NRL A-League style reboot in the 80's/90's

[st george dragons]

yes, I know that some of us joke about the NRL being in a "code in crisis" lately, but its nowhere near a total revamp.

The NSL folded because the crowds were pathetic, and tv numbers were low. The NRL has had a few shocking crowds (particularly the Tigers), but most of our crowds were nowhere near the lows of the NSL. Plus, our tv ratings are excellent.

I applaud the NSL for the revamp and making the A-League.

The next competition I believe that needs to be revamped is the NBL. There is NO HYPE about the comp at all. Nothing from the Sydney tv news, and very limited info in our newspapers!

 

[Perth Red]

Plenty about the wildcats here in perth, lots of media covg, they would have got a good crowd for their opening game.

 

[Jason Maher]

I'd only agree if all non-Sydney teams were also relegated to feeder competitions and replaced by new franchises. Fair's fair.

 

[thegreig]

yes, I know that some of us joke about the NRL being in a "code in crisis" lately, but its nowhere near a total revamp.

The NSL folded because the crowds were pathetic, and tv numbers were low. The NRL has had a few shocking crowds (particularly the Tigers), but most of our crowds were nowhere near the lows of the NSL. Plus, our tv ratings are excellent.

I applaud the NSL for the revamp and making the A-League.

The next competition I believe that needs to be revamped is the NBL. There is NO HYPE about the comp at all. Nothing from the Sydney tv news, and very limited info in our newspapers!

Sad thing is it already did have a revamp in 2009 and all it did was alienate fans and make things worse, they even gave the reigning premiers from the year before the boot, not to mention Brisbane, West Sydney and No team to represent South East Melbourne which is consider basketball heartland and has had 7 clubs in the region, everyone was just expected to follow the biggest rival Melbourne Tigers, who as of this season have also re-branded...

 

[TheFrog]

Yeh, Its a bloody shame as well, hey.

A Wentworth team would have been a monster had they been introduced. They just missed out on a team because they had a shitty year, the Panthers/Sharks got the promotion based on that one year of on-field performances and the rest is a shitty shitty history....

Wentworthville is 3km from Parramatta. They very nearly were promoted to first division ahead of Penrith on the basis that they had the best second division team from 1962-65. What a short sighted decision that would have been.

The decision to promote the Sharks was made well before that to promote Penrith. Cronulla was apparently considered a more suitable district, while Penrith was little more than a country town in 1966. This is why Cronulla were able to register a predominantly blue jumper design, whereas the Panthers had to change from blue to brown and white.

 

[pennywisealfie]

Manly has gotta go. They are a team that has made the finals for the last however many years, always a premiership chance and I believe they average under 10k for the year. Imagine how bad it will be when they slide down the table.

 

[alien]

the nrl had their criteria for a 14 team comp. they could have had those 14 teams in an "nrl division 1" comp, and the teams that didnt make the criteria could have been in an "nrl division 2" comp. they could have also added new clubs in "nrl division 2" like a 2nd nz team, a png team, central queensland etc. each year the bottom 4 teams from "nrl division 1" could have been relegated to "nrl division 2" and the top 4 teams from "nrl division 2" could have been promoted to "nrl division 1"

 

[anjado]

It should have happened during the criteria in 1999 we could have had a 14 team competition in 2000 with 6-8 Sydney Teams which would have been evenly spread out across the city. The main problem with the criteria is that it was rigged in order to protect the Roosters.

Looking back with hindsight they should have been made to merge that really would have made all the difference.

here is how 2000 would have looked ideally

Eastern Suburbs Tigers (Balmain + Eastern Suburbs)
South Sydney Sharks (Souths + Cronulla)
Western Suburbs Bulldogs (Wests+Canterbury) Based in Liverpool
St George Illawarra (Predominantly based in Wollongong)
North Sydney Bears (Central Coast)
Manly Warringah Sea Eagles
Parramatta Eels
Penrith Panthers

In essence you would have had 6 clubs based in Sydney full time with two other clubs being in Sydney on a semi regular basis.

The other teams would have been

Brisbane Broncos
Auckland Warriors
Melbourne Storm
Newcastle Knights
Canberra Raiders
North Queensland Cowboys

Expansion

Perth Reds (2002)
Brisbane 2 (2003)
Gold Coast (2008)
Wellington (2008)
Adelaide (2012)
Christchurch (2012)

Future expansion

PNG
Fiji
Central Queensland
others

This is looking back with hindsight but i believe the game would have been better off with these mergers you could also have a game of the round at Homebush so it would still have been in use.

I didn't believe in the criteria at the time i felt they should have left the clubs alone to die but really i feel my rationalization of the competition would have left it stronger. There would have been no merger between 2 clubs which despised each other.

To put into perspective the positives.

* Easts and Balmain together would have made both clubs bigger and let''s be honest the areas around Leichardt are basically considered part of the city now. this merged club would have a much larger supporter base than the Roosters do currently. They would have had a stronger junior base and Balmain fans would have been supporting a premiership contender for the first time since 1990.

* Souths and Cronulla would have secured their futures by merging together i know it has worked out fine now for the Rabbitohs but the Sharks have had a rocky road since 1999. It would have made South Sydney's supporter base stretch from the city all the way to the shire pretty much and would have made both clubs stronger as well as have a fantastic junior base to select from.

