Sydney relocations

[taipan]

Wow you've got more jnr regos than an afl city? I'm impressed lol

Good on you for believing in your club, let's face it things can only get better at this point in time for the sharks.

No ,in fact more junior rl regos in an area with a population over 200,000 with also a huge junior soccer setup,the largest in Australia.
Own their ground ,will get $45m in profits from residential development,$1m pa on retail rent.Before memberships,sponsorships and grants added,but do go on.So you at least got one thing right,things will get better.
You have a city /state with 10 times that number of citizens and you want an NRL team.Perhaps you need to get more rl regos for a starting point.
Instead of wanting other clubs to die or fold ,how about you get of your dais, and push the NRL for Perth admission.You are sounding and looking like Bunniesman every day.

 

[The Great Dane]

No ,in fact more junior rl regos in an area with a population over 200,000 with also a huge junior soccer setup,the largest in Australia.
Own their ground ,will get $45m in profits from residential development,$1m pa on retail rent.Before memberships,sponsorships and grants added,but do go on.So you at least got one thing right,things will get better.
You have a city /state with 10 times that number of citizens and you want an NRL team.Perhaps you need to get more rl regos for a starting point.
Instead of wanting other clubs to die or fold ,how about you get of your dais, and push the NRL for Perth admission.You are sounding and looking like Bunniesman every day.

I hate to add another angle to this conversation, but as a business it would/should be the most important angle for the NRL to investigate when considering relocation.

And that is would relocating the Sharks/whoever to wherever mean that they are significantly more valuable (to the NRL and sport as a whole) then if they stayed in Sydney/wherever!

So using the Sharks as an example and even when assuming that everything you claim the Sharks have going for them in Cronulla is 100% accurate, would it be more advantageous for the NRL if they were based in another city.
If it is more advantageous how much so, how long will it take for these advantages to come to fruition and finally are those advantages worth the possible repercussions.

In other words, what's the reward, what's risk to gain that reward and is the risk worth the reward!

 

[bobmar28]

Provided the suburban clubs are financially strong ,maintain a strong junior league which both the Sharks and Penrith have ,and the Sharks will be a very strong financial club soon,there will be no need for relocations.The Shark had record sponsorship this year even without a full year major sponsor.
The only reason Swans and Fitzroy relocated was they were financially stuffed,with a diminishing support base,which is not the case with the clubs you mentioned.
The Lions are losing money in Brisbane hand over foot.

Smith has repeatedly stated and you continually ignore , that his stated aim was to ensure all Sydney clubs were financially strong.
The way you keep banging on ,perhaps a new Perth team should be called the Vultures.

Smith aims to ensure all Sydney clubs are financially strong? 9 teams in Sydney can never all be financially strong.

 

[taipan]

I hate to add another angle to this conversation, but as a business it would/should be the most important angle for the NRL to investigate when considering relocation.

And that is would relocating the Sharks/whoever to wherever mean that they are significantly more valuable (to the NRL and sport as a whole) then if they stayed in Sydney/wherever!

So using the Sharks as an example and even when assuming that everything you claim the Sharks have going for them in Cronulla is 100% accurate, would it be more advantageous for the NRL if they were based in another city.
If it is more advantageous how much so, how long will it take for these advantages to come to fruition and finally are those advantages worth the possible repercussions.

In other words, what's the reward, what's risk to gain that reward and is the risk worth the reward!

The answer is plain and simple no.
North Sydney were given the flick,we now have that area devoid of NRL ,a growing AFL influence and a strong union influence already there.
In fact more than a decent number of Bears supporters gave up on the code and now follow the Thwans and Tahs.

The Shire has in addition a huge junior soccer base.Should the Sharks be lost,the ground will become a soccer base for A league .Many soccer kids also follow the Sharks.
You also forget Sharks supporters are not just confined to the shire,many have left to live in other areas of NSW.Lose the club's identity and you lose them also.Merchandies etc.

Finally there are no guarantees for a Perth side(even though I am for expansion to Perth).If they have a few bad years initially it could be disastrous .They have no history /tradition.
The Storm were fortunate being near the top rung in the first couple of years.

I will repeat one more time ,if clubs are financially strong ,able to stand on their own two feet,have a tradition,then as smith stated they wil be supported.If not then move them,simple as that.

And that also applies to clubs like Canberra ,that has the smallest attendances ,and relies heavily on League clubs backing ie poker machine profits,and offers little to the Sydney TV market.

