What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wellington launch NRL bid!!

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
Wellington will struggle to get ahead of Perth and Brisbane 2 on a number of fronts:
1. Stadium - 34.5k capacity oval with ltd roof cover, not where you want to watch RL in middle of a Wellington winter! Take the binoculars
2. Popualtion size - RU is No1 in Wellington but the Hurricanes draw Cronulla like corwds and financially are struggling. Doesn't bode well for a secondary sport to be succesfull
3. Warriors Dilution- Doyle is against it. Warriros want to be NZ's team, the Wellington crowd is full of fans in Warriors Merch. Are the Warriors sustainable enough to lose a large chunk of their supporter base?
4. Tv value - The Nz Sky deal is at max, another team is unlikely to add anything to it, likewise it adds little to an Australian TV deal. Perth (time and new audience) & Brisbane2 (live Brisbane weekly home games) add far more arguably.

Eventually the idea of Warriors truly become a Northern NZ team and Wellington a Southern NZ team is appealing but they are a distant third with better options on the table right now. It should be a strategy the NRL works on now to get it ready for the next round of expansion in 2023.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,272
Some valid points, other than what Doyle and the Warriors want... Stuff them... Their opinion should be as valid as the Broncos in respect of a new Brisbane team...

If NZ2 misses the boat in 2017- 18 though, they won't be expanding again in 2023 as will be too soon...
 

joshreading

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,720
I think a 'southern side' could work but only if spread out and it could be in up to 4 Cities (Wellington/Christ Church / Dunedin / Palmerston North and even Invercargill as a preseason location)

If each game is considered a special event you can probably get both crowds and corporates to turn out. Having a broad base also means that though you might have 12 home games they will often still be away from fans which enables the TV ratings to be propped up.

The other possibility the NRL seriously needs to consider is long term dual City arrangements to broaden Sydney Clubs AND the broader games strength.

For instance.

Panthers (which is playing up that identity rather than Penrith) could play 3 home games and a preseason in Wellington rather than Wellington getting a side - just add yellow as a secondary colour to the black when playing a home game in Wellington. Panthers should then have obligation for investment but also the first dibbs on juniors from the area. They can play games in NZ such Cowboys and Warriors that are generally low drawing games in NZ.

Sharks - play 2/3 games out of Christ Church and one in Dunedin as a second home with a similar arrangement to the above. This maintains their traditional base whilst securing a broader supporter base (this could obviously also be done in Adelaide)

Raiders play 2/3 games somewhere like Hamilton or the like.

The NRL will likely see the importance of securing Perth and Brisbane BUT has the conundrum that NZ is a third leg (with QLD and NSW) creating playing strength in the NRL and needs more attention then it is getting.

By having long term contracts for Clubs to play part time out of NZ also gives gives FOUR defacto sides that might feel some affinity for (especially if they bring out Kiwi specific jerseys etc) which also helps the NZ TV contract as Kiwis are watching the Warriors at present in far greater numbers than they are for other NRL sides. This could also be seen with these sides.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
I think this is def the way forward in the short term (next 10-15 years) to have partnership clubs in each city. Needs to happen in Australia as well. Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart/Launc and even PNG should have a club playing 2-3 games a season, having a specific membership and strong developmental links to. The NRL could make this happen for not that much cash and it would make a massive difference to the games footprint and profile.

Given Sydneys overcrowding I'd go with the lowest drawing NSw clubs to take up a sister city arrangement:

Manly - Wellington
Panthers - Dunedin/Christchurch
Sharks - Adelaide
Roosters - Gosford
Wests - PNG
Storm - Tassie (could have away games featuring Storm instead of Storm home games moved there)
Raiders - Dunedin
Eels - Darwin
Members of these clubs could be compensated for the loss of home games by the NRl scheduling a Friday blockbuster at Allainz and Sunday at ANZ every week. Members can get into either game for free on their Sydney club memberships, first come first served for tickets.
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,778
I think a 'southern side' could work but only if spread out and it could be in up to 4 Cities (Wellington/Christ Church / Dunedin / Palmerston North and even Invercargill as a preseason location)

If each game is considered a special event you can probably get both crowds and corporates to turn out. Having a broad base also means that though you might have 12 home games they will often still be away from fans which enables the TV ratings to be propped up.

