1995 expansion... now!

[MugaB]

Hypothetically if the powers that be in ol Ruga leg, decided 2023 was going to be a 20 team comp
Where would you expand 4 new clubs?



Now i know PR will say perth, and GROTD will say all 4 in SEqld, but as long as the broncos disolve..



Seriously if you were ken arthurson now and had the resources, funding and balls to open four clubs right now... where?


I'll start..(of course since i created the thread)

Auckland rival, pacifika team where all pathways from each pacific island filter into that team, creates a natural rival in the largely populated city in NZ.

Brisbane Suncorp = no brainer really, bronx need a push in there own backyard, and being the 2nd largest RL town in the southern hemisphere, some would argue we would need 4 clubs in brisbane alone, if we compare the likes of rugby league in sydney.

Perth = can't expand without trying to really expand, and if your able to create a Melbourne team for rugby league where there is 9 ALF clubs, surely you do it where there is 2.. perth is the new frontier with 2 million people, and if done right and cost effective (where you don't expect them to pay for the away teams) yeah we can see this a reality.. especially if super netball can do it.

Papua New Guinea = something about the Port Moresby Hunters intrigues me, i love the fact there is a whole country devoted to Ruga Leg, its amazing that there is now a QLD cup team based in PNG, it reminds me of when the Auckland Warriors began in 1995, just on pure emotion, to have a team from again another country, would really make rugby league a more well represented code, in comparison to the more focused "Aus"sie rules

Now my picks are truly based on what i would like to see happen, no data, or cost base to back up stats, I'm moreso mimicing the 1995 model, with Auckland, Perth, SthQLD, and PNG (instead of nthqld)

 

[T-Boon]

PNG would be cool.
If 4 new teams was happening in my opinion it should be:
Brisbane 2
Canterbury NZ
Auckland 2
Perth

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Perth could work, but it will rely heavily on assistance during its infancy. There would need to be a huge clean out at ARLC to get people on board with an undertaking of that magnitude. It would also require the 16 clubs to allow the ARLC to expand without trying to get the Chairman/CEO ousted for not caving into their demands. PVL is probably the only bloke who could do it, but he's against it.

PNG deserves a team, but there are logistical problems that make it near impossible. A Pasifika team based in Auckland could take 4 or 6 games to PNG each year. That is one way of getting around the logistical problems of having a team based in PNG, but still having one that represents them.

I'd go Brisbane 2 and NZ 2 then wait 10 or 15 years to see how the public reaponds. I fear the ARLC will have trouble getting all 16 clubs to accept Brisbane 2, which probably rules out Perth and Auckland getting in any time within the next 15 years.

Fans need to let the clubs that are against expansion know that we want new teams and without us the NRL wouldn't exist, so they need to stop throwing roadblocks in the way.

 

[reanimate]

West Coast Pirates
Brisbane 2
Adelaide Rams
New Zealand 2

Then later in the future either a Melbourne 2/Brisbane 3/NZ 3 through a Sydney team relocation.

 

[Matua]

You can't base a Pacifica team in Auckland and have the Warriors.

A second NZ team in Welly or Chch could be an option though.

 

[Pommy]

Perth could work, but it will rely heavily on assistance during its infancy. There would need to be a huge clean out at ARLC to get people on board with an undertaking of that magnitude. It would also require the 16 clubs to allow the ARLC to expand without trying to get the Chairman/CEO ousted for not caving into their demands. PVL is probably the only bloke who could do it, but he's against it.

PNG deserves a team, but there are logistical problems that make it near impossible. A Pasifika team based in Auckland could take 4 or 6 games to PNG each year. That is one way of getting around the logistical problems of having a team based in PNG, but still having one that represents them.

I'd go Brisbane 2 and NZ 2 then wait 10 or 15 years to see how the public reaponds. I fear the ARLC will have trouble getting all 16 clubs to accept Brisbane 2, which probably rules out Perth and Auckland getting in any time within the next 15 years.

Fans need to let the clubs that are against expansion know that we want new teams and without us the NRL wouldn't exist, so they need to stop throwing roadblocks in the way.