Businesses only remove dead wood,or non performers.And on the very rare occasion retain a business because of the strategic location.

 

[taipan]

Smith aims to ensure all Sydney clubs are financially strong? 9 teams in Sydney can never all be financially strong.

We know that ,classically exposed with the Tiger's situation,so good luck with that.The attendances at Campbelltown and even at Leichardt at times have been ordinary.
Penrith can't get bums on seats running 4th.


At least the Sharks have not gone to the NRL for loot ,to pay players,are not reliant on a heap of poker machine money,and have in place financial underpinning.Yes they have other issues on line to attend to.

So a couple of other Sydney clubs had better pull their socks up,or they are up sh*t street without a paddle.

I support all Sydney clubs to remain in situ,and I support expansion with at least 18 teams.Perth and Brisbane 2.And there are no guarantees either for expansion teams,always a risk.

The AFL have no intention of moving any more teams form that city.despite a few of their clubs feeling the pinch.They still have 9 .

 

[The Great Dane]

The answer is plain and simple no.

What a short sighted thing to say.

North Sydney were given the flick,we now have that area devoid of NRL ,a growing AFL influence and a strong union influence already there.
In fact more than a decent number of Bears supporters gave up on the code and now follow the Thwans and Tahs.

Ahh yes the old 'what about the Bears' argument.

Why doesn't anybody ever say what about Glebe or Annandale!?

NS will recover, just like Glebe and Annandale did before it.

It just takes time and a few generations to come and go, and then before you know it the Bears are nothing more than history remember by only a few and their prior existence has no lasting effect on the sports ability to penetrate the NS market.

BTW don't tell me what did or didn't happen to old Bears fans as I was a Bears fan and know what happened to Bears fans after the Bears dropped out of the NRL better then most.

The Shire has in addition a huge junior soccer base.Should the Sharks be lost,the ground will become a soccer base for A league .Many soccer kids also follow the Sharks.
You also forget Sharks supporters are not just confined to the shire,many have left to live in other areas of NSW.Lose the club's identity and you lose them also.Merchandies etc.

Finally there are no guarantees for a Perth side(even though I am for expansion to Perth).If they have a few bad years initially it could be disastrous .They have no history /tradition.
The Storm were fortunate being near the top rung in the first couple of years.

I will repeat one more time ,if clubs are financially strong ,able to stand on their own two feet,have a tradition,then as smith stated they wil be supported.If not then move them,simple as that.

I never contested any of this in my post.

But what you don't seem to understand is that none of this means that the Sharks or any other club whether they are from Sydney or not, shouldn't be relocated if the right situation presents it's self.

As I said before it's all a matter of risk and reward! If the reward is worth the risk then it's in the companies best interests to take that risk

And that also applies to clubs like Canberra

And it should apply to Canberra!

Where did I or anybody else (apart from yourself who seems to think the Sharks and I'm guessing the other Sydney clubs, have a divine right to be in the NRL) say that any club should be exempt from relocation (?), unless they are of serious strategic importance (like the Storm or the Warriors for example)

,that has the smallest attendances

And yet even with the smallest attendance we still make enough money to sustain ourselves.

As a side note to much emphasis is being put on crowds anyway, don't get me wrong big crowds a very good thing and we should be working towards getting crowds as big a possible, but they aren't the be all and end all that people (particularly the media) are making them out to be.

,and relies heavily on League clubs backing ie poker machine profits

What's the problem with a business model that see the Raiders Group own multiple leagues clubs to help fund the footy club?

It's a very good business model.

And for the record, increasingly the Raiders Groups real estate portfolio is making more money then the poker machines themselves.

,and offers little to the Sydney TV market.

Who gives a flying f##k what the Sydney TV market wants, they're not the only TV market of importance and if given the chance the Raiders would rate just as well as any other team.

Businesses only remove dead wood,or non performers.And on the very rare occasion retain a business because of the strategic location.

Good businesses are also ready to trade a plastic spoon for a sliver one if they're offered, because that's simply good business.

 

[carcharias]

Who gives a flying f##k what the Sydney TV market wants, they're not the only TV market of importance and if given the chance the Raiders would rate just as well as any other team.

um

the dudes paying for the advertising give all the f**ks.
more people watching means more people see their product.

