New Nrl- where would the teams be

[alien]

Would you relocate with them?

i would prefer to relocate to a planet that doesn't have you on it!

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Thankyou for your continued interest in the Wests Tigers.

 

[alien]

Thankyou for your continued interest in the Wests Tigers.

shut your merkin!

 

[Pommy]

this would only be if the nrl started from scratch, and it's probably a good thing they don't do that, because too much history and tradition would be poured down the drain. the only way to accomplish it without starting from scratch would be to relocate clubs from sydney and merge a couple who probably have every right and ability to stand alone in sydney, so i don't think it would ever happen now. for example: roosters would have to relocate to perth, bulldogs would have to relocate to adelaide, st george illawarra would have to merge with cronulla, bears would come back into the comp as the second brisbane club. actually i think new zealand should have 3 clubs because so many juniors are coming from there. so 18 teams, but keeping the top 8 finals:

north queensland - north queensland cowboys
brisbane 1 - brisbane broncos
brisbane 2 - south queensland bears
gold coast - gold coast titans
newcastle - newcastle knights
central coast/manly warringah/north sydney - "northern eagles" or "manly-central coast eagles"
central sydney - south sydney rabbitohs
cronulla sutherland/illawarra/south coast - st george illawarra sharks
parramatta - parramatta eels
penrith - penrith panthers
liverpool/macarthur - wests
canberra - canberra raiders
melbourne - melbourne storm
adelaide - adelaide bulldogs
perth - perth roosters
auckland - auckland warriors
wellington - wellington ???
christchurch - christchurch ???

Again why are the Bulldogs who are the best supported team in Sydney selected to move? It doesn't make an sense.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Again why are the Bulldogs who are the best supported team in Sydney selected to move? It doesn't make an sense.

Alien is simply trying to protect them from Mitchell Pearce....

 

[BuffaloRules]

Again why are the Bulldogs who are the best supported team in Sydney selected to move? It doesn't make an sense.

I suppose the St George Illawarra Sharks makes sense to you as you haven't highlighted that yet.

I couldn't think of a better way to piss off three distinct areas of people in the one move...

At least with the Bulldogs you are only upsetting Canterbury and Adelaide fans...

 

[Pommy]

I suppose the St George Illawarra Sharks makes sense to you as you haven't highlighted that yet.

I couldn't think of a better way to piss off three distinct areas of people in the one move...

At least with the Bulldogs you are only upsetting Canterbury and Adelaide fans...

I'm not advocating that but it seems to make more sense than moving the team with the highest attendances.

 

[Perth Red]

In my listing I basically kept the clubs with the strongest fanbases ie Dogs, Souths, Eels. Only other two likely clubs with the potential to get 20k plus crowd avg's are St's and Tigers. Panthers, Sharks, Roosters Manly are never going to grow big fanbases if the last 4 decades are anything to go by. Manly would only be saved as they are the only option for that northern corridor but to keep their relevance they should be changed to represent everywhere North up to Gosford.

St's covering the southern corridor right down to Illawarra could comfortably take over what little fanbase the Sharks have.

Given all clubs will soon be getting $10mill plus a year grants from the NRL places like Adelaide and Perth would be capable of sustainment if the NRL actually gets off its backside and promotes and grows the game nationally.

 

[Perth Red]

if you were to slice the Sydney map up into supporter target areas the traditional Wests/Tigers regions would come under Souths and Bulldogs comfortably. These areas are no longer working class inner city and the traditional RL demographic is no longer there. I do wonder if this is a reason the game is struggling to get crowds and memberships to grow? The days of being happy to attract 9k from the local burbs around the geographic identifier are disappearing fast. Large city wide appeal with a strong fanbase in large catchment areas will be the future. Watching some clubs slowly find this out will be like death by a thousand cuts.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Wests aren't going to Perth.

Wake up your dreaming!

 

[Perth Red]

This is a hypothetical debate. None of the teams are going anywhere. NRL is happy with mediocrity.

 

[siv]

Simple balance

9 Sydney teams

9 regional teams

 

[Hound of Ulster]

NZL: Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch
QLD: North QLD, Gold Coast, Brisbane 1, Brisbane 2
NSW*: Newcastle, Sydney 1, Sydney 2, Sydney 3
ROA: Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Hobart, Canberra

*The Sydney teams can be anywhere in metro Sydney, so I'm not excluding, e.g., Penrith here.

Getting here from the current NRL set-up requires moving or replacing 6 teams from metro Sydney. The new locations would be Brisbane 2, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Wellington, and Christchurch. I don't expect that to happen.