* Canterbury and Wests merger really is based on the fact that Canterbury were going to locate to Liverpool around this time and i think a merger between these two clubs would have made sense and again made both stronger.

* Keeping Norths and Manly apart would have meant we kept the north shore derby, you also would have had a new derby between the Bears and Knights also, the north shore would have benefited from the Bears continued presence even if it wasn't full time.

* Souths and Cronulla merging would have led to bigger games against the Dragons since you are merging their two main rivals together.

* Parramatta would be big enough to remain a single entity during this time.

* Penrith would be the smallest club in the League but due to having a huge junior base they would have always remained competitive.

* Manly they would have needed to upgrade Brookvale and really if they didn't merge with Norths there was no one else to merge them with similar to Penrith really they are isolated enough to be stand alone clubs.

* I think if this had happened there would be no talk of relocation and we could have had a solid expansion plan Perth should never have been kicked out of the competition and Brisbane should have had a new team by the time Lang Park reopened.

* You can continue to expand to New Zealand once the Warriors got their act together which they did by 2001.

* Central Coast problem wouldn't exist at all.

* Gold Coast could have been brought back with their new stadium.

* Adelaide would have been a realistic option for expansion.


All in all i believe that we would be getting higher crowds to games if this had happened.

in 2000 i think we could have been looking at something like this

Sydney Tigers - 23,000 average
South Sydney Sharks - 18,000 average
Western Suburbs Bulldogs - 25,000 average
St George Illawarra - 16,000
Manly - 11,000
Norths - 14,000
Parramatta - 17,000
Penrith - 13,000

I honestly believe that we could have achieved such averages in 2000 and if the game continued to grow we could have been getting crowds we could only dream about now.

 

[docbrown]

Well the past is the past but interesting hypothetical anjado.

I don't think we should unmerge clubs now but there are some advantages to what you're suggesting. Before the fans of the clubs start jabbering, remember it's purely hypothetical.

Balmain + Easts.
Makes sense, I think the only way Roosters will grow their fanbase is to get a stronger foothold in the Inner West. Tigers should embrace the population growth in the South West.

South + Sharks.
Well you kind of wonder if Cronulla should've just been left serviced by the Dragons all along (not as a merger, as in should Cronulla ever have existed). Definitely would've made the Sharks bigger, I still think an Easts-Sharks merger (similar territory to Souths) is to both clubs advantage.

Wests+Bulldogs.
I wonder if this would stretch the club too far (Campbelltown to edge of Inner West is a big expanse). Liverpool would've been a bit centralised location for Wests than Campbelltown.

I do think the 14 team contraction was a big mistake. We should never have shut up shop in Perth and elsewhere. It seems that this was to fit News Limited's penny pinching rather than any strategic benefit.

 

[Perth Red]

The current mess is due to a one city league attempting to become a national/international league. They should have taken some brave decisions at end of 1997 but they didnt and there would be no administration brave enough these days to enforce the radical rationalisation that is really needed to see RL in this hemisphere go to the heights that it could reach. We are stuck with what we have got and it will continue to stunt growth of the game for decades to come sadly. RL has always been ruled by the clubs and that has beens its restriction. Brilliant game on the field, pss poor off it pretty much sums up RL around the world.

 

[docbrown]

Piss poor is about right. The lack of foresight by various rugby league organizations over the years is mind boggling huge.

• Australia letting international football fall by the wayside
• Letting the Central Coast go without a team since they first applied in the 70s
• Failing to capitalise on 60s growth leading to a poor 70s/80s
• Kicking out Wests
• The NSWRL allowing/relishing the QRL's decline
• Waiting until 1988 to have a team again in Newcastle
• Every Gold Coast farce
• Selling the ARL pay-tv rights for almost nothing
• The over-expansion in '95
• Super League
• Almost letting the Tigers & other important brands die
• Allowing the 90s mergers to happen in a random fashion
• Letting the interstate teams die due to News Limited's 14 team criteria
• The Northern Eagles (deserves its own mention)
• Kicking out Souths
• No decisive expansion plan since the NRL's inception

I'm sure there's more. That said if we kill off the Rabbitohs, Bulldogs, Eels, Tigers & co and replace them with the GWS Racoons, Western Sydney Wobblers, North Shore Rays, Sydney Fleet etc it'll just be one more f**k up to add to the list.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I would have been interested in a Panther+Wests merge....

Having said that, i think the smartest thing coming out of SL to send dying Sydney teams into the new markets.
Eg: Adelaide Bears, Melbournes Rabbitohs, Perth Tigers, etc...

The idea being that, rather than trying to merge sydney rivals (Balmain/Magpies, Bears/Manly) and having then squabble over petty shit, they could keep their identity independent, properly invest in a new market, not be restricted by blind parochialism (eg. suburban grounds)

 

[Perth Red]

Problem with that is:
A) CLubs wont choose to relocate and whilst the NRL keeps giving them hand outs they wont need to
B) The existing RL fans in those new cities are less likely to get behind a traditional rival relocated club
C) As was shown in the Northern Eagles farce the uncertainty of the relocated club upping sticks and moving back to its original location/identity would be a constant worry for fans
D) As has been shown at Tigers (and Eagles) trying to run a club with two boards with competing interests rarely works out well.


Relocation sounds good in theory but in practice it really needs to mean the removal of the brand from that city and giving it to a new consortium in a new city. All that survives is the brand with some tenious links back to the original location.