Sydney is the largest city in the country with approx. 4.3 million people.
So if a Sydney based team is playing on tv, those people who live in Sydney and follow that team would be more likely to watch it... and in turn see one of the tv ads.
Maybe they'll go out and buy that bucket of KFC after the footy now it has been subconsciously imbedded in their brain.

Glad I could explain it for you.

 

[taipan]

What a short sighted thing to say.


The state of play actually.


Ahh yes the old 'what about the Bears' argument.

Why doesn't anybody ever say what about Glebe or Annandale!?

NS will recover, just like Glebe and Annandale did before it.

It just takes time and a few generations to come and go, and then before you know it the Bears are nothing more than history remember by only a few and their prior existence has no lasting effect on the sports ability to penetrate the NS market.

BTW don't tell me what did or didn't happen to old Bears fans as I was a Bears fan and know what happened to Bears fans after the Bears dropped out of the NRL better then most.




Glebe or Annandale LOL.They did not have competitive professional
codes working against them:S15/AFL/A League.
A Bears fan ,then melad as a Bear's fan you will understand why that very same old club ios trying to get back into the NRL.



I never contested any of this in my post.


I spelt out my reasons backed up by facts,whether you contested it or not regardless.



But what you don't seem to understand is that none of this means that the Sharks or any other club whether they are from Sydney or not, shouldn't be relocated if the right situation presents it's self.



I am repeating what Smith has stated ,he wants all current NRL clubs financially strong.You don't remove clubs that are in that situation.That is lunacy.


As I said before it's all a matter of risk and reward! If the reward is worth the risk then it's in the companies best interests to take that risk

Playing in the nRL is risky,any business is risky hardly a scoop.


And it should apply to Canberra!


If Canberra is financially secure it should not.



Where did I or anybody else (apart from yourself who seems to think the Sharks and I'm guessing the other Sydney clubs, have a divine right to be in the NRL) say that any club should be exempt from relocation (?), unless they are of serious strategic importance (like the Storm or the Warriors for example)


No one has a divine right to do anything on this planet.You were given facts and reasons for the status quo.Expansion can be in addition.


And yet even with the smallest attendance we still make enough money to sustain ourselves.


Thanks no doubt to poker machine backup.



As a side note to much emphasis is being put on crowds anyway, don't get me wrong big crowds a very good thing and we should be working towards getting crowds as big a possible, but they aren't the be all and end all that people (particularly the media) are making them out to be.


CEOs believe crowds and memberships are very important.We are deluded if we believe otherwise.The Panthers and Tigers CEO have warned fans they would play their games elsewhere due to low crowds.


What's the problem with a business model that see the Raiders Group own multiple leagues clubs to help fund the footy club?

It's a very good business model.

And for the record, increasingly the Raiders Groups real estate portfolio is making more money then the poker machines themselves.



Without reliance on poker machines it is a good business model.



Who gives a flying f##k what the Sydney TV market wants, they're not the only TV market of importance and if given the chance the Raiders would rate just as well as any other team.


The NRL and ch 9 give a flying f*ck that's where the ad revenue,Tv ratings dominate.
Can't believe you even made that statement.


Good businesses are also ready to trade a plastic spoon for a sliver one if they're offered, because that's simply good business.

Some businesses are born with silver spoons and fail. Ask young Fairfax at the Herald.

 

[Perth Red]

um

the dudes paying for the advertising give all the f**ks.
more people watching means more people see their product.

Sydney is the largest city in the country with approx. 4.3 million people.
So if a Sydney based team is playing on tv, those people who live in Sydney and follow that team would be more likely to watch it... and in turn see one of the tv ads.
Maybe they'll go out and buy that bucket of KFC after the footy now it has been subconsciously imbedded in their brain.

Glad I could explain it for you.

Has there been any analysis of viewing figures that shows audience fluctuations based on which teams are playing? I remember seeing Melbourne were the most watched on pay tv? I guess variables like league position, quality of opposition and KO time would all need to be factored in.

I'd love to know if
the Brisbane market fluctutates much depending on Broncos v another qland team v out of qland teams
Sydney market fluctuates much depending on sydney or non sydney or which sydney clubs are playing
etc

 

[carcharias]

Well
Some teams rate more than others

Broncos rate in qld that is why they are on TV every Friday night.
Rabbits, roosters , dragons and dogs would rate highly in syd .
2010 dragons were on free to air TV almost every weekend .

 

[The Great Dane]

um

the dudes paying for the advertising give all the f**ks.
more people watching means more people see their product.

