What's new
By:
Advanced search…
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!

Search results

  1. C

    WA BEARS

    Are we still talking about this and expansion? Not enough talent so move on.
  2. C

    Peter V'landys - New NRL/ARLC Chairman

    Exactly and if you cut some sides they can keep more of them.
    • Colk
    • Post #7,995
    • Forum: NRL
  3. C

    2025 NRL Jerseys, Sponsorship, Logos

    As I said trialling the appropriate green for second division
    • Colk
    • Post #74
    • Forum: NRL
  4. C

    Geographically, which teams in the NRL don't make sense?

    There are a few
    • Colk
    • Post #226
    • Forum: NRL
  5. C

    18th club, whose next?

    Hopefully nobody. Hopefully they get rid of a side.
  6. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    You keep going around in circles mate because you keep missing the point. The point made wasn’t on an individual year etc, the point is you are seeing the same sides up the top every year and it has been the same way for the last twenty odd years. Again, though, if that’s what people want then...
    • Colk
    • Post #89
    • Forum: NRL
  7. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    They have been in there for 2 years. Has the game got better in that time or worse? I couldn’t say that it has got better. Now take that one club and bring in three more without a seemingly good idea or plan to bring them in and then tell me how you think it is going to go.
    • Colk
    • Post #87
    • Forum: NRL
  8. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    Exactly.
    • Colk
    • Post #86
    • Forum: NRL
  9. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    It should be but it isn’t. As I said reduce the competition and you’ll get a better competition. You are not wasting spots or teams.
    • Colk
    • Post #85
    • Forum: NRL
  10. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    By saying that success is definitely cyclical you are implying a passivity that isn’t there. It’s a physics term in essence - the idea that time isn’t an arrow for example. It’s like me saying that wealth is cyclical - unless you get lucky or you are completely negligent it’s not generally...
    • Colk
    • Post #84
    • Forum: NRL
  11. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    Super Rugby was at its peak when it had less sides. They went downhill as soon as they started expanding. I would say the same with Rugby League in the 90’s and A-League about 10-15 years ago. AFL has also had trouble with the last two. You will hit a point where expansion becomes a negative...
    • Colk
    • Post #76
    • Forum: NRL
  12. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    You assume way too much. For example the competition peaked right after the Super League war until to about 2005. My team didn’t do anything then Quality is subjective for sure but ultimately you will always have better quality with less teams. If you go to 20 or 22 or 24 or whatever other...
    • Colk
    • Post #75
    • Forum: NRL
  13. C

    WA BEARS

    It’s better to do it properly (or not at all) than do it wrong
  14. C

    Fitzy's league Sledge

    He is a wanker for sure but playing and visiting European cities would be more exciting than playing in Canberra or Townsville etc. The small matter of playing union part is the problem with his argument though.
  15. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    Do you really remember that competition? There were multiple teams who flat out struggled to win a game all year. This is at a time also where arguably had more talent in key positions (that sounds rather pretentious I know so halves and hookers etc) There is just not enough player talent...
    • Colk
    • Post #71
    • Forum: NRL
  16. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    Really poor standard is the most obvious reason against it. The standard of the competition is really poor atm - every week you are getting multiple blow outs so I don’t really know how adding three more teams is going to make the standard better. The bottom 2/3rds may as well not show up and a...
    • Colk
    • Post #70
    • Forum: NRL
  17. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    Why?
    • Colk
    • Post #66
    • Forum: NRL
  18. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    12 teams for first division and 10 teams in division two. Put the regional clubs in a second division as they are currently wasting their time in the NRL
    • Colk
    • Post #63
    • Forum: NRL
  19. C

    18th club, whose next?

    Mate we have too many clubs now. Those areas individually are too small.
  20. C

    THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

    Of course it is a misconception; that’s why you should get rid of it. It’s also impossible to police. I would add that the Storm and the Roosters have dominated for the best part of a quarter of a century. It’s so far entrenched with the Panthers that I don’t think it will change now
    • Colk
    • Post #61
    • Forum: NRL

Latest posts

Top