The other possibility the NRL seriously needs to consider is long term dual City arrangements to broaden Sydney Clubs AND the broader games strength.

For instance.

Panthers (which is playing up that identity rather than Penrith) could play 3 home games and a preseason in Wellington rather than Wellington getting a side - just add yellow as a secondary colour to the black when playing a home game in Wellington. Panthers should then have obligation for investment but also the first dibbs on juniors from the area. They can play games in NZ such Cowboys and Warriors that are generally low drawing games in NZ.

Sharks - play 2/3 games out of Christ Church and one in Dunedin as a second home with a similar arrangement to the above. This maintains their traditional base whilst securing a broader supporter base (this could obviously also be done in Adelaide)

Raiders play 2/3 games somewhere like Hamilton or the like.

The NRL will likely see the importance of securing Perth and Brisbane BUT has the conundrum that NZ is a third leg (with QLD and NSW) creating playing strength in the NRL and needs more attention then it is getting.

By having long term contracts for Clubs to play part time out of NZ also gives gives FOUR defacto sides that might feel some affinity for (especially if they bring out Kiwi specific jerseys etc) which also helps the NZ TV contract as Kiwis are watching the Warriors at present in far greater numbers than they are for other NRL sides. This could also be seen with these sides.

In my experience long term duel city arrangements sound good on paper, but in practice always end badly.

Canberra have had North Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs and now GWS (hell I'm probably forgetting one) all make long term agreements to play annual games in Canberra, and at first it works well for both parties, Canberra gets AFL games and the AFL and/or the clubs get big paychecks.

Then enviably the novelty effect wears off, the club decides they want to 're-negotiate their contract (i.e. they want more money) or it becomes clear that the promise of our own club if the attendance to the games was good that the AFL and/or the clubs have been alluding to was a bald faced lie.

Then things go south very quickly and it always ends with the people feeling ripped off and that always creates a situation where the code is in a worse position within the community then it started out in.

Don't get me wrong, playing games in other cities is a good thing that the NRL should look to have happen as much as possible, but having teams pair up with second cities always ends badly for the code as a whole.

BTW, the Raiders aren't a Sydney club or even a NSW club, and our stadium deal with the ACT government dictates that we must play 12 NRL premiership games a year and any home finals we may obtain the right to host in the ACT or we are in breach of our contract, so even if we wanted to we can't take games away from home without the governments permission and they've shown in the past that they aren't willing to grant that permission easily.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
Thats becasue they are left to the clubs to decide and negotiate. The NRL should have a strategy that pretty much forces clubs into these arrangements, long term. Make it financially appealing and give disincentives to those who refuse. Could be done easily, $300k per game to those clubs willing to sign up plus help with marketing and membership pushes in those cities. For those who refuse they dont get the incentives and they dont get the discretionary NRL funding grant. There are plenty of clubs doing it financially tough and the idea of $900k plus members plus other money would not be turned down quickly. Heck if they wanted to they could bring in license targets for say avg crowds of 16k, any club with a sister city is exempt, that would be enough to get most of them over the line.
Would cost the NRL in the region of $8-10million a year which is small change when you consider they are bringing into the NRL footprint 7-8 major cities.

re Canberra, all agreements are open for negotiation. I'm sure if the NRL guaranteed an international game every year or two they could get the Raiders out of the 12 game deal. Maybe the NRl could chip in with the redevelopment costs to get them a better deal? Where there is a will there is a way.
 
Last edited:

joshreading

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,720
I live in Canberra and have seen the impact of these deals from an AFL point of view and they have actually maintained a presence for the AFL in Canberra. Without these deals the AFL would've continued it's slow decline due to the Raiders and Brumbies but they seem to have stalled it and arguably started to turn it around. I don't ever remember the Western Bulldogs settling here though I was here for the Kangaroos and they did increase their memberships here. GWS verdict is out but there is some gear around town. (they got too far good a deal with the Government). Thankfully GWS is terrible as well so the Raiders have been let off the hook for the moment.