If Perth are going to need assistance what is a third world nation like PNG going to need?
People just say get the mining/oil companies to pay for it but how likely is that? Also normally wouldn’t it be better if these companies were paying for health and education?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If Perth are going to need assistance what is a third world nation like PNG going to need?
People just say get the mining/oil companies to pay for it but how likely is that? Also normally wouldn’t it be better if these companies were paying for health and education?

The team wouldn't be based in PNG. It would operate out of Auckland and fly into Port Moresby 4 or 6 times a year.

 

[greenBV4]

Brisbane 2
Perth
South Island
Adelaide

in that order, preferably in groups of 2 so we have no bye

eventually Melbourne and Perth will also need a second team - as the AFL have shown a derby in each city is beneficial, hence why Brisbane 2 NEEDS to be the next team and is a joke that it doesn't exist already

Sunny Coast for SEQ 4, North Island 2, CC as a relocation also further down the line, PNG if it develops a bit more as a country

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

West Coast Pirates
Brisbane 2
Adelaide Rams
New Zealand 2

Then later in the future either a Melbourne 2/Brisbane 3/NZ 3 through a Sydney team relocation.

Brisbane needs at least 3 teams by 2050. It currently has 2.4 million and rugby league is probably more popular in Brisbane than Sydney. By 2050 Brisbane will have between 3.75 million and 4.75 million.

Melbourne does not deserve a second team nor can it sustain one, either now or in 30 years time.

I think Manly will be the first Sydney team to relocate. They're easily the smallest and least supported team in Sydney. They are based in an RU stronghold and their ground is substandard. Shift them to Adelaide.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Brisbane 2
Perth
South Island
Adelaide

in that order, preferably in groups of 2 so we have no bye

eventually Melbourne and Perth will also need a second team - as the AFL have shown a derby in each city is beneficial, hence why Brisbane 2 NEEDS to be the next team and is a joke that it doesn't exist already

Perth deserves one team as it has developed a base that play the game and will follow a local team, even if it is not world beaters.

Melbourne cannot sustain two teams. Its fans are fumbleball diehards who've adopted the Storm as their second team, behind their AwFuL team. If that's the best they can do after the dream run they've had since 1998, there's no way a second team can develop a following. Melbourne 2 will not finish in the top 4 every year, which is the blueprint behind the Storm's success. Nether will the Storm once Bellamy and Cam Smith retire.

The ARLC will not prop up Melb 2 and Perth 2 like AwFuL has with the Suns and Giants.

AwFuL does not have a second team in Brisbane, and it is and always will be bigger than Perth.

 

[reanimate]

Brisbane needs at least 3 teams by 2050. It currently has 2.4 million and rugby league is probably more popular in Brisbane than Sydney. By 2050 Brisbane will have between 3.75 million and 4.75 million.

Melbourne does not deserve a second team nor can it sustain one, either now or in 30 years time.

I have no qualms with Brisbane getting a 3rd team in time, but a Melbourne 2 will be a must one day. Melbourne will grow well past 5 million very soon and will continue attracting migrants from RL stronghold cities and from overseas where AFL has no presence. Those people will be able to support more than one team in a city of over 5 million people.

I think Manly will be the first Sydney team to relocate. They're easily the smallest and least supported team in Sydney. They are based in an RU stronghold and their ground is substandard. Shift them to Adelaide.

I have no idea if you're trying to troll, but that's a terrible idea. We're the only team north of the Harbour Bridge (there's ~1 million people between the North Shore and Northern Beaches, a worthy market), move one of the seven teams who are crammed in together between the Eastern Suburbs and Penrith or the Sharks who sit in the middle of St George territory.

It's also not a Union stronghold here. Sure, Union is better supported on the Northern Beaches than it is in some other areas, but it's as on its deathbed here as it is everywhere.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I have no qualms with Brisbane getting a 3rd team in time, but a Melbourne 2 will be a must one day. Melbourne will grow well past 5 million very soon and will continue attracting migrants from RL stronghold cities and from overseas where AFL has no presence. Those people will be able to support more than one team in a city of over 5 million people.

I have no idea if you're trying to troll, but that's a terrible idea. We're the only team north of the Harbour Bridge (there's ~1 million people between the North Shore and Northern Beaches, a worthy market), move one of the seven teams who are crammed in together between the Eastern Suburbs and Penrith or the Sharks who sit in the middle of St George territory.

It's also not a Union stronghold here. Sure, Union is better supported on the Northern Beaches than it is in some other areas, but it's as on its deathbed here as it is everywhere.

Why does there need to be a team north of the harbour?

AwFuL doesn't have one north of the harbour but the Swans draw good support from there.

Sydney Roosters could cover the City of Sydney and the entire area north of the harbour.

Manly doesn't even represent the entire area north of the harbour. It only really matters to the people of Manly and Warringah. It's no coincidence that Manly are the least watched Sydney team.

There's no gurantee that expats living in Melbourne will support Melbourne 2. The TV ratings for the Storm in Melbourne are lower than the Lions in Brisbane. There's only half as many people in Brisbane. A few years ago the Lions were in debt to the tune of $14 million.

 

[Perth Red]

If money was no object:

Brisbane2
Perth
NZ2
PNG
Adelaide (Manly relocation)


We need Newcastle to take on Gosford more, Roosters to take on North Shore, Manly to Adelaide.

Would sort the NRL out for the next 40 years.

PNG is the wildcard but whilst AFL is pushing to be the national game in Australia we should be pushing to be seen as the footy code of the Pacific region and including PNG, for all its challenges, is something AFL could never compete with.

 

[reanimate]

Why does there need to be a team north of the harbour?

AwFuL doesn't have one north of the harbour but the Swans draw good support from there.

Sydney Roosters could cover the City of Sydney and the entire area north ot the harbour.

Manly doesn't even represent the entire area north of the harbour. It only really matters to the people of Manly and Warringah.

If there's going to be as many Sydney teams as there are, you'd want to be damn well sure they're covering every inch of the market, one key market being the ~1 million who live north of the Harbour Bridge. The people in that market tend to be wealthy, have disposal income and go on to work and have important positions in government and in the private sector- you want those people as fans. The best way to do that is to have one of the many Sydney teams be dedicated to that market instead of trying the bizarre tactic of having no teams being based in the area and having one of the teams that are crammed in in-between the Eastern Suburbs and Parramatta also represent the entirety of Northern Sydney.

The Swans draw their support mainly from the lower North Shore, Inner West and the Eastern Suburbs, they're hardly a powerhouse on the North side of the bridge outside of a handful of lower North Shore suburbs.

 

[greenBV4]

AwFuL does not have a second team in Brisbane, and it is and always will be bigger than Perth.

This is because they view Brisbane and the GC as SEQ, they have 2 SEQ clubs, the same as us (which is a joke really)

Melbourne's on track (or was before covid) to become the largest city in the country, it was on track to eventually overtake economically as well but I'd say thats down the drain now - it just makes sense to one day (no day soon) to have a derby in the largest city.

Brisbane will always be bigger? A 30 second google serch says otherwise

"Perth's rate of growth will see it overtake Brisbane in 2029 when they both have a population of just over 3 million - https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-capital-cities/#:~:text=Perth's rate of growth will,million and 2.3 million respectively."

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Brisbane will always be bigger? A 30 second google serch says otherwise

"Perth's rate of growth will see it overtake Brisbane in 2029 when they both have a population of just over 3 million - https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-capital-cities/#:~:text=Perth's rate of growth will,million and 2.3 million respectively."

You should have done a bit more than 30 seconds of research.

The latest projections from the ABS show Brisbane will be well ahead of Perth.

3222.0 - Population Projections, Australia, 2017 (base) - 2066

"Queensland is projected to increase by between 0.7 million and 1 million people from 30 June 2017 to reach between 5.7 and 5.9 million people by 2027. Growth will be slower in Western Australia, reaching 2.9 million in 2027, and in South Australia which is projected to be between 1.8 million and 1.9 million in 2027."

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features12017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

"Western Australia's population of 2.6 million people is projected to increase by between 0.7% and 1.7% per year, reaching a population between 3.6 million and 5.9 million in 2066.

The three selected series project continuing population growth throughout the projection period. In all three series, Western Australia will reach 2.9 million people by 2027. In series A, Western Australia experiences consistent growth, reaching 4.9 million in 2066. In series B, the population will reach 4.8 million in 2066 and in series C, growth is projected to be lower, with the population reaching 4.5 million in 2066.

