Queensland Cup sides moving into the NRL

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Leave Broncos as a North/West Brisbane team with Jets, Devils, Dolphins as their feeder teams.

Bring in Easts for the massive South East region of Brisbane with Wynumm, Logan and Tigers as their feeder teams. Obviously they can't be the Tigers. Maybe they can take on the old Logan Scorpions brand.

Brisbane Scorpions

I can see that working if the club is based out of Langlands Park and calls itself South Brisbane, to distinguish itself from the Broncos. Gold, white and black as the colours so it represents Easts and Souths.

Easts' club song, which is sung to the tune of Waltzing Matilda.
I have a gold logo of a scorpion I designed a few years ago, but the computer it's on has died. I'll have to get it fixed before I can upload it.

I'd love to see the Scorpions back!

I'd imagine Easts want their name represented one way or another. There was a rumour they were going to merge with the Chargers and Balmain to become the East Coast Tigers in the late 90s. They then changed their name to East Coast for a few seasons. One advantage of using the name East Coast over Brisbane is it allows them to cover other cities in south-east Queensland that don't identify as Brisbane. Redland, Logan, and Gold Coast are separate cities and have a rivalry with Brisbane. I don't know if I could support a team called Brisbane. I was raised in Brisbane, right in the middle of Easts Territory, but I've lived over half of my life in in Logan, and see the distain that people from Brisbane have for this city. It makes me not want to go into Brisbane any more as it's too snobby and fake. Gold Coasters aren't fond of Brisbane or Logan.

 

[Diesel]

It’d be interesting to know if there has been any preliminary discussions with Wests Tigers to buy the Tigers name and Wests revert to Magpies.

In the NBA, the Charlotte Hornets owner moved the team to New Orleans. The NBA wanted a new team in Charlotte and created a new license for Charlotte but the Hornets name was used in NO, so they called the team the Bobcats. Later, NO changed their name to the Pelicans and the Bobcats were later able to change their name back to the Hornets

 

[The Great Dane]

It’d be interesting to know if there has been any preliminary discussions with Wests Tigers to buy the Tigers name and Wests revert to Magpies.

In the NBA, the Charlotte Hornets owner moved the team to New Orleans. The NBA wanted a new team in Charlotte and created a new license for Charlotte but the Hornets name was used in NO, so they called the team the Bobcats. Later, NO changed their name to the Pelicans and the Bobcats were later able to change their name back to the Hornets

There's a massive difference between those two situations, namely the Wests Tigers are still using their brand, they've shown no interest in changing it, and as such it's almost certainly not for sale.

On top of that, there're a lot more positives to the Easts Tigers creating a new brand for their NRL bid than keeping the Tigers brand.

 

[The Great Dane]

I can see that working if the club is based out of Langlands Park and calls itself South Brisbane, to distinguish itself from the Broncos. Gold, white and black as the colours so it represents Easts and Souths.

Easts' club song, which is sung to the tune of Waltzing Matilda.
I have a gold logo of a scorpion I designed a few years ago, but the computer it's on has died. I'll have to get it fixed before I can upload it.

I'd love to see the Scorpions back!

I'd imagine Easts want their name represented one way or another. There was a rumour they were going to merge with the Chargers and Balmain to become the East Coast Tigers in the late 90s. They then changed their name to East Coast for a few seasons. One advantage of using the name East Coast over Brisbane is it allows them to cover other cities in south-east Queensland that don't identify as Brisbane. Redland, Logan, and Gold Coast are separate cities and have a rivalry with Brisbane. I don't know if I could support a team called Brisbane. I was raised in Brisbane, right in the middle of Easts Territory, but I've lived over half of my life in in Logan, and see the distain that people from Brisbane have for this city. It makes me not want to go into Brisbane any more as it's too snobby and fake. Gold Coasters aren't fond of Brisbane or Logan.

That would be a classic case of trying to appeal to everybody, only to not appeal to anybody. You even explained in your post why it's a bad idea.

Easts should focus their efforts on growing a fan base in South Brisbane, if people from outside of South Brisbane jump on board that's great, but the target audience should be South Brisbane.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

If poker machines were legal in QLD before the 90's or illegal in NSW until the 90's (i.e. leveling the financial playing field), it would have been more desireable to have the NSW Cup merge with the QLD Cup with the strongest clubs and / or best strategicallty placed clubs from each forming the new ARL competition rather than adding newly created brands to the NSW Cup.