Raiders are now going to struggle as an ongoing reality because of the limited and transient population and corporate appeal. I go to the games and there is a good core but other sides are simply going to get bigger in the next decade and the Raiders can't keep up without broadening their appeal.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,778
I think this is def the way forward in the short term (next 10-15 years) to have partnership clubs in each city. Needs to happen in Australia as well. Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart/Launc and even PNG should have a club playing 2-3 games a season, having a specific membership and strong developmental links to. The NRL could make this happen for not that much cash and it would make a massive difference to the games footprint and profile.

Given Sydneys overcrowding I'd go with the lowest drawing NSw clubs to take up a sister city arrangement:

Manly - Wellington
Panthers - Dunedin/Christchurch
Sharks - Adelaide
Roosters - Gosford
Wests - PNG
Storm - Tassie (could have away games featuring Storm instead of Storm home games moved there)
Raiders - Dunedin

Eels - Darwin
Members of these clubs could be compensated for the loss of home games by the NRl scheduling a Friday blockbuster at Allainz and Sunday at ANZ every week. Members can get into either game for free on their Sydney club memberships, first come first served for tickets.

Do we really want clubs like the Storm and Raiders (same goes for the Knights, Broncos, Cowboys and Titans BTW) taking a handful of game away from home a year when they are our only presence in hotly contested markets!

I can't speak for the other clubs, but it would be devastating for RL in the ACT and surrounding region to lose Raiders games at the moment.
With the Raiders going so poorly and the Brumbies going pretty well at the moment, and the AFL desperately trying to gain a significant share of the ACT market without committing to the market, it'd be a disaster for RL in the ACT to lose the publicity that the Raiders bring to the sport for any extended period of time (even if that time is spread out over a period time).

I'm not saying that the Raiders (or any other club for that matter) should be exempt for taking home games abroad (in fact there have been times when I've advocated that the Raiders take games abroad), just that there needs to be a little bit more flexibility and though put into the process then just paring a bunch of teams up to cities (which I've already expressed my opinion on) because 'it's in the best interest of the game' when a little look into the implications may show that isn't the case.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
Thats why I suggested the storm could play "away" games there. Eg Bulldogs v storm at Hobart. Bulldogs get the money but storm get top billing and the partnership, membership etc. at worse they could play a pre season and one regular season game there. Agreed idealy cities with only 12 home games shouldn't be moving them.

Sorry but if act people are not going to come out and support the Raiders then for the Raiders to maintain full value to the NRL they need to offer more than just 10-12k people turning up every other week. Helping grow the game in another city would be that value add that keeps them valued. As said we will in time end up with a massive gulf in the NRL clubs in terms of popularity and value add, this is one way of clubs like canberra keeping their value to,the NRL long term. Just having a wealthy leagues club keeping you sustainable isn't probably going to be enough.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,778
Thats becasue they are left to the clubs to decide and negotiate.

Nope all the contracts that the clubs in question negotiated with the ACT government were negotiated in with the AFL.

In the case of North Melbourne the AFL oversaw the whole process to make sure it was up to their standards, in the cases of both the Bulldogs and GWS the AFL negotiated and organised the deals for the clubs.

re Canberra, all agreements are open for negotiation. I'm sure if the NRL guaranteed an international game every year or two they could get the Raiders out of the 12 game deal. Maybe the NRl could chip in with a year the redevelopment costs to get them a better deal? Where there is a will there is a way.

I'm sure your right, except that the NRL would never agree to anything that would appease the ACT government because ACT would only agree if the internationals included the Roos and the NRL could make more money from those internationals by holding them in other cities then they could from holding said internationals in Canberra while taking Raiders games to other cities.

The NRL wouldn't agree to any deal where the NRL help pay the new stadium as it'd cost them more significantly more money then holding a few Raiders games abroad would make them in return.

I live in Canberra and have seen the impact of these deals from an AFL point of view and they have actually maintained a presence for the AFL in Canberra.

I half agree, it has maintained an AFL presences in Canberra, however it is almost exclusively within the people from outside of Canberra and you can't maintain a sport on the transient part of a community forever.

Most of those people will go home or move on once their business in Canberra is finished, what's left is the Canberrans and with us all that has come of these teams coming and declaring themselves 'Canberra's team' has done is offend and in the long run that'll come back to bite the AFL squarely on the balls.

Without these deals the AFL would've continued it's slow decline due to the Raiders and Brumbies but they seem to have stalled it and arguably started to turn it around.

