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!

18th club, whose next?

Foreign Legion

First Grade
Messages
9,766

Expansion is a term that has been on the lips of most Rugby League fans since the Dolphins bid to join the NRL was accepted back in October, with the NRL’s newest franchise slowly but surely building a solid side for their inaugural season in 2023
However, the attention of many has since turned to just who will be the NRL’s 18th franchise and where they will be based.

The Bears and Western Australia have already displayed intent to put in a bid, but the fast-approaching conclusion of Sky Sports’ television rights deal with the NRL in New Zealand has sparked speculation that a second team based in the home of the Kiwis could become a reality as early as 2024.

New Zealand based outlet Business Desk has revealed five outcomes that the NRL reportedly wants from the next television deal that they sign with a New Zealand based network that will commence in 2024, which includes more free-to-air games being broadcast in New Zealand, a Magic Round to be held across the Tasman and of course a second New Zealand based franchise in the NRL.
If these reports are true and the NRL’s wishes come to fruition, then this new New Zealand based franchise would enter the competition in 2024 and call either Christchurch or Wellington home.

The Daily Telegraph’s Dean Ritchie has since spoken out on the Big Sports Breakfast in response to Business Desk’s article casting doubts on New Zealand’s chances of having a second NRL team based in their country.
“It’s not something I’ve heard in Australia,” Ritchie said.

“I don’t know, the last time I checked the NRL hadn’t even approved an 18th franchise — we haven’t even got the 17th franchise on the field just yet.
“If it comes down to 18 (teams) I’m not suggesting that it shouldn’t be over there — I think it’s certainly got merit. The Bears are the ones I would like to see back in, Perth is another one that would be an option and Wellington and Christchurch.”
While nothing is for certain, the next television deal that the NRL signs with a New Zealand based network could be the determining factor as to where the NRL’s 18th franchise will be based.
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,292

Expansion is a term that has been on the lips of most Rugby League fans since the Dolphins bid to join the NRL was accepted back in October, with the NRL’s newest franchise slowly but surely building a solid side for their inaugural season in 2023
However, the attention of many has since turned to just who will be the NRL’s 18th franchise and where they will be based.

The Bears and Western Australia have already displayed intent to put in a bid, but the fast-approaching conclusion of Sky Sports’ television rights deal with the NRL in New Zealand has sparked speculation that a second team based in the home of the Kiwis could become a reality as early as 2024.

New Zealand based outlet Business Desk has revealed five outcomes that the NRL reportedly wants from the next television deal that they sign with a New Zealand based network that will commence in 2024, which includes more free-to-air games being broadcast in New Zealand, a Magic Round to be held across the Tasman and of course a second New Zealand based franchise in the NRL.
If these reports are true and the NRL’s wishes come to fruition, then this new New Zealand based franchise would enter the competition in 2024 and call either Christchurch or Wellington home.

The Daily Telegraph’s Dean Ritchie has since spoken out on the Big Sports Breakfast in response to Business Desk’s article casting doubts on New Zealand’s chances of having a second NRL team based in their country.
“It’s not something I’ve heard in Australia,” Ritchie said.

“I don’t know, the last time I checked the NRL hadn’t even approved an 18th franchise — we haven’t even got the 17th franchise on the field just yet.
“If it comes down to 18 (teams) I’m not suggesting that it shouldn’t be over there — I think it’s certainly got merit. The Bears are the ones I would like to see back in, Perth is another one that would be an option and Wellington and Christchurch.”
While nothing is for certain, the next television deal that the NRL signs with a New Zealand based network could be the determining factor as to where the NRL’s 18th franchise will be based.
Dean Ritchie.... well if he hasn't heard about it, ITS NOT NEWS!
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,224
i looked at one entry .. one piece of this celebrated scholars work , one fact he .... published ... in a book
& exposed it as utter tripe & embarrassingly inaccurate .
I don't need to see anymore of this biased rubbish or the authors work to know he is pushing an agenda & is a typical fumble ball loving ignoramus ( much like you ) As I predicted he would be 😎
It's honestly a sad reflection on society and the education system that you believe that...