QLD Cup
Redcliffe Dolphins
Eastern Suburbs Tigers (Renamed East Brisbane Tigers for the national comp)
South Brisbane Magpies
Ipswich Jets

NSW Cup
South Sydney Rabbitohs
Parramatta Eels
Canterbury Bulldogs
Canberra Raiders
Eastern Suburbs Roosters (Renamed Sydney Roosters for the national comp)
Penrith Panthers
Manly Sea Eagles

Three spots for merged / relocated teams to join to make 14 teams
St George Illawarra Dragons
Central Coast Bears
Western Sydney Tigers

Addition of one city teams in 1988 to make 16 teams
Newcastle Knights
Gold Coast Seagulls

Addition of expansion teams in 1995 to make 18 teams
Auckland Warriors
North Queensland Cowboys

Addition of Melbourne in 2002, replacing Manly (relegated to the second division) still 18 teams
Melbourne Storm

Addition of expansion teams on the back of the richest TV deal in the games' history to make 20 teams
Perth Reds
Christchurch Bulls

• 5 QLD teams (four of them traditional SEQ rivals)
• 10 NSW/ACT teams (six in Sydney, three in regional NSW, one in ACT)
• National footprint
• Two NZ teams boosting the TV deal in NZ on top of the increased 2012 TV deal to help pay for the 20 team comp

 

[Perth Red]

Ideally before admitting Broncos the ARL should have taken a blank piece of paper and laid out its road map. Starting with inviting applications for 7 NSW/ACT licenses and 5 Queensland licenses. Then when that was settled in late 80's brought in Perth and Melbourne in 95 and NZ and Adelaide in 2000 (presuming no SL war of course). A 16 team comp with that spread of clubs would have been perfect.

 

[flippikat]

Ideally before admitting Broncos the ARL should have taken a blank piece of paper and laid out its road map. Starting with inviting applications for 7 NSW/ACT licenses and 5 Queensland licenses. Then when that was settled in late 80's brought in Perth and Melbourne in 95 and NZ and Adelaide in 2000 (presuming no SL war of course). A 16 team comp with that spread of clubs would have been perfect.

Precisely. Instead of basing the national top tier on a "merger of equals" (ie bringing together similar numbers of NSW and Qld teams) then adding from there, tacking clubs onto a NSW-centric competition has proven to be an utterly unworkable way to create a truly national competition.

We're in a situation where a 2nd Brisbane club jostles for a spot along with Perth, when Brisbane should *already* have 2 clubs.. and it would have (and more probably) if the formation of a national competition in the late 80s/early 90s did it from the get-go.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

That would be a classic case of trying to appeal to everybody, only to not appeal to anybody. You even explained in your post why it's a bad idea.

Easts should focus their efforts on growing a fan base in South Brisbane, if people from outside of South Brisbane jump on board that's great, but the target audience should be South Brisbane.

It would be a waste to admit Easts and not include Wynnum in some form. Wynnum are easily the most popular team in Brisbane with the largest supporter base and appear to be promoting their brand into Redland. A few years ago they named their BRL team the Wynnum Manly Redland City Seagulls and are involved in Touch Rugby League in the Redlands.

A name like East Coast would apply nicely to a team representing this area as it's the one thing the bayside suburbs of Brisbane and the City of Redland have in common. Add in Gold Coast with its history of the Gold Coast Seagulls and link to Lewis and it's easy to see how the team can be promoted as a bayside club.

I chose the Seagulls over Easts as my QRL club as I can get to their games by going through Redlands and because Wynnum is nothing like the rest of Brisbane. The thing that turned me off Easts and Souths was the built up yuppie suburbs they're based in and mascots being named after Sydney clubs. I would be comfortable supporting a merged entity between Easts and Wynnum provided the mascot was the Seagull. East Coast is just the right name for a bayside club, South Brisbane wouldn't cut it as that's a different area altogether.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

• Two NZ teams boosting the TV deal in NZ on top of the increased 2012 TV deal to help pay for the 20 team comp

A second NZ club is a must. I reckon we have a real opportunity to make inroads in NZ over the next 20 years. NZ is too small to compete with the rest of the world's sporting leagues, so the death of pro onionball in Aus will hurt the financial stability of the game in NZ. A second NZ team would increase the profile of RL and give little brother NZ more opportunities to compete with big Brother Aus. Kids might start choosing the Kiwis over the All Blacks.

 

[The Great Dane]

It would be a waste to admit Easts and not include Wynnum in some form. Wynnum are easily the most popular team in Brisbane with the largest supporter base and appear to be promoting their brand into Redland. A few years ago they named their BRL team the Wynnum Manly Redland City Seagulls and are involved in Touch Rugby League in the Redlands.

A name like East Coast would apply nicely to a team representing this area as it's the one thing the bayside suburbs of Brisbane and the City of Redland have in common. Add in Gold Coast with its history of the Gold Coast Seagulls and link to Lewis and it's easy to see how the team can be promoted as a bayside club.