Since this is a brand new world, I would expand State of Origin to 4 teams, now including the Silver Ferns (New Zealand) and the Golds (Rest of Australia). Each team would play the other once each year. However, I can't see NSW and QLD giving up 2 lucrative, passionately-followed games per year to play NZL and ROA. Moreover, the Silver Ferns would be more or less identical to the national team, and their extra opportunities to practice and play together would not go over well with Australian or English fans.

Ah, but it's an imperfect world, isn't it?

 

[juro]

You want the NZ netball team to play SoO???

 

[Hound of Ulster]

What the hell is netball?

 

[Bronxnation]

IMO teams should be
1. Sydney 1
2. Sydney 2
3. Sydney 3
4. Sydney 4
5. Newcastle
6. Canberra
7. Melbourne
8. Brisbane
9. NQ
10. NZ 1
11. NZ 2
12. PNG
13. Perth
14. Central Coast

This seems more logical to me.... you dont need an excess of teams, this should be the base at lease

 

[Marlins]

1. NQLD Cowboys
2. Brisbane Broncos
3. Brothers Qld Leprechauns (play at Suncorp & Reagional Towns in NQLD/CQLD
4. Gold Coast Bears (2 games at CC)
5. Newcastle Knights
6. Manly Sea-Eagles
7. Penrith Panthers
8. Parramatta Eels
9. Wests Tigers ( Relocate to Liverpool)
10. South Sydney Rabbitohs
11. Sydney Roosters
12. Cronulla Sharks
13. St.Gergoe Illwarra Dragons
14. Canberra Raiders
15. Auckland Warriors
16. Canterbury-Christchurch Bulldogs ( Relocate to NZ)
17. Melbourne Storm
18. West Coast Pirates

 

[DiegoNT]

I started this thread because at the time there were complaints that there are too many nsw teams, not enough qld teams, not enough expansion teams, teams in the wrong area. I said keep it to 16 because that's what the nrl is satisfied is the right number of teams in relationships to player pool, and the cost of running the nrl, having teams in heartlands and growing areas. The fact that almost no one could keep their lists to 16 teams shows its incredibly hard to get the balance right

 

[Perth Red]

That's because because no one wants to admit the hard truth, has the believe in the quality of the product, that the number of sydney teams is stifling the growth of the game in other areas.

1. Brisbane Broncos
2. Brisbane 2
3. NQ Cowboys
4. Gold Coast whatever's

5. WC Pirates
6. Melbourne Storm
7. Canberra Raiders
8. Auckalnd Warriors
9. southern Orcas

10. South Sydney
11. Canterbury Bulldogs
12. St George-Illawara
13. Sydney coast Roosters (Sfs and Gosford)
14. Western Sydney Eels (out to Penrith)
15. West Tigers
16. Newcastle Knights

Next growth PNG and Adelaide when game is financially strong enough

Union is bringing in Argentina and Japan Ffs. We aren't brave enough to bring in Perth!

 

[RoosTah]

Hypothetical but say the nrl had to restart the nrl without any of the old nrl clubs where would the 16 clubs be- assuming people gave up their old club allegiances and supported a new club ( will never happen, purely a hypothetical )

I've thought about this before and tried to think of a way you could do it cleanly, but you're right it'd never happen.

My idea was to have a pre-season Sydney 'regions cup' (as Sydney is what needs restructuring) where players would represent the geographical area of their juniors club, which would allow players to be split into East, West, North and South (not on purely geospacial terms, but also population density).

In order not to overly favour any of the old identities, I'd opt for a clean slate (would never happen, but in theory) and basically elevate these quasi rep sides to the NRL to supersede the 8 NRL clubs currently making up Sydney.

4 Sydney teams: East, West, North and South.
2 NSW regional teams: Central Coast Bears and Newcastle Knights.
4 Qld teams Brisbane Broncos and Bombers (not sure how to split the city geographically though), North Qld Cowboys, GC
2 Kiwi teams: Auckland Warriors and Canterbury Bulls (Bulls is an existing identity Cantab region has half a million and Christchurch is close in population to Wellington) and plus it gives a natural North v South rivalry
2 Melbourne teams - Storm and Magpies (idea would be to have a ready to hate and bandwagon link to the AFL stronghold whilst also tying with the old Western Suburbs for old time Sydney fans)
1 Perth team - West Coast Pirates
1 Canberra Raiders

That makes for 16 teams quite neatly and I honestly couldn't think of any more that would be ready. That said, I agree with Perth Red that Adelaide should be developed for a side down the track, whilst PNG is an inevitability too.