17 teams and a bye every week

[The Great Dane]

I've been thinking about what is driving the NRL's decision making and I'm sure Fox and Nine are having some input but I wonder if the NRL isn't keen on Perth because they don't want to spoil state of origin? Start adding teams outside of NSW/QLD and the origin concept becomes diluted. It's already being diluted with several of our best players from NZ and UK. Origin is League's big cash cow and probably a bigger marquee event than NRL grand final. I love Origin but I wonder if the thinking from the NRL is that it's a choice: a big State of Origin series or expansion?

If they were truly worried about devaluing SOO then they wouldn't be facilitating the clubs throwing money at developing players from over seas, as that has a way bigger impact than teams from outside of NSW and QLD ever could or would.

 

[The Great Dane]

There a multi million dollar buiness and would like to remain that way .

I've got a good way that they could save tens of millions of dollars overnight. . .

 

[The Great Dane]

To add to this.

Obviously existing broadcasters will talk down anything that requires them to up their bill.
Australian TV is a declining industry. They've got their niche with the current set up which is keeping them afloat.
Regardless of their public statements, they would LOVE the extra capital city and extra timeslot if it was just handed to them, but they know it will introduce more competition into the market and they'll either have to up their spend or lose it.

Yeah I'm sure that Nine is very aware that ViacomCBS would love to get their hands on programming as successful as RL for Channel 10, and are doing everything in their power to try not to poke the American Bear.

The NRL on the other hand should be grabbing the sharpest stick they can find and jamming it right up the American Bear's arse, but for whatever stupid reasons they can't or won't.

 

[Billythekid]

This is dumb and eliminates one of the main reasons for expansion I.e the extra game and ability to play with time slots.

 

[adamkungl]

TV heads "AFL gets more value because its a 5 city game"
Same TV heads "There's no value in the NRL expanding to another city"

Yeah righto. Adds up.

 

[flippikat]

TV heads "AFL gets more value because its a 5 city game"
Same TV heads "There's no value in the NRL expanding to another city"

Yeah righto. Adds up.

Ok, two questions...

1) How many seasons does everyone expect the NRL to stay with an odd number of teams?

2) How will the NRL become an even-numbered competition after that? (I.e. will they add team 18 - if so who? Will they drop a team to go to 16 - if so who?)

Your answer can be "what I think WILL happen" or "What I'd LIKE to happen".. or both.

Your predictions, please......

 

[adamkungl]

Ok, two questions...

1) How many seasons does everyone expect the NRL to stay with an odd number of teams?

2) How will the NRL become an even-numbered competition after that? (I.e. will they add team 18 - if so who? Will they drop a team to go to 16 - if so who?)

Your answer can be "what I think WILL happen" or "What I'd LIKE to happen".. or both.

Your predictions, please......

What I want, is a clear plan to develop nationally, actually expand to the 2 capital cities (or 3 if we include NZ) that don't actually have teams already.
Whether that's going 2 at once, or Brisbane then Perth in 2 years, doesn't bother me. I just want them to say what they're doing and why.


What I expect is "Forget wasting money on rusted on AFL states"
"Expansion" to Brisbane
Then nothing for the next decade while the media discusses whether we should bring back the Bears

 

[flippikat]

Just to look at recent eras of odd-numbered competitions, the NRL had 15 clubss between 2002 and 2006 inclusive (5 seasons), and the NSWRL had 13 clubs between 1984 and 1987 inclusive (4 seasons) - so that would suggest 4-5 years of 17 clubs if Brisbane 2 is added on it's own.

I need to mention 1999 though - a solitary NRL season with 17 clubs, in between 20 clubs in 1998 and 14 clubs in 2000 - but that's an extraordinary case as it's more a transition year in the middle of radical downsizing.

 

[Perth Red]

It might be annoying to the fans, but Nine have openly come out and said that having Brisbane playing is a plus to their ratings.

A second Brisbane team will increase the likely hood of a Brisbane team in matches on F2A.

It's crap, I know, but that's what Channel 9 have indicated is their preference.

do you think ch 9 will pay the $13mill plus a year more for having an extra Brisbane side so they can get maybe 15 extra fta games featuring a Brisbane team increasing their game avg viewership by about 100k for that game? Are 100k viewers (if it is in fact that many and I have my doubts it is) worth $800k more for the new Brisbane featured game?

 

[mongoose]

TV heads "AFL gets more value because its a 5 city game"
Same TV heads "There's no value in the NRL expanding to another city"

Yeah righto. Adds up.

TV heads are probably all sitting on the boards of AFL clubs....

 

[Perth Red]

TV heads are probably all sitting on the boards of AFL clubs....

well Murdoch did say he would do everything he could to promote his favourite sport. Holding back expansion of nrl is a great way to achieve that.

 

[tri_colours]

I've got a good way that they could save tens of millions of dollars overnight. . .

As I said, there a multi million dollar business and would like to remain that way. So I cant see them contacting you anytime soon.

 

[The Great Dane]

As I said, there a multi million dollar business and would like to remain that way. So I cant see them contacting you anytime soon.

If they keep going the way they are going they're going to follow the ARU strait down the path to being totally irrelevant.

But you're totally fine that aren't you, just so long as your club is still one of the biggest fish in the puddle the sport as whole can hang.

 

[tri_colours]

If they keep going the way they are going they're going to follow the ARU strait down the path to being totally irrelevant.

But you're totally fine that aren't you, just so long as your club is still one of the biggest fish in the puddle the sport as whole can hang.