I chose the Seagulls over Easts as my QRL club as I can get to their games by going through Redlands and because Wynnum is nothing like the rest of Brisbane. The thing that turned me off Easts and Souths was the built up yuppie suburbs they're based in and mascots being named after Sydney clubs. I would be comfortable supporting a merged entity between Easts and Wynnum provided the mascot was the Seagull. East Coast is just the right name for a bayside club, South Brisbane wouldn't cut it as that's a different area altogether.

If you created a team that represents all of Brisbane south of the river, then they'd already be representing Wynnum and to a certain extent Redlands as well.

East Coast has certain connotations in Australian culture that would make it hard to use without the club looking a bit silly, and there's nothing wrong with names like South Brisbane, Southern Brisbane, etc.

 

[flippikat]

A second NZ club is a must. I reckon we have a real opportunity to make inroads in NZ over the next 20 years. NZ is too small to compete with the rest of the world's sporting leagues, so the death of pro onionball in Aus will hurt the financial stability of the game in NZ. A second NZ team would increase the profile of RL and give little brother NZ more opportunities to compete with big Brother Aus. Kids might start choosing the Kiwis over the All Blacks.

Great point.

There's a huge amount of rugby talent here, but not the "critical mass" economically to bankroll it from the NZ market alone.. hence, SANZAR/Super 12/Tri Nations being formed in 1995 because NZ Rugby *needed* the financial clout that a bigger market brought.

Fine back then, while all 3 nations were pretty strong, and pretty engaged with the concept - but now that South Africa is toying with the idea of linking with Europe (because timezones), and Australian rugby is a total dumpster-fire, and Pay-TV has far less money to throw around.. NZ Rugby has a huge problem looming.

Perfect time for the NRL to step into the gap - Rugby Union doesn't have the critical mass for a trans-Tasman competition that works, but Rugby League certainly *does*.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If you created a team that represents all of Brisbane south of the river, then they'd already be representing Wynnum and to a certain extent Redlands as well.

East Coast has certain connotations in Australian culture that would make it hard to use without the club looking a bit silly, and there's nothing wrong with names like South Brisbane, Southern Brisbane, etc.

A team south of the river would represent a very large area of varying cultures.

Wynnum is south of the Brisbane River, but east-north-east of Brisbane. It is culturally different to the rest of Brisbane and has more in common with Redlands. Residents in Wynnum would like their own council.

Easts Territory is more affluent and yuppieish and built-up than Souths Territory. There's more industrial estates out in the western and southern parts of Souths Territory.

When the council's were amalgamated in 2008 there were plans to make Logan and Redlands into the one city. There was fierce opposition by the people of Redlands. The eastern suburbs of Logan are affluent like Easts Territory and contain subdistrict clubs of Easts, whereas the western suburbs are like Ipswich.

Souths don't have any subdistrict clubs in Logan and the last time they did was 1982. Souths Woodbridge. The Smith brothers played for them. Souths use Logan in their name but have no affiliation with the defunct Scorpions and haven't played a game in Logan since 2008. Their base is in West End and their juniors are at Acacia Ridge. They're not really a Logan club. I think Easts have more of a cultural connection to the area, at the eastern suburbs. It's definitely the closest in location.

I put all this together and think the only thing that would work is a merger between Easts and Wynnum. Souths would probably fit in better with Wests and Norths. Games between Easts and Wynnum always have a special feeling as it's a derby. When Souths play Wynnum it doesn't have the same atmosphere.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Great point.

There's a huge amount of rugby talent here, but not the "critical mass" economically to bankroll it from the NZ market alone.. hence, SANZAR/Super 12/Tri Nations being formed in 1995 because NZ Rugby *needed* the financial clout that a bigger market brought.

Fine back then, while all 3 nations were pretty strong, and pretty engaged with the concept - but now that South Africa is toying with the idea of linking with Europe (because timezones), and Australian rugby is a total dumpster-fire, and Pay-TV has far less money to throw around.. NZ Rugby has a huge problem looming.

Perfect time for the NRL to step into the gap - Rugby Union doesn't have the critical mass for a trans-Tasman competition that works, but Rugby League certainly *does*.

Would New Zealand embrace the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles if they relocated to Wellington?

The Roosters could cover the North Shore and become a much stronger club.

 

[The Great Dane]

A team south of the river would represent a very large area of varying cultures.

Wynnum is south of the Brisbane River, but east-north-east of Brisbane. It is culturally different to the rest of Brisbane and has more in common with Redlands. Residents in Wynnum would like their own council.

Easts Territory is more affluent and yuppieish and built-up than Souths Territory. There's more industrial estates out in the western and southern parts of Souths Territory.

