20 teams. 26 rounds. 260 games. 28 cities.

[docbrown]

Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Gosford, Brisbane 3, Sunshine Coast, Central Queensland, Cairns, PNG, Fiji, Wellington, Christchurch and The Bears. 13 potential franchises. Not all of them will get one. At best I’d say 3 of them will within the next 15 years. The question is therefore: how do you service all these markets without giving them all their own team?

Part of the solution might be expanding the season to 26 rounds whilst limiting clubs to 10 or 11 home games. That leaves 40 to 60 other matches. 10 of those would be Magic around. All of the ‘other matches’ would have gate receipts shared between the 20 clubs.

Just as an example, let’s say we expand with Perth, Adelaide and a second New Zealand side. A potential ground sharing arrangement could be:

Magic Round - 10 neutral games (changes cities regularly)

Perth - Perth Pirates - 11 home games

Adelaide - Adelaide Bears - 11 home games (Bears back in the comp - also see North Sydney Oval)

Melbourne - Melbourne Storm - 11 home games

Canberra - Canberra Raiders - 11 home games

Newcastle - Newcastle Knights - 11 home games

Gold Coast - Gold Coast Titans - 11 home games

Auckland - New Zealand Warriors - 11 home games

Townsville - North Queensland Cowboys - 10 home games (also see Cairns)

Brisbane - Brisbane Broncos & Queensland Dolphins- 11 & 10 home games (a game at Suncorp most rounds) (also see Sunshine Coast & Redcliffe for Dolphins)

Penrith - Penrith Panthers - 11 home games

Parramatta - Parramatta Eels - 11 home games

New Sydney stadium - Wests Tigers & Canterbury Bulldogs - 10 & 10 home games (new Stadium like Oasis @ Liverpool) (Each team also gets 1 reciprocal game against co-tenant)

SFS - South Sydney Rabbitohs, Sydney Roosters & St George Illawarra Dragons - 9, 9 & 4 home games (Each team also gets 2 reciprocal games against co-tenants)

Brookvale - Manly Sea Eagles - 10 home games

Cronulla - Sharks - 10 home games (also see Central Coast)

Wollongong - St George Illawarra Dragons - 8 home games

Wellington - New Zealand Orcas - 8 home games

Christchurch - New Zealand Orcas - 3 home games & 5 other games (so the second NZ side is evenly split between Wellington & Christchurch)

North Sydney Oval - Adelaide Bears - 1 other game (Bears vs Manly)

Hamilton - New Zealand Warriors - 2 other games (expanding Warriors brand)

Sunshine Coast - Queensland Dolphins - 6 other games (Dolphins expanding their brand and Sunshine Coast get a team)

Gosford - Sharks - 6 other games (Sharks change/expand their brand and Central Coast get a permanent team similar to how the Dragons work)

Redcliffe - Queensland Dolphins - 1 other game (this is just hypothetical)

Cairns - North Queensland Cowboys - 4 other games (this will cement the Cowboys brand in Cairns and make them feel even more of a home team)

Hobart - Melbourne Storm - 1 other game

Regional Victoria - Melbourne Storm - 1 other game (expand into Victoria)

Darwin - 2 neutral games

Suva - 1 neutral game (potential featuring a QLD club side)

Regional NZ - New Zealand Warriors & Orcas - 2 other games (this will allow NZ clubs to permanently have most of the 6pm EST 8pm NZ Friday slot)

Regional NSW - 2 neutral games

Central QLD - 1 neutral game (featuring QLD club team)

Port Moresby - 3 other games (to build towards a future 21st Pasifika team)

Asia/USA overseas - 1 neutral game

 

[docbrown]

This is just one example. Obviously teams could change ground allocations (Bulldogs at Belmore etc). Also the expansion teams might change (swap Adelaide for Pacifika etc). But it shows how adding neutral games can allow existing NRL clubs to expand their brands and grow the game as a whole.

 

[westerntiger]

Because the game between the Tigers and Knights would definitely build a case for more teams

 

[MugaB]

Because the game between the Tigers and Knights would definitely build a case for more teams

Fighting over the spoon in round 2 already sheesh

 

[Perth Red]

Because the game between the Tigers and Knights would definitely build a case for more teams

Come on: crappy game played in a crappy ground between two heartland clubs in front of a small crowd. it’s the future lol

 

[Perth Red]

Agree re your idea of making sure clubs take games on road, at moment it only happens if a host city is willing to stump up big cash so there’s nothing strategic or long term about how it happens.

Everyone taking game to a city that doesnt have an nrl club would help keep up interest in the game. I don’t think it makes much difference other that though having had ten years of that in perth now. I can’t say it’s particularly led to any major growth having sporadic neutral teams every year or two.

 

[docbrown]

The NