John ribot on sterlo...

[Frank Discussion]

I think everyone agrees on two our of three things.

1 - there needs to be less teams in Sydney.

2 - Sydney team identities can't 'die'.

3 - other regions need a team (Perth, Adelaide, NZ2, Brisbane2, Central Coast, Central Qld, etc).

The only true answer is relocation.

The other thing the NRL can do, is if they really really want this 6pm Friday night spot, is that all these games are played in regional centres.

So then Sydney teams playing Melbourne, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Nth Qld, Canberra and Auckland take their games to (and I'm sure I'm missing regional centres, so apologies):


.

I have come up with a very simple solution to this. It requires some pain, but is sensible and workable.

My idea is forced "soft" relocations- on the very strict proviso that the NRL takes control of scheduling.

The NRL pays for the following moves out of the broadcast deal with a guarantee that these clubs play 2 home games at their traditional grounds.

Manly to Gosford.
Wests Tigers to Perth
St George Illawarra to Wollongong.


A very important caveat is that the NRL takes control of 2 home fixtures for each and every NRL club as "neutral" rounds.

It immediately hands these 2 "neutral" fixtures back to the relocated clubs with a clear instruction play these games at their traditional Sydney homes. Manly at Brookie, Tigers at Leichhardt Saints at Kogarah etc.

This means that the relocated teams get 4 games per year in their traditional heartland. They also get the added bonus of 2 extra "home" games.

With 4 games at their spiritual home (more than some clubs get now!), a scheduled round by round advantage and an ongoing monetary incentive plus the potential of new markets- it might just be enough to get the relocations palatable enough to the members of these clubs to swallow.

The rest of the neutral games get farmed out to regional centres with ongoing relationships between that club and region (Parra to NT, Penrith to Bathurst as is already happening for example).

If the NRL then expands to Brisbane 2 and NZ 2 you have the perfect NATIONAL rugby league and no loss of Sydney brand and identity and the bush gets plenty of love. You know it makes sense.

 

[Perth Red]

I have come up with a very simple solution to this. It requires some pain, but is sensible and workable.

My idea is forced "soft" relocations- on the very strict proviso that the NRL takes control of scheduling.

The NRL pays for the following moves out of the broadcast deal with a guarantee that these clubs play 2 home games at their traditional grounds.

Manly to Gosford.
Wests Tigers to Perth
St George Illawarra to Wollongong.


A very important caveat is that the NRL takes control of 2 home fixtures for each and every NRL club as "neutral" rounds.

It immediately hands these 2 "neutral" fixtures back to the relocated clubs with a clear instruction play these games at their traditional Sydney homes. Manly at Brookie, Tigers at Leichhardt Saints at Kogarah etc.

This means that the relocated teams get 4 games per year in their traditional heartland. They also get the added bonus of 2 extra "home" games.

With 4 games at their spiritual home (more than some clubs get now!), a scheduled round by round advantage and an ongoing monetary incentive plus the potential of new markets- it might just be enough to get the relocations palatable enough to the members of these clubs to swallow.

The rest of the neutral games get farmed out to regional centres with ongoing relationships between that club and region (Parra to NT, Penrith to Bathurst as is already happening for example).

If the NRL then expands to Brisbane 2 and NZ 2 you have the perfect NATIONAL rugby league and no loss of Sydney brand and identity and the bush gets plenty of love. You know it makes sense.

There is no incentive for clubs boards, they are getting a massive pay rise and know the NRL will bail them out if they stuff it up. Cubs have been in far worse financial strife than they will be in from this year onwards and had a large $ carrot to move yet none of them even considered it. Why? Reality is the board would have to give up their positions to a new board in the new region for the relocated club. Good luck getting the snouts out of the trough!

The 3 clubs you have mentioned, 1 has a rich owner to cover losses
1 has a rich leagues club to cover loses
only St's would be financially at risk and they have in the past refused to concede anything and managed to find money to keep going

So, good in theory but never going to happen!

 

[Stallion]

I have come up with a very simple solution to this. It requires some pain, but is sensible and workable.

My idea is forced "soft" relocations- on the very strict proviso that the NRL takes control of scheduling.

The NRL pays for the following moves out of the broadcast deal with a guarantee that these clubs play 2 home games at their traditional grounds.

Manly to Gosford.
Wests Tigers to Perth
St George Illawarra to Wollongong.


A very important caveat is that the NRL takes control of 2 home fixtures for each and every NRL club as "neutral" rounds.

It immediately hands these 2 "neutral" fixtures back to the relocated clubs with a clear instruction play these games at their traditional Sydney homes. Manly at Brookie, Tigers at Leichhardt Saints at Kogarah etc.

This means that the relocated teams get 4 games per year in their traditional heartland. They also get the added bonus of 2 extra "home" games.

With 4 games at their spiritual home (more than some clubs get now!), a scheduled round by round advantage and an ongoing monetary incentive plus the potential of new markets- it might just be enough to get the relocations palatable enough to the members of these clubs to swallow.

The rest of the neutral games get farmed out to regional centres with ongoing relationships between that club and region (Parra to NT, Penrith to Bathurst as is already happening for example).

If the NRL then expands to Brisbane 2 and NZ 2 you have the perfect NATIONAL rugby league and no loss of Sydney brand and identity and the bush gets plenty of love. You know it makes sense.

Some ok points with good intention but not practical and facing the stark realities involved. Wonder if the AFL would do that and how the fans would react? I'd say you would have disastrous consequences in those clubs that have reduced their game time in their home area. The NRL should be a 20 team competition right now with Brisbane "Dolphins " playing and West Coast playing & the Central Coast based Bears with another additional expansion club. This is progress and doesn't put the game and its fans through unnecessary hurt again like the superleague "arrangement" realised. I'm sure the AFL would not be looking at diluting the real presence of its well established clubs. Its a local and a cultural thing we are dealing with.

 

[Perth Red]

Some ok points with good intention but not practical and facing the stark realities involved. Wonder if the AFL would do that and how the fans would react? I'd say you would have disastrous consequences in those clubs that have reduced their game time in their home area. The NRL should be a 20 team competition right now with Brisbane "Dolphins " playing and West Coast playing & the Central Coast based Bears with another additional expansion club. This is progress and doesn't put the game and its fans through unnecessary hurt again like the superleague "arrangement" realised. I'm sure the AFL would not be looking at diluting the real presence of its well established clubs. Its a local and a cultural thing we are dealing with.

Sydney Swans?

 

[Frank Discussion]

There is no incentive for clubs boards, they are getting a massive pay rise and know the NRL will bail them out if they stuff it up. Cubs have been in far worse financial strife than they will be in from this year onwards and had a large $ carrot to move yet none of them even considered it. Why? Reality is the board would have to give up their positions to a new board in the new region for the relocated club. Good luck getting the snouts out of the trough!

The 3 clubs you have mentioned, 1 has a rich owner to cover losses
1 has a rich leagues club to cover loses
only St's would be financially at risk and they have in the past refused to concede anything and managed to find money to keep going

So, good in theory but never going to happen!

Impossible to say until you put the money on the table.
A guaranteed future might be too good to pass up.

 

[Frank Discussion]

Some ok points with good intention but not practical and facing the stark realities involved. Wonder if the AFL would do that and how the fans would react? I'd say you would have disastrous consequences in those clubs that have reduced their game time in their home area. The NRL should be a 20 team competition right now with Brisbane "Dolphins " playing and West Coast playing & the Central Coast based Bears with another additional expansion club. This is progress and doesn't put the game and its fans through unnecessary hurt again like the superleague "arrangement" realised. I'm sure the AFL would not be looking at diluting the real presence of its well established clubs. Its a local and a cultural thing we are dealing with.

They wont do it though and have listed a hundred excuses why.
So, you have to look at alternative methods.