When the council's were amalgamated in 2008 there were plans to make Logan and Redlands into the one city. There was fierce opposition by the people of Redlands. The eastern suburbs of Logan are affluent like Easts Territory and contain subdistrict clubs of Easts, whereas the western suburbs are like Ipswich.

Souths don't have any subdistrict clubs in Logan and the last time they did was 1982. Souths Woodbridge. The Smith brothers played for them. Souths use Logan in their name but have no affiliation with the defunct Scorpions and haven't played a game in Logan since 2008. Their base is in West End and their juniors are at Acacia Ridge. They're not really a Logan club. I think Easts have more of a cultural connection to the area, at the eastern suburbs. It's definitely the closest in location.

I put all this together and think the only thing that would work is a merger between Easts and Wynnum. Souths would probably fit in better with Wests and Norths. Games between Easts and Wynnum always have a special feeling as it's a derby. When Souths play Wynnum it doesn't have the same atmosphere.

You're massively overthinking this and imagining problems where there aren't any.

We're talking about South Brisbane not the Gaza Strip.

 

[The Great Dane]

Great point.

There's a huge amount of rugby talent here, but not the "critical mass" economically to bankroll it from the NZ market alone.. hence, SANZAR/Super 12/Tri Nations being formed in 1995 because NZ Rugby *needed* the financial clout that a bigger market brought.

Fine back then, while all 3 nations were pretty strong, and pretty engaged with the concept - but now that South Africa is toying with the idea of linking with Europe (because timezones), and Australian rugby is a total dumpster-fire, and Pay-TV has far less money to throw around.. NZ Rugby has a huge problem looming.

Perfect time for the NRL to step into the gap - Rugby Union doesn't have the critical mass for a trans-Tasman competition that works, but Rugby League certainly *does*.

The problem with NZ is that there seems to be little to no interest in bidding for an NRL license.

If there was a strong bid, or a few strong bids, then NZ might be a chance, but as things stand the only bid from NZ is the South Pacific Cyclones, and they're at best an unrealistic pipe dream.

 

[flippikat]

Would New Zealand embrace the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles if they relocated to Wellington?

The Roosters could cover the North Shore and become a much stronger club.

We could well go for a relocated Sea Eagles.. there's a fair bit of residual support from the Graham Lowe / "Kiwi Connection" years of the early-mid 90s.. I think if you were to pick any Sydney club to relocate to NZ, Manly would have a better chance than most.

However - as with any relocation, it demands on the club really getting in and engaging with the local scene.
If the relocated club still has a big hand in their old Sydney stomping ground, IMO it's not gonna work.

They ideally should forgo their old territory (juniors, feeder clubs etc get reallocated to remaining Sydney clubs).

 

[flippikat]

The problem with NZ is that there seems to be little to no interest in bidding for an NRL license.

If there was a strong bid, or a few strong bids, then NZ might be a chance, but as things stand the only bid from NZ is the South Pacific Cyclones, and they're at best an unrealistic pipe dream.

I think it could just be because the NRL hasn't formally called for bids. There's every chance the Cyclones will get serious & other NZ bids may emerge *if* the NRL actually starts showing some interest in a 2nd NZ club.

To be fair, just look at how bids that have declared themselves publicly have been treated by the NRL - it's hardly the stuff that's going to convince more bids to emerge.. unless they're from Brisbane.

 

[Perth Red]

The problem with NZ is that there seems to be little to no interest in bidding for an NRL license.

If there was a strong bid, or a few strong bids, then NZ might be a chance, but as things stand the only bid from NZ is the South Pacific Cyclones, and they're at best an unrealistic pipe dream.

there’s also no money in it for nrl, not to mention the other 15 clubs don’t want their nz talent staying home.

 

[The Great Dane]

there’s also no money in it for nrl, not to mention the other 15 clubs don’t want their nz talent staying home.

Whether or not there's money in a second NZ team depends on broadcasters in NZ and the potential fan base, and I doubt that the Australian clubs will struggle to attract NZ rugby talent even if there is a second NZ team, especially with the way that Super Rugby and SANZAAR is falling apart.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think it could just be because the NRL hasn't formally called for bids. There's every chance the Cyclones will get serious & other NZ bids may emerge *if* the NRL actually starts showing some interest in a 2nd NZ club.

To be fair, just look at how bids that have declared themselves publicly have been treated by the NRL - it's hardly the stuff that's going to convince more bids to emerge.. unless they're from Brisbane.

Apart from their being a chance of the Cyclones coming good (if they are even willing to contemplate playing half their games in Fiji then the NRL should have nothing to do with them) I don't disagree with you.

But things aren't looking bright for the chances of seeing a second NZ club any time soon.