Now lets break this down for the special needs kids in the back-
whats 50% of 6000
last time I looked it wasn't 1098
Obviously Dr Fujak's number can't be from 2021, so you wouldn't expect his numbers to match up with the CRRL's from 2021...

Since you still haven't sourced his numbers (which are supposedly from a book you haven't read. How does that work?), we don't actually know anything about them, not even what they are describing let alone what year they are from. However let's assume that they are pre the growth spurt pushed by the recent growth of the women's game, from say pre-2016-17ish, then 1098 is a believable number depending on what he was describing.

After all half of 5798 is only 2899, and it isn't so far to drop from that rough guesstimation to 1098 when you consider the past few years of steady growth in participation pushed by the monumental growth in the women's game over the past few years and the Raiders success in the NRL.

As a side note; we also don't know how the CRRL is defining participant and thus what is actually included in that 5798. For all we know they could be including League Stars numbers, and/or other similar programs, in that number. Unfortunately we'll probably never get a proper break-down of the CRRL's numbers, so we'll never know, but it's something that should be kept in mind anytime a sports organisation presents their participation numbers.
 
Last edited:

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,292
Seriously the fact that he wants the Bears nomad bid as the 18th should mean that he is no longer in the discussion. Intriguing insight into who News Limited may want though
Dean ritchie is a hack always has been, forget news ltd, that was always about keeping brisbane stand alone... in regards to the rest of the comp, whatever PVL wants he gets.... good luck seeing WA
 

Colk

Juniors
Messages
534
Meh I’m not against seeing a second NZ, Adelaide or Perth or whomever (other than another NSW side) my concern is that they do it properly and lay the proper groundwork first as opposed to what they have done with the Dolphins.

Furthermore, they haven’t supported the Warriors in their time (how many games do you see the Warriors play on FTA for example). So if they are giving the licence to a second NZ side or Perth or on the moon, I want to see them actually supported and their potential reached rather than just adding a team to the competition for the sake of adding a team in the competition
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,292
Meh I’m not against seeing a second NZ, Adelaide or Perth or whomever (other than another NSW side) my concern is that they do it properly and lay the proper groundwork first as opposed to what they have done with the Dolphins.

Furthermore, they haven’t supported the Warriors in their time (how many games do you see the Warriors play on FTA for example). So if they are giving the licence to a second NZ side or Perth or on the moon, I want to see them actually supported and their potential reached rather than just adding a team to the competition for the sake of adding a team in the competition
If they were going to add a team for the sake of it, bears .... nuff said
 

ReddFelon

Juniors
Messages
1,483
Lol'd hard at "A second NZ team to take on the All Blacks". Yes, a second team in a domestic club competition to take on one of the most famous international sporting brands in the world. Next up the NRL to put a team in Puerto Rico to take on the Dallas Cowboys.
 

Colk

Juniors
Messages
534
If they were going to add a team for the sake of it, bears .... nuff said

I get that you’re very pro-V’landys but the history of RL and expansion has been spotty at best. You only have to look at the expansion teams that have fallen by the wayside over the past 40 years and the blame for all of them can be put squarely at the feet of administrators.

Even the teams that have worked, my team included, have succeeded in spite of the game’s administration; not because of it. Canberra Raiders for example were only allowed to have 13 imports in their first three years - the odds were so much against them that they were almost set up to fail. Have a look at the Cowboys, Crushers, Reds for example when they came in and the amount of hurdles placed in front of them.

Even now with the Dolphins the game hasn’t really learnt their lesson. They haven’t been given enough time to set up a side, they haven’t been given any dispensations. It has been ticked off without any forethought about how it is going to work.