Of course you would get push back from the fans but you just have to push the positives- and as has already been stated, St George Illawarra were supposed to be based in Wollongong and Manly in Gosford anyway. Wests are the hard done by ones but their house is falling down and they only play six games in traditional venues anyway!

 

[Perth Red]

Impossible to say until you put the money on the table.
A guaranteed future might be too good to pass up.

They've just been given $13million a year, their futures have never looked brighter! If in 5 years some of them have blown the money and still in strife then maybe, but its unlikely.
As I said, you wont get turkeys voting for Christmas!

 

[Stallion]

They've just been given $13million a year, their futures have never looked brighter! If in 5 years some of them have blown the money and still in strife then maybe, but its unlikely.
As I said, you wont get turkeys voting for Christmas!

More teams with commonsense expansion is the way gents. Rumour has it a Sunshine Coast Dolphins top flight club is in the pipeline so with this commonsense expansion/consolidation club so to a movement/planning for elsewhere like WA (with its time slot flexibility) should be in the wings. Lets hope so!

 

[Stallion]

They wont do it though and have listed a hundred excuses why.
So, you have to look at alternative methods.

Of course you would get push back from the fans but you just have to push the positives- and as has already been stated, St George Illawarra were supposed to be based in Wollongong and Manly in Gosford anyway. Wests are the hard done by ones but their house is falling down and they only play six games in traditional venues anyway!

The "push back" you speak of would be disastrous! Simple as that.

 

[Stallion]

Sydney Swans?

Don't think the Swans were a club in Melbourne? This club(Swans) still has strong links with its 'foundation' linked club the South Melbourne Bloods. In fact that's what the Melbournians refer to them as when chatting about this club. The Bloods! Melbourne Storm is the flagship example of rugby league expansion and shows that its possible and positive for the code. Bring on the West Coast Pirates or if we go down your tact PR " The West Coast Magpies" ? With similar strategy of Swans example except an added bonus of a much missed logo coming back into the top flight being "Magpies "

 

[Perth Red]

Don't think the Swans were a club in Melbourne? This club(Swans) still has strong links with its 'foundation' linked club the South Melbourne Bloods. In fact that's what the Melbournians refer to them as when chatting about this club. The Bloods! Melbourne Storm is the flagship example of rugby league expansion and shows that its possible and positive for the code. Bring on the West Coast Pirates or if we go down your tact PR " The West Coast Magpies" ? With similar strategy of Swans example except an added bonus of a much missed logo coming back into the top flight being "Magpies "

There's always those who will be unhappy, but its hard to argue the move didn't turn out to be the right decision for the sport long term, even though short term it caased plenty of angst with the faithful.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the VFL was strategically interested in seeing a club based in Sydney, as part of a long-term plan to broaden the appeal of the game in Queensland and New South Wales. The league had started moving a few premiership matches to the Sydney Cricket Ground annually since 1979, and in 1981 was preparing to establish an entirely new, 13th VFL club in Sydney after the Fitzroy Lions staved off a proposed relocation to become the Sydney Lions in late 1980. These plans halted when the South Melbourne board, recognising the difficulties it faced with viability and financial stability in Melbourne, made the decision to play all 1982 home games in Sydney. On 29 July 1981, the VFL formally accepted the proposal, and paved the way for the Swans to shift to Sydney in 1982.

The move caused great internal difficulties, as a group of supporters known as Keep South at South campaigned throughout the rest of 1981 to stop the move; and, at an extraordinary general meeting on 22 September, the group democratically took control of the club's board. However, the new board did not have the power to unilaterally stop the move to Sydney: under the VFL constitution, to rescind the decision that had been made on 29 July required a three-quarters majority in a vote of all twelve clubs, and at a meeting on 14 October it failed to obtain this majority.[20] The new board also lacked the support of the players, the vast majority of whom were in favour of a long-term move to Sydney; in early November, after the board promised that it would try to bring the club back to Melbourne in 1983, the players went on strike, seeking to force the new board commit to Sydney in the long term as well as seeking payments that the cash-strapped club owed them from the previous season.[21] The board ended up undermining its own position when it accepted a $400,000 loan from the VFL in late November to stay solvent, under the condition that it commit to Sydney for two years. Finally, in early December, the Keep South at South board resigned and a board in favour of the move to Sydney was installed.[22]

Ref: Wiki

 

[Stallion]

There's always those who will be unhappy, but its hard to argue the move didn't turn out to be the right decision for the sport long term, even though short term it caased plenty of angst with the faithful.

