plan to actually use some of the money for expansion. When we get $2.5billion in 2023 there'll still won't be enough money if you decide not to spend it growing the top level. If they'd started putting some away in 2013 then we'd have money in the bank by 2020 to invest in growth of the top tier ready to sell that ninth game.

Afl had a strategic goal and plan two decades ago to have a stronger national footprint, to be seen as Australia's footy code, to be nationally relevant. They have set aside some of their revenue growth, brought in flexible grant funding, brought in ticket tax, non football cap etc etc to pay for massive investment in expansion.

In comparison we would need to spend much less but have no plan, in five years we'll still be talking about getting a plan together, the game is shamefully myopic and stagnant since the commission took over.

 

[Hawkins]

Has anyone considered another Sydney club?

Maybe something in the North of the city?

 

[Perth Red]

No needs another club in west Sydney or the afl is going to take over along with union lol

 

[BuffaloRules]

People whinge about the Sydney clubs, yet the two biggest financial basketcases the last 5 years have been the Titans and Knights...How is the sale of these two teams going? They have been on the market a while now..

Anyway.. back to the topic...

Slothfield must have spent some time reading this forum as research for his article, as he hasnt came up with anything new....

I have always said though that I would stagger the entry of teams 17 and 18 so as not to create a player signing frenzy with two new clubs coming in at the same paying massive overs for players and throwing around money like a Yank sailor in Kings Cross on his first night of shore leave...

The plan should be to bring Perth in 2020... Have 17 teams for a couple of seasons ( I know this means a bye but this has occurred before in the competition...)

Show the TV networks the benefit of the new time slot back to the East Coast at 6pm Sunday in the main but also the odd game 9.30 Sat night...

It would also demonstrate that the game has something postive happening ie expanding to a new frontier, and if this coincides with the demise of the Force then even better...

I would bring in Team 18 ( Brisbane 2) in 2023 in time for the next TV deal.... If the new game is really worth $50 Million a year (I'm not totally convinced of this) than this will more than pay the additional expenses for the two new clubs so the existing clubs should shut the f**k up...

The Warriors really need to win a comp or 2 before further expansion in NZ is considered ( so maybe by 2050 then?) , particularly as the cities outside Auckland are not particulary RL friendly and are Union strong holds....