Sydney is the largest city in the country with approx. 4.3 million people.
So if a Sydney based team is playing on tv, those people who live in Sydney and follow that team would be more likely to watch it... and in turn see one of the tv ads.
Maybe they'll go out and buy that bucket of KFC after the footy now it has been subconsciously imbedded in their brain.

Glad I could explain it for you.

You missed the point of my statement, I wasn't saying that the Sydney TV market isn't important (it certainly is) rather I was saying that's not the only important TV market and neither is it so mauch more important then the other markets that they should be ignored!

If we want to be a good TV product we need to be able to tap into as many markets as possible, right now with our spread of teams in the NRL we can only directly tap into three major markets in Australia (Sydney, SEQ/Brisbane and Melbourne) and four minor markets (ACT/Southern Highlands, NSW North Coast, Illawarra/South Coast and Central/North Queensland) and one major TV market in NZ (Auckland).

Considering that we have 16 teams in comp and we severely under service 3 of our major markets (Auckland, SEQ/Brisbane and Melbourne) and majorly over service the 4th (Sydney) We're doing a pretty poor job.

The state of play actually.

Glebe or Annandale LOL.They did not have competitive professional
codes working against them:S15/AFL/A League.

BS!

The NSWRL was not the only sports competition in Sydney charging for entry to games or competing for sponsorship and fans when Glebe and Annandale were around (they weren't the only competition paying their players either but that's a different point).

Not only did Glebe and Annandale compete with other sports for money they also competed with the other clubs in the NSWRL, and in Glebes case they never went broke!

The NSWRL Committee voted to remove Glebe from the competition even though they were completely sustainable! They removed them so that both the Rabbits and Tigers would become stronger and to create room of more teams in the future.

They traded 3 sustainable but comparatively weak clubs for 2 stronger clubs and the opportunity to expand their geographical coverage of Sydney!

That's incredibly similar to a relocation, which if done properly is just trading 1 comparatively weak club for a comparatively strong in a new market.

Do you think that they made the wrong decision all those years ago? Do you think that they should have kept Glebe in the comp even if it wasn't what was in the best interests of the competition?

A Bears fan ,then melad as a Bear's fan you will understand why that very same old club ios trying to get back into the NRL.

They're trying to get the Bears back into the NRL because they love the Bears and they want to follow them again and share the Bears with their children, and I support the Bears coming back into the comp in some form.

However I don't support the CC Bears as it's a terrible idea as the CC would struggle to support an NRL team (especially with the cost of NRL teams increasing dramatically) and that would force the Bears to look for support from the Sydney market and the Sydeny market can't support the teams it already has let alone the Bears on top of that. So in the end all CC Bears would do is more pressure on the other Sydeny clubs making everybody weaker.

I spelt out my reasons backed up by facts,whether you contested it or not regardless.

But why bring up said facts if they have nothing to do with my argument?

It's a bit like saying there are white roses when the other person is talking about the thorns on roses, though it might be true that there are white roses that fact has little to no bearing on the discussion of thorns.

I am repeating what Smith has stated ,he wants all current NRL clubs financially strong.You don't remove clubs that are in that situation.That is lunacy.

Yes and nothing about that statement means that he won't move to relocate clubs!

The Tigers for example are a current club that could (and most likely would be) financially strong if they were based in Perth and called the West Coast Tigers. Not saying that they should relocate the Tigers to Perth, personally I think that relocating any team to Perth would be a bad move.

Playing in the nRL is risky,any business is risky hardly a scoop.

I meant is the risk of relocation worth the possible rewards, if yes then relocation should be investigated.

If Canberra is financially secure it should not.

Financials aren't the only thing to consider when it comes to relocation.

If the Raiders are ever an unnecessary burden on the competition that is halting the progress of the competition and the growth of sport then it's time for the NRL move on from the Raiders.

Luckily we aren't a burden (financially or otherwise) at the moment, and if things keep going the way they are here and in southern NSW we might become one of the most important clubs in the NRL in next 20 years or so.

No one has a divine right to do anything on this planet.You were given facts and reasons for the status quo. Expansion can be in addition.

But what if the facts say that we can do much, much better then the status quo (just like they did back when Glebe were given the boot)!

Should be just be happy with the status quo because some people might get their feelings hurt or should try to be the greatest we can possibly be?