Difference being in Sydney the dismantling of well established and popular clubs has already hurt the game. Given the mistake has already been made courtesy of superleague and poor administrators, the resurrecting of the Wests Magpies as the West Coast Magpies has merit. Atm Wests logo in the Magpie is dead within the NRL and Im pretty sure if put to the many fans (some gone from the code nowadays ) that most would favorably view a 'relocation' such as that as it would reinvigorate the West Magpies in the top flight as the West Coast Magpies with black and white colours etc. This course of action would be a worthy compromise given the mess that is now realised in Sydney due to mergers and culling.

 

[Perth Red]

To play hypotheticals why do you think the Wests owners would even consider it? Why would they want a club on the other side of the continent? The board would have to give up power to a WA board for starters. Wests pretty much control the Tigers franchise now, what makes you think for a minute they would want to ship it West and lose control of it?

Throw in the fact anyone in WA who hears Magpies will instantly think your talking about Collingwood plus the lack of buy in from existing NRL club fans in WA who wouldn't get behind a rival Sydney brand and you have a recipe for brand disaster. All to save a failed Sydney sporting logo? Before their demise they were averaging 7000 fans, we aren't talking a massive fanbase to transfer here! So take out those who've died or moved away from the game since Magpies demise, those who've connected with the Tigers club and wouldn't go back and your left with how many? A handful at best.

Then lets discuss how a totally skint Balmain would actually run an NRL club given they have no money and would potentially lose some of their membership and fanbase who were transferred magpie supporters.

I'm not sure you've thought this one through lol

As for Swans, it is no different There was a group of fans and sponsors who were totally opposed as you would expect, they did their best to keep the club in Melbourne but failed. Within a few years that angst and impact in Melbourne was gone and the AFL had a successful expansion into a new key marketplace that has paid massive dividends for them long term whilst rationalising an over crowded home market. Do you think the kids of Sth Melbourne are now following RL or Soccer or do you think they are following one of the remaining AFL clubs? Id suggest the latter.

 

[Stallion]

To play hypotheticals why do you think the Wests owners would even consider it? Why would they want a club on the other side of the continent? The board would have to give up power to a WA board for starters. Wests pretty much control the Tigers franchise now, what makes you think for a minute they would want to ship it West and lose control of it?

Throw in the fact anyone in WA who hears Magpies will instantly think your talking about Collingwood plus the lack of buy in from existing NRL club fans in WA who wouldn't get behind a rival Sydney brand and you have a recipe for brand disaster. All to save a failed Sydney sporting logo?

Then lets discuss how a totally skint Blamian would actually run an NRL club given they have no money and would lose half their membership and fanbase who were transferred magpie supporters.

I'm not sure you've thought this one through lol

That Sydney sporting logo you refer to had just as much validity and notoriety as the other code's Magpies in the 1990s. It was destroyed by a poorly thought out agreement by incompetent administrators. I would put it to you that the fans would rather see their extinct logo and colours and name to an extent be reincarnated in some better tangible form through such a relocation then what exists currently?! This should have been done in 1998. The positives would be taking effect nowadays but we know the mess that exists and sadly the game is weakening in Sydney and elsewhere because of the fundamental mistakes made as a result of the superleague fiasco. I won't enter into the internal club politics. My point is strategically and culturally that this move should have been proactively thought of and effected back in 1997/8. Wasting a century of a popular clubs logo is tantamount to reckless abuse of the code and its history which is what we have and are witnessing. I note you seem to think these very well known and widely supported clubs in Sydney are "failed"? Tell that to multitudes of fans that relate and support such clubs. Your regard for the Sydney based is consistently ignorant and damaging to the code. My emphasis is purely on strategic growth of the game and minimising the implosions you continue to advocate. People like yourself don't get it!

 

[Perth Red]

Stepping outside your fluffy rainbow filled world where everything can stay the same forever for a moment, how would you have rationalised the 23 clubs from 1997/98 given there was no way the game could sustain that many and had a long term blueprint for a 14 club national competition? Sydney got off lightly when you consider they still have 9 clubs in a 16 team comp and we lost 4 major markets, some for a few years and some forever more probably, in Brisbane2, Perth, Adelaide and Gold Coast

 

[Stallion]

Stepping outside your fluffy rainbow filled world where everything can stay the same forever for a moment, how would you have rationalised the 23 clubs from 1997/98 given there was no way the game could sustain that many and had a long term blueprint for a 14 club national competition? Sydney got off lightly when you consider they still have 9 clubs in a 16 team comp and we lost 4 major markets, some for a few years and some forever more probably, in Brisbane2, Perth, Adelaide and Gold Coast

Once again I repeatedly reiterate and emphasize that their should a minmum of 20 clubs in the NRL. You can forget your 14 team logic . It’s wrong and flawed. And this is exactly what another rival code(AFL) knows so well but will gladly and sheepishly pretend a false intent to keep reckless people advocating imploding the most watched and attended domestic rugby competition in the world. Your intentions are based on ignorance and to weaken this precious jewel of a competition that rugby league has. That's not fluffy! It's the way things really are yet you and your destructionist stance still continues with implosion as your lethal strategy. Shame on you PR! Just yesterday I was speaking to a female(in her 50s) who used to love the North Sydney Bears and now she doesnt follow the code at all. Established markets being thriwn out the door! That's your business like 'progressive' approach for rugby league. Disgraceful!

 

[Perth Red]

You can wish for as many pink unicorns as you want but in 1998 the game did not have the money to support 20 clubs. So I ask again how would you have whittled the 23 clubs down to the 14 the games leaders felt was affordable?

As for now, that would be around $60-70million year out of NRL current revenue. We hope that two extra games a round is worth content value to a broadcaster but if NRL are to be believed that didn't eventuate 2 years ago in TV discussions. So where you getting the $60-70million a year from to pay for the extra 4 clubs?

SImple answers to both questions appreciated.

 

[Stallion]

You can wish for as many pink unicorns as you want but in 1998 the game did not have the money to support 20 clubs. So I ask again how would you have whittled the 23 clubs down to the 14 the games leaders felt was affordable?

As for now, that would be around $60-70million year out of NRL current revenue. We hope that two extra games a round is worth content value to a broadcaster but if NRL are to be believed that didn't eventuate 2 years ago in TV discussions. So where you getting the $60-70million a year from to pay for the extra 4 clubs?

SImple answers to both questions appreciated.

Lol. Just like the two quickly re introduced clubs post the SL agreement. Yes. When push comes to shove these things can be done. You will go with the much used affordability line yet you fail to understand this is an iconic and highly regarded football competition. Many sports clubs operate at a loss. They are there to propagate the code and if profits come its a bonus! Your disrespect continues.

 

[Perth Red]

answers my dear boy. answers

23 to 14, who was in and who was out

where's the $60-70mill a year coming from for 4 other clubs?
I'm not talking about the new clubs finding the $25mill to operate, I'm talking about the NRL central funding to those 4 new clubs. Where's it coming from?

 

[Stallion]

answers my dear boy. answers

23 to 14, who was in and who was out

where's the $60-70mill a year coming from for 4 other clubs?
I'm not talking about the new clubs finding the $25mill to operate, I'm talking about the NRL central funding to those 4 new clubs. Where's it coming from?

Here's your answer. You are negative, destructive and ignorant. That's your answer!