The combination of assumptions in series 3 results in the largest population for Western Australia in 2027 (3.0 million people). The difference to series A is the assumption of smaller interstate migration flows, which result in a positive net flow for Western Australia. Conversely, series 52, which compared to series C has large interstate migration flows, resulting in negative net interstate migration, projects the smallest population by 2027 (2.8 million people)."


https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features102017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

"Greater Brisbane is projected to grow from 2.4 million in 2017 to between 2.9 million (series B and C) and 3.0 million (series A) in 2027. The rest of Queensland is projected to grow from 2.5 million to between 2.8 million (series C) and 2.9 million (series A and B) in 2027."

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features82017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=​

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features82017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features102017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

 

[greenBV4]

You should have done a bit more than 30 seconds of research.

The latest projections from the ABS show Brisbane will be well ahead of Perth.

3222.0 - Population Projections, Australia, 2017 (base) - 2066

"Queensland is projected to increase by between 0.7 million and 1 million people from 30 June 2017 to reach between 5.7 and 5.9 million people by 2027. Growth will be slower in Western Australia, reaching 2.9 million in 2027, and in South Australia which is projected to be between 1.8 million and 1.9 million in 2027."

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features12017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

"Western Australia's population of 2.6 million people is projected to increase by between 0.7% and 1.7% per year, reaching a population between 3.6 million and 5.9 million in 2066.

The three selected series project continuing population growth throughout the projection period. In all three series, Western Australia will reach 2.9 million people by 2027. In series A, Western Australia experiences consistent growth, reaching 4.9 million in 2066. In series B, the population will reach 4.8 million in 2066 and in series C, growth is projected to be lower, with the population reaching 4.5 million in 2066.

The combination of assumptions in series 3 results in the largest population for Western Australia in 2027 (3.0 million people). The difference to series A is the assumption of smaller interstate migration flows, which result in a positive net flow for Western Australia. Conversely, series 52, which compared to series C has large interstate migration flows, resulting in negative net interstate migration, projects the smallest population by 2027 (2.8 million people)."


https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features102017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

View attachment 41848
https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features82017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=
View attachment 41849
https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3222.0Main Features102017 (base) - 2066?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3222.0&issue=2017 (base) - 2066&num=&view=

aren't those graphs WA vs QLD? which would be differernt to Perth vs Brisbane

but either way happy to be wrong, they are close enough to be essentially the same

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

aren't those graphs WA vs QLD? which would be differernt to Perth vs Brisbane

but either way happy to be wrong, they are close enough to be essentially the same

The graphs I included are for Greater Perth and Greater Brisbane. In 2027 the population of Greater Brisbane will be equal to all of Western Australia.

It's all just projections based on the latest immigration trends. The predictions about Perth growing quickly a few years back were made when the mining boom was hot over there and people moved across from the east coast to cash in. That's all done and dusted.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If there's going to be as many Sydney teams as there are, you'd want to be damn well sure they're covering every inch of the market, one key market being the ~1 million who live north of the Harbour Bridge. The people in that market tend to be wealthy, have disposal income and go on to work and have important positions in government and in the private sector- you want those people as fans. The best way to do that is to have one of the many Sydney teams be dedicated to that market instead of trying the bizarre tactic of having no teams being based in the area and having one of the teams that are crammed in in-between the Eastern Suburbs and Parramatta also represent the entirety of Northern Sydney.

The Swans draw their support mainly from the lower North Shore, Inner West and the Eastern Suburbs, they're hardly a powerhouse on the North side of the bridge outside of a handful of lower North Shore suburbs.

You make some good points. I just think Manly could better represent northern Sydney. Maybe the NRL should make them change their name to North Sydney Sea Eagles and change their kit to red and black. That way Norths and Manly are represented equally and the club can build its fan base. It's the only way I can see the NSW Government building a new stadium north of the harbour.

 

[jim_57]

1. Brisbane 2 - Something like Firehawks to make a simple North/South divide with the Broncos.
2. Perth - All been said 1000 times.
3. NZ 2 - Still on ghe fence with this one, if the Warriors get it together finally a 2nd Auckland side with links to Tonga & Samoa might br worth a look. Christchurch or Wellington decent options as well.
4. Adelaide - Tentatively. Wouldn't be upset if this was SEQ 4 (Sunshine Coast, Ipswich or Brisbane 3), NZ 3 or even PNG if they could find a way to make it sustainable.