I think the later, and at the moment the facts are saying that we need to remove a couple of teams from Sydney and shuffle a couple of others about to be as great as we can be.

Thanks no doubt to poker machine backup.

CEOs believe crowds and memberships are very important.We are deluded if we believe otherwise.The Panthers and Tigers CEO have warned fans they would play their games elsewhere due to low crowds.

Without reliance on poker machines it is a good business model.

The NRL and ch 9 give a flying f*ck that's where the ad revenue,Tv ratings dominate.
Can't believe you even made that statement.

Some businesses are born with silver spoons and fail. Ask young Fairfax at the Herald.

What do you have against poker machines?

They're not illegal and IMO it's a persons right to do with their money what they will, if that means that they gamble it on a machine that's up to them.

 

[goodplayer]

relocate wests tigers to perth . western tigers

 

[alien]

relocate wests tigers to perth . western tigers

balmain dont even have any votes on the wests tigers board and you automatically think they would keep their mascot if "wests tigers" relocated, and that wests who actually are contributing would lose everything??? :?

 

[goodplayer]

your going to lose everything anyway , if you dont do something .where will this wests tigers be in 5 years from now ??

 

[Perth Red]

Wests pirates!
Brisbane Tigers!
Wellington orcas!

Solves all problems

 

[alien]

your going to lose everything anyway , if you dont do something .where will this wests tigers be in 5 years from now ??

if a relocation was going to happen (and i doubt it will) and balmain had no seats on the board at the time, well it wouldnt be western tigers. it would be western magpies.

 

[taipan]

You missed the point of my statement, I wasn't saying that the Sydney TV market isn't important (it certainly is) rather I was saying that's not the only important TV market and neither is it so mauch more important then the other markets that they should be ignored!


Missed no point.Sydney TV market 1st Brisbane 2nd and Melbourne with the potential.Perth 4th.
It is more important than otrher markets.It is the country's largest commercial city.

If we want to be a good TV product we need to be able to tap into as many markets as possible, right now with our spread of teams in the NRL we can only directly tap into three major markets in Australia (Sydney, SEQ/Brisbane and Melbourne) and four minor markets (ACT/Southern Highlands, NSW North Coast, Illawarra/South Coast and Central/North Queensland) and one major TV market in NZ (Auckland).

Forget Nth Coast and South Coast already covered by teams.

Considering that we have 16 teams in comp and we severely under service 3 of our major markets (Auckland, SEQ/Brisbane and Melbourne) and majorly over service the 4th (Sydney) We're doing a pretty poor job.

Blame the prior admin ,and the poor Tv deal.
BS!

The NSWRL was not the only sports competition in Sydney charging for entry to games or competing for sponsorship and fans when Glebe and Annandale were around (they weren't the only competition paying their players either but that's a different point).

Not only did Glebe and Annandale compete with other sports for money they also competed with the other clubs in the NSWRL, and in Glebes case they never went broke!

The NSWRL Committee voted to remove Glebe from the competition even though they were completely sustainable! They removed them so that both the Rabbits and Tigers would become stronger and to create room of more teams in the future.

They traded 3 sustainable but comparatively weak clubs for 2 stronger clubs and the opportunity to expand their geographical coverage of Sydney!

That's incredibly similar to a relocation, which if done properly is just trading 1 comparatively weak club for a comparatively strong in a new market.

Do you think that they made the wrong decision all those years ago? Do you think that they should have kept Glebe in the comp even if it wasn't what was in the best interests of the competition?


Please!! the fulltime professional of 4 codes now in sydney was not around in the Glebe/Annandale days.To draw comparisons on that basis,is laughable.TV was not around to market codes
That is the most wafer thin argument I have read anywhere.


They're trying to get the Bears back into the NRL because they love the Bears and they want to follow them again and share the Bears with their children, and I support the Bears coming back into the comp in some form.

However I don't support the CC Bears as it's a terrible idea as the CC would struggle to support an NRL team (especially with the cost of NRL teams increasing dramatically) and that would force the Bears to look for support from the Sydney market and the Sydeny market can't support the teams it already has let alone the Bears on top of that. So in the end all CC Bears would do is more pressure on the other Sydeny clubs making everybody weaker.


The Bears should have stayed where they are.Losing them so their fans have gone elsewhere. If clubs can be self supporting wioth membership/sponsorship and grants ,Sydney can support 9 teams.


But why bring up said facts if they have nothing to do with my argument?