If they've considered the finances and what's involved, And I'm sure they would have. Then not taking on a team that will cost them $10m a year for the next decade??? Sound like pretty rational decision.

The NRL has a totally saturated Sydney Market. The AFL have totally saturated Melbourne market. Maybe their there for a reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When's the penny going to drop?

 

[adamkungl]

The fact is, if you aren't expanding as a sport, you're shrinking.

There is more competition than ever in every market.
In Sydney and Brisbane's previous generation, you grew up following League or Union.
Now, young people follow League, Union (lol?), A-League, AFL, NFL, EPL, NBA. There's only so far a sports budget stretches. It is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain the market share levels of yesteryear. No sport could do it. Even AFL in Melbourne will eventually feel this pinch. And this is before I mention the impact of video games and online entertainment content.

So, with that in mind, there are 2 reasons we need to be expanding
1 - if you aren't nationally and internationally relevant, new audiences aren't paying attention. There are so many bigger fish. In a multicultural international city like Sydney, a small-time attitude suburban football comp looks like shit compared to the NBA and NFL which everyone under 35 are paying roughly the cost of an NRL season ticket to stream on their phones.

2 - if the main market is becoming tighter, you need to be finding new markets to compensate.
It's far healthier to have 20% share in 10 markets than 80% share in 1 market.


TLDR; Anyone who is against expansion wants the sport to wither and die, and may as well be a Union fan.

 

[Perth Tiger]

If they've considered the finances and what's involved, And I'm sure they would have. Then not taking on a team that will cost them $10m a year for the next decade??? Sound like pretty rational decision.

The NRL has a totally saturated Sydney Market. The AFL have totally saturated Melbourne market. Maybe their there for a reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When's the penny going to drop?

Where are you plucking $10 million a year from. I would be confident a Perth NRL team would survive on the grant alone then its own sponsorship/ownership etc.

However, the constant complaint would be there are no Perth born and bred players. But to get that the NRL would need to invest in the NRLWA, you know that part of the organisation that the NRL already owns and should be funding now anyway! particularity since the complaint against expansion is not enough players. How the hell do you expect to increase the player pool without actually funding it and working at it?

 

[The Great Dane]

If they've considered the finances and what's involved, And I'm sure they would have. Then not taking on a team that will cost them $10m a year for the next decade??? Sound like pretty rational decision.

According to the NRL Greenberg's review into expansion is the first one that they've done for over a decade and it hasn't been presented to the ARLC yet, it's only been shown to the club's CEOs (which shows you how much power the ARLC really has).

So according to the NRL and ARLC themselves, not only have they failed to 'considered the finances', but any movement that they are making on expansion at this point is being done without the ARLC's having seen the review.

Also under the NRL's current grant system every team costs them $13mil a year, so it doesn't matter where the club is from, it's circumstances, or it's value to the competition, it's going to cost the NRL tens of millions of dollars over a decade anyway.

The NRL has a totally saturated Sydney Market. The AFL have totally saturated Melbourne market. Maybe their there for a reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When's the penny going to drop?

No the NRL has oversaturated the Sydney market, i.e there's more supply than demand, and the reason that they've done is not because of some great business plan, it is because the NRL and it's predecessors have always more or less been controlled by a handful of club moguls who place their and their clubs self interest before what is in the best interest of the competition and the sport as whole.

 

[tri_colours]

Where are you plucking $10 million a year from. I would be confident a Perth NRL team would survive on the grant alone then its own sponsorship/ownership etc.

However, the constant complaint would be there are no Perth born and bred players. But to get that the NRL would need to invest in the NRLWA, you know that part of the organisation that the NRL already owns and should be funding now anyway! particularity since the complaint against expansion is not enough players. How the hell do you expect to increase the player pool without actually funding it and working at it?

A non heartland start up club will cost the NRL around an additional $10m a year. (that doesn't include the grant). This was the case with Melbourne(News LTD/NRL). And the AFL has this problem with Suns and GWS . So what makes you think Perth will buck the trend?

Many of England's best players already play in our game. More and more Pacific islanders play in the game every year. And the large wage that the NRL offer will only improve this. There is a lot more untapped potential in the pacific.

And its not rusted out AFL territory

 

[Perth Red]

A non heartland start up club will cost the NRL around an additional $10m a year. (that doesn't include the grant). This was the case with Melbourne(News LTD/NRL). And the AFL has this problem with Suns and GWS . So what makes you think Perth will buck the trend?

Many of England's best players already play in the our game. More and more Pacific islanders play in the game every year. And the large wage that the NRL offer will only improve this. There is a lot more untapped potential in the pacific.

And its not rusted out AFL territory

Melbourne cost the nrl $4.6mill a year extra for 5 years. Difference with perth is we have 20k plus RL fans wanting to go to games and two millionaires wanting to own the club. The nrl will need to spend more on grassroots if we want to see more WA jnrs come through. The big one will be corporate sponsorship. As long as we can hit that target then we won’t need extra funding.
As for suns and gws, their clubs operate on $40mill plus budgets whilst nrl clubs operate on around $25mill, big difference.

 

[Timbo]

I don't really get why a 17 team competition would be better for the broadcasters.

No extra games per week, and the talent pool is thinned out. If you're going to expand, make it 18 and get the extra game each week. Have a split round in the middle of the year to give players a week off.

If the 18th team is Perth you get the 9pm timeslot, if it’s Wellington then the 6pm Friday’s timeslot is a bit less usesless.

I really don’t see why this is so hard to see.