What steady decline!

The AFL's participation numbers in Canberra were roughly steady until the late 80's through to the late 90's where they dropped (I'll let you guess why) after that they evened out again and have steadily increased with population as it grew.

I might add that outside of the private schools RU's participation numbers in the ACT took a significant hit though that same period of 89-97ish before jumping significantly up after 2001--2005ish (again I'll let you guess why) and then evening back out again.

I don't ever remember the Western Bulldogs settling here

They came here around 2006-7 and if I remember correctly they agreed to a five year deal (or something similar) with the ACT government, but pulled out after the first or second year.

though I was here for the Kangaroos and they did increase their memberships here.

During the period that they were playing here sure, that was the cheapest way to get tickets to all of their games in Canberra for the season, in fact most of the people that bought those memberships were fans of other clubs happy just to be able to go to any AFL.

But once they left I doubt that many of those Canberra members stayed members.

GWS verdict is out but there is some gear around town. (they got too far good a deal with the Government). Thankfully GWS is terrible as well so the Raiders have been let off the hook for the moment.

The verdict is still out I guess, the crowd numbers are steadily dropping, the ACT members average is stagnating and the majority of those who are still buying memberships and attending games are fans of others clubs.

I can't see the Giants pulling out of their deal, it's so good that they'ed have to be insane to that, but I also can't see any significant changes in the amount of interest in them in Canberra changing unless they win the comp, which I can't see happening.

Raiders are now going to struggle as an ongoing reality because of the limited and transient population and corporate appeal.

The size of the population is growing significantly and the transience of the population is dropping significantly.

All of our corporate appeal problems (and a fair amount of our fan engagement as well) could be fixed with equal shearing of FTA time as the only problem we have with convincing companies to join us is convincing them to pay us the same amount as they would pay a Sydney club but only get a quarter of the publicity for their investment. The Storm will likely face similar issues once the 'Big three' and Bellamy move on and you don't have as much success.

I go to the games and there is a good core but other sides are simply going to get bigger in the next decade and the Raiders can't keep up without broadening their appeal.

With the way that we're treated by Nine, 20 years of mediocrity and the current success of the team, until recently the administrations treatment of the fans, marketing, branding, etc it's not surprising that it's been hard to grow our appeal.

Apart from the media outside Canberras utter contempt for all things Canberra (compounded by the fact that 90% of the RL media is based in either Sydney or Brisbane), the Raiders have been working on all their problems and seem to be making slow but fair advances.

Were you at the final against the Sharks two years ago, 25 thousand Raiders fans, the majority from Canberra or the surrounding region, the fan base is here it's just frustrated and disenfranchised.
 

Rodney

Juniors
Messages
243
Sister city arrangements are fine for the right clubs.
The Roosters have already partnered with the CC rugby league so sharing games with the region.
Manly would also benefit from sending a game or two to the region considering their proximity to the region.
The Sharks would also benefit by extending their brand. Considering their small catchement at the moment moving games away.

However clubs like wests should seek to consolidate their existing home areas.
Having more games at Campbelltown and less at Leichart and ANZ would be a good move for them.
Campbelltown is a booming population area with population expected to double in the next 20 years.
Parramatta similarly should focus on endearing themselves to the booming Hills area which is expected to also double in size in 20 years.
An occasional out of town game is fine, but these teams must also keep in mind the need for consolidation.

Sydney's only getting bigger and over time the overcrowded sporting landscape will become more and more comfortable.

We also have to consider how any distribution of games will affect teams identities.
Tribalism is the Sydney teams strengths, and to lose that would be detrimental.
Shipping 3+ games a year interstate or internationally would fundamentally change a teams identity and i'm not sure any team will be able to retain its appeal running at 3/4ths capacity in the area.
 

Rodney

Juniors
Messages
243
Teams like Melbourne and Canberra should look to try and engage their local communities more than reaching out imo.
The areas are growing and these teams aren't by any means comfortable in the sports market.

Sydney has plenty of NRL action which garners media attention but these areas only have the one ticket to rely on to try and gain exposure.

Maybe sending out pre-season trials, but I wouldn't be distributing NRL games.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,778
Thats why I suggested the storm could play "away" games there. Eg Bulldogs v storm at Hobart. Bulldogs get the money but storm get top billing and the partnership, membership etc. at worse they could play a pre season and one regular season game there. Agreed idealy cities with only 12 home games shouldn't be moving them.