Because you proudly acknowledged you were a former Bear's supporter.

It's a bit like saying there are white roses when the other person is talking about the thorns on roses, though it might be true that there are white roses that fact has little to no bearing on the discussion of thorns.

It relates to the subject matter.Club being lost an area,if you can't see that I can't help you.



Yes and nothing about that statement means that he won't move to relocate clubs!

Have always stated any decision is up to the ARLC,not me.

The Tigers for example are a current club that could (and most likely would be) financially strong if they were based in Perth and called the West Coast Tigers. Not saying that they should relocate the Tigers to Perth, personally I think that relocating any team to Perth would be a bad move.

If the Tigers can get their sh*t in order,they would be the last team to move IMO.


I meant is the risk of relocation worth the possible rewards, if yes then relocation should be investigated.

Losing a team with a large junior league,growing population and financial and another code/s filling the void ,just to lob a team elsewhere with no guarantees is hardly the stuff of commonsense.


Financials aren't the only thing to consider when it comes to relocation.

They are far and away the most vital,as the code is a pro sport.

If the Raiders are ever an unnecessary burden on the competition that is halting the progress of the competition and the growth of sport then it's time for the NRL move on from the Raiders.

Luckily we aren't a burden (financially or otherwise) at the moment, and if things keep going the way they are here and in southern NSW we might become one of the most important clubs in the NRL in next 20 years or so.

That can apply to any Sydney club,Sydney is growing inner and outer metro wise.


But what if the facts say that we can do much, much better then the status quo (just like they did back when Glebe were given the boot)!

Should be just be happy with the status quo because some people might get their feelings hurt or should try to be the greatest we can possibly be?

I think the later, and at the moment the facts are saying that we need to remove a couple of teams from Sydney and shuffle a couple of others about to be as great as we can be.


I have never suggested status quo re expansion,as I am for an 18 team comp initially.I am for status quo in Sydney, unless a club is in financial disarray and cannot compete long term.And relocation is the only repeat only way to save a club.


What do you have against poker machines?

I have nothing against poker machines.Except to say a mate of mine's father put his house through them,so he does.I have played them myself .But our politically correct society down the line may have a lot more influence than we think.eg Nick Xenephon and the gimp from Tasmania.
The clubs themselves are not making the money they used to from them such as the Dragons,Manly and the sharks.
These days if you are less reliant on them the better chanced you have long term,as who knows what govts may do in the future.
They're not illegal and IMO it's a persons right to do with their money what they will, if that means that they gamble it on a machine that's up to them.

 

[oikee]

The game will never grow, even in Australia, while it is being held to ransom by a few Small Sydney clubs, that are holding back millions of growth in huge cities, all wanting a team. International brands all lined up to sink money into the code.
Dave Smith is pandering to Gould and his crony mates from the Roosters.

 

[taipan]

The game will never grow, even in Australia, while it is being held to ransom by a few Small Sydney clubs, that are holding back millions of growth in huge cities, all wanting a team. International brands all lined up to sink money into the code.
Dave Smith is pandering to Gould and his crony mates from the Roosters.

Which international brands as a matter of interest?
Smith panders to no one.The board will do what they have to.not Gould not me,not you.

 

[oikee]

Which international brands as a matter of interest?
Smith panders to no one.The board will do what they have to.not Gould not me,not you.

Haweii the China mob have moved into Queensland and want a team to link.
Germany Union investments have bought into a 600 million brand new commercial in Brisbane's Southbank, they surely want some exposure.
Then you have Germany Shenker, who just bought the largest industrial container package land deal ever seen in Australia at Ipswich, they will want in.

You have Queensland rail Aurizon, they have mentioned they want in and Rocky is the Beef capitial with Williams the guy leading the charge for a Rocky team having massive investments in beef, him and his mates.

I am sure there are many many more, the line-up waiting to get in behind the Broncos monopoly also would welcome another team.
Then you have Perth business which must be screaming out to get exposure into Sydney and Queensland, along with NZ who have the England billionaire ready to sink money into a bid team.

Put it this way, the mining boom is about dusted, WA and South Australia are just about stuffed, the only growth state will be Queensland along with NSW.

That is where the population will be headed looking for work soon enough, we need to take advantage of that now.
Lets not wait another 5 years.
The bust is coming, the signs are up, no need to read them, Queensland is the only state that will be promoting massive growth in jobs. So the NRL have to act on that growth.