With the next team, if they are going to be in NZ, themselves and the Warriors have to be given greater support through FTA, they need to be given dispensations and they need to be given greater lead time than 18 months. Essentially you need to support the new team and ensure that they are competitive, rather than putting them in and forgetting about them, which has happened in the past
 

Colk

Juniors
Messages
534
Lol'd hard at "A second NZ team to take on the All Blacks". Yes, a second team in a domestic club competition to take on one of the most famous international sporting brands in the world. Next up the NRL to put a team in Puerto Rico to take on the Dallas Cowboys.

It is interesting. Any option they could pick in a major market in NZ and Australia (outside of say another side in Sydney) would be financially viable but I’m intrigued why the NRL (if this is indeed true) are bullish about taking on Rugby in NZ but so hesitant on taking on AFL in Australia.

Someone living in NZ can verify it for me but I always was under the impression that support for Rugby Union and the All Blacks within NZ was at least comparable to that of AFL in Victoria, SA or WA?
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
45,649
the only sport caught doing this to vomit inducing levels is your beloved derps & misses

Those CRRL numbers are club registered players , with the 300 teams in the area having about 20 registered players per team.
Not the 5 per team Dr Fu.koff , the eminent scholar from Melbourne tried to make out hahahaha
Actually both codes do it. Nrl started doing it around 2016. Mind you it doesn’t even bother with the sketchy numbers since Vlandys took over. That article literally says “partcipation” a number of times and makes no mention of registered players.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
45,649
You can't be a NSWelshman or Queenslander and not be an Australian. Make that change and SOO loses all meaning and becomes another All Stars game for nobody to care about. That wouldn't be good for anybody, and isn't how you go about increasing international football's popularity.

BTW, Tonga's current success is unsustainable, and the fact that only one of their starting 17 at the last world cup was born, raised, or had lived in Tonga should be a massive red flag.
Multiculturalism, you can most definitely can identify with a state, with australia and with your country of birth or heritage.
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
45,649
You can't be a NSWelshman or Queenslander and not be an Australian. Make that change and SOO loses all meaning and becomes another All Stars game for nobody to care about. That wouldn't be good for anybody, and isn't how you go about increasing international football's popularity.

BTW, Tonga's current success is unsustainable, and the fact that only one of their starting 17 at the last world cup was born, raised, or had lived in Tonga should be a massive red flag.
You think all those Tongans that packed the stadiums and waved the flags cared?
 

Perth Red

Immortal
Messages
45,649
If a kid has just 1 hour a week lesson of Vic Kick, Vicky Kicky house classes them as a participant, and that kid doesn't even have to play a game of Vicky Kicky.
It's just a scam to make fumbleball more popular than it is
Like is said we moved to the same way of reporting a few years ago. Now we aren’t reporting anything.
 
Messages
4,528
Lol'd hard at "A second NZ team to take on the All Blacks". Yes, a second team in a domestic club competition to take on one of the most famous international sporting brands in the world. Next up the NRL to put a team in Puerto Rico to take on the Dallas Cowboys.
I don't get all the "code war" BS the media come out with. RL will never take over NZ, but it doesn't need to. Just being watched and played by enough people to keep the game strong and profitable is all we need. AwFuL doesn't need to kill RL in Brisbane and Sydney to be strong.
 

ReddFelon

Juniors
Messages
1,483
It is interesting. Any option they could pick in a major market in NZ and Australia (outside of say another side in Sydney) would be financially viable but I’m intrigued why the NRL (if this is indeed true) are bullish about taking on Rugby in NZ but so hesitant on taking on AFL in Australia.

Someone living in NZ can verify it for me but I always was under the impression that support for Rugby Union and the All Blacks within NZ was at least comparable to that of AFL in Victoria, SA or WA?

Rugby in New Zealand is more in line with Cricket in India. It's a borderline religion, to put it in perspective;

New Zealand has 5 Super Rugby teams (Technically 6 now because Moana Pasifika are going to be based out of South Auckland). Feeding into those clubs are the most powerful 14 provincial unions, who themselves adjudicate the local club game. On top of that another 12 provincial unions feed into the professional clubs as well.

They have 151,000 registered club players. Not including schools programs (nearly every decent school has a Rugby program), or things like social sport, sevens, etc.

Comparatively League in New Zealand has 25,000 registered players. Rugby has more registered adults than League has total players. In adults it's around 6,000 total.

142 recognised League clubs to over 600 recognised in Union.

Rugby League in New Zealand is most popular in South Auckland, but culturally its viewed as a minor sport. Depending on who you ask, its either viewed as a sport for dumbasses, a sport for people who weren't skilled enough for Rugby or a sport for Aussies/Islanders. It's got a following, and a lot of people follow the Warriors out of interest, but I think the easiest way to understand the difference culturally;

Sonny Bill Williams and Roger Tuivasa Sheck switching from League to Union is headline news in Australia. In New Zealand you're more likely to hear people talk about the Barrett's, Richie Mo'unga, Damien McKenzie, Sam Cane, etc. than any NRL players making the switch.

I can speak personally that when I mentioned to my cousins in Invercargill about Ponga talking about making the All Blacks, they all thought I was joking and couldn't fathom how he would believe his own hype that much.
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,292
Chalmers now saying $50mill on the table? It’s gone up $20mill in just a few months lol. He wants a team in Wellington yet everyone I’ve heard who lives in Wellington says it wouldnt work
I feel he is looking at both Wellington and Christchurch, but will settle for wherever the NRL feels the best area would benefit league, that said don't be suprised if its a cross town Auckland based club or bay of plenty regional based club.... surely they'd get Wellington as the prime area since there isn't much of a direct rival, but in terms of population and future planning Christchurch should be the location IMO
 

MugaB

Bench
Messages
4,292
I get that you’re very pro-V’landys but the history of RL and expansion has been spotty at best. You only have to look at the expansion teams that have fallen by the wayside over the past 40 years and the blame for all of them can be put squarely at the feet of administrators.

Even the teams that have worked, my team included, have succeeded in spite of the game’s administration; not because of it. Canberra Raiders for example were only allowed to have 13 imports in their first three years - the odds were so much against them that they were almost set up to fail. Have a look at the Cowboys, Crushers, Reds for example when they came in and the amount of hurdles placed in front of them.

Even now with the Dolphins the game hasn’t really learnt their lesson. They haven’t been given enough time to set up a side, they haven’t been given any dispensations. It has been ticked off without any forethought about how it is going to work.

With the next team, if they are going to be in NZ, themselves and the Warriors have to be given greater support through FTA, they need to be given dispensations and they need to be given greater lead time than 18 months. Essentially you need to support the new team and ensure that they are competitive, rather than putting them in and forgetting about them, which has happened in the past
Your confusing adding an expansion team, with adding an ALF expansion team, whereas NRL want you to be able to compete, not be propped up by the governing body, in terms of recruitment, ALF wants to succeed regardless of the clubs viability, so they prop them up and draft them a handout of talent too (being the draft) RL or most likely the rest of the comp don't believe in stealing from their junior talent, and frankly neither do I
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,224
Multiculturalism, you can most definitely can identify with a state, with australia and with your country of birth or heritage.
I warn you from the start that I refuse to be pulled into a deeply esoteric philosophical debate on this, but those identities contradict each other on a fundamental level, therefore it's impossible to truly be an Australian and Tongan at the same time.

You can practice aspects of Tongan culture and be an Australian (or vice versa), but you can't hold allegiance to both identities, or tribes as that's what they really are, at the same time because as soon as those identities are in conflict (which happens more often than people like to admit), with the extreme example being war, you'll be forced to pick a side.

Just like the Duke of Wellington being born in Ireland didn't make him Irish (look up the quote in my signature), being born in Australia doesn't necessarily make a person "Australian". So it's totally reasonable that a person born in Australia may identify with another country, however that doesn't mean that they get to have their cake and eat it too, which is the real source of the issue; the modern narcissist culture, where a significant portion of the population believe that the broader society should bend to their every whim despite any broader consequences that might have.
 
Top