Now explain why your happy to be reasonable in Melbournes case but not in the case of others?

Is removing Raiders games away from Canberra to grow the game in other places really worth it if you jeperdises the games footing in Canberra?

I think not.

Sorry but if act people are not going to come out and support the Raiders then for the Raiders to maintain full value to the NRL they need to offer more than just 10-12k people turning up every other week.

Your really going to regret saying things like this when Perth get a team then go through a rough patch.

Simplifying something that has so many complex and contributing factors down to suit your agenda is unbecoming of you PR.

Helping grow the game in another city would be that value add that keeps them valued. As said we will in time end up with a massive gulf in the NRL clubs in terms of popularity and value add, this is one way of clubs like canberra keeping their value to,the NRL long term. Just having a wealthy leagues club keeping you sustainable isn't probably going to be enough.

I think you count the Raiders out to far to soon in the popularity stakes, and you ignore the fact that in competitions as close as the NRL things such popularity is all swings and roundabouts.

Only a handful of years ago nobody would touch the Rabbits with a forty foot poll, the Knights were a successful and very popular team with one of the best players of his generation leading the team, the Warriors winning the comp within the decade was seen as almost inevitable, Ricky was considered a successful couch, the Raiders were still mediocre and the notion of a team in Perth was borderline insane.
Things can change very quickly.
 

Loose Cannon

Bench
Messages
3,533
I agree with all who claim "farming out" home games should not be a level playing field. The "sister city" approach is a good idea for the Sydney clubs which are limited by geographical/population/commercial restraints. I would think that three-year contracts could be established with each Sydney club and a NRL strategic country area to play 1 game per year and grow the game in other ways over the course of the contract.

Surely, the out-of-town teams are better served concentrating on their own backyard. I don't see any reason why NQ, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Warriors, Canberra and Melbourne should be sacrificing home games for another market.

I would also exempt StGeorge from any comparison to other Sydney teams and focus further on the Illawarra. And although it's not really working out to potential, Penrith and Campbelltown (Tigers) should be looking at their own bases as well more so than elsewhere.

That presently leaves 6-8 clubs to focus on NRL defined areas-of-interest over the same 3-year term, providing valuable research in regard to possible future expansion, creating exposure for the club beyond their traditional boundaries, and with any luck allowing junior development in these areas to flourish.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,778
I agree with all who claim "farming out" home games should not be a level playing field. The "sister city" approach is a good idea for the Sydney clubs which are limited by geographical/population/commercial restraints. I would think that three-year contracts could be established with each Sydney club and a NRL strategic country area to play 1 game per year and grow the game in other ways over the course of the contract.

Surely, the out-of-town teams are better served concentrating on their own backyard. I don't see any reason why NQ, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Warriors, Canberra and Melbourne should be sacrificing home games for another market.

I would also exempt StGeorge from any comparison to other Sydney teams and focus further on the Illawarra. And although it's not really working out to potential, Penrith and Campbelltown (Tigers) should be looking at their own bases as well more so than elsewhere.

That presently leaves 6-8 clubs to focus on NRL defined areas-of-interest over the same 3-year term, providing valuable research in regard to possible future expansion, creating exposure for the club beyond their traditional boundaries, and with any luck allowing junior development in these areas to flourish.

I agree with this, though I'd still warn against "sister city" arrangements as they always end badly when the club decides to move on from the city.

I have always thought that it would be better to arrange a mix of clubs to play in these games in target cities over 2-3 year period time, try to avoid having the same teams play more then once or twice in that period and organize NRL memberships for the cities that will get them into every game played in the city without it being directly connected to any individual club.

The same exposure for the game (if not better) without the bitter let down of the cities "sister club" leaving them behind.
 

Loose Cannon

Bench
Messages
3,533
I agree with this, though I'd still warn against "sister city" arrangements as they always end badly when the club decides to move on from the city.

I have always thought that it would be better to arrange a mix of clubs to play in these games in target cities over 2-3 year period time, try to avoid having the same teams play more then once or twice in that period and organize NRL memberships for the cities that will get them into every game played in the city without it being directly connected to any individual club.

The same exposure for the game (if not better) without the bitter let down of the cities "sister club" leaving them behind.

I'd be happy with either scenario, and your system does allow for variety. I think the most important thing would be for the NRL to run the show for each agreement. This way they can dictate any conditions they might wish to consider, possibly by compensating/rewarding the clubs involved based upon their investment in the process. ie. School visits, public functions throughout the week prior.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
If the NRL is to expand its footprint in Oz and NZ (and PNG) and engage new audiences, as well as support the small clubs to keep up with the big clubs then a sister city arrangement makes perfect sense. Sydney club fans get 10 home games plus they get plenty of away games they could watch their club at if they wished, Canberra might encourage more people to go if there are less opportunities?, Melbourne are growing nicely but would still benefit from engaging with Tassie to boost memberships and merch sales. For the NRL to grow it either has to be relocation, merger or sister city link ups. I would think the latter would be the least painful and quickest to do?
Affiliated states need plenty of support to grow the game and having an NRL club in a long term partnership promoting the game, working with jnr coaching clinics, helping with SG ball set ups, getting media exposure etc would make a heck of a difference.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,778
I'd be happy with either scenario, and your system does allow for variety. I think the most important thing would be for the NRL to run the show for each agreement. This way they can dictate any conditions they might wish to consider, possibly by compensating/rewarding the clubs involved based upon their investment in the process. ie. School visits, public functions throughout the week prior.

My system would also allow for individual clubs to give up less home games in a season while still spreading out a fair amount of games to target cities.

For example, instead of having the Eels give up 3 home games to Perth, the Rabbits giving up 3 to Adelaide and the Warriors giving up 2 to Wellington and 1 to Christchurch you'd have 9 different clubs each giving up 1 game to one of the cities.

This means that there'd be less impact on individual clubs and their fan bases, i.e. the fans still get at least eleven home games in a season instead of possibly losing anywhere up to 5 and the clubs share the load of promoting the game more evenly.

Sure the clubs won't make as much money from my proposed NRL memberships as they might from arranging sister city agreements and setting up memberships for their sister city, however there'd be less risk for them in the venture and they'd still make a little money from it, and there'd be a much lower risk of backlash for the sport as a whole.

If the NRL is to expand its footprint in Oz and NZ (and PNG) and engage new audiences, as well as support the small clubs to keep up with the big clubs then a sister city arrangement makes perfect sense. Sydney club fans get 10 home games plus they get plenty of away games they could watch their club at if they wished, Canberra might encourage more people to go if there are less opportunities?, Melbourne are growing nicely but would still benefit from engaging with Tassie to boost memberships and merch sales. For the NRL to grow it either has to be relocation, merger or sister city link ups. I would think the latter would be the least painful and quickest to do?

Less painful for the clubs and their individual fan bases maybe, but in my opinion not for the sport as a whole.

It'd be a bit like the difference between ripping a band-aid off slowly as apposed to quickly. sure in the short term it hurts more to rip it off quickly but it'll save you pain in the long run.

I think the same can be said about sister city arrangements (as we've come to call them) as apposed to just starting the process of relocation, sure the relocation will hurt a lot in the short term, but what's the point in dragging out the inevitable.

Affiliated states need plenty of support to grow the game and having an NRL club in a long term partnership promoting the game, working with jnr coaching clinics, helping with SG ball set ups, getting media exposure etc would make a heck of a difference.

The NRL along with the clubs can still do all those things without organising detrimental sister city deal.

BTW, why should we put the duty of promoting and supporting RL outside of the clubs homes onto the backs of clubs, managing and promoting RL in Australia is literally the ARLCs job description.

Sure the clubs can and should be used by the ARLC as tools for the purpose of managing and promoting the game all over the country and the world, but I don't think it's a great idea to leave such thing wholly in the control of individual clubs (though I can think of situations were it may be a good idea to place an area under the care of a club/s) .
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
You asked and answered your own question! The NRL clubs are the best vehicle we have for driving engagement and attachment to the NRL in new areas. no ones saying they should do it out of goodness of their heart, they should be well recompensed for it and benefit by engaging new members and corporates.

The NRL needs to have a strategy and control it, not the clubs.
 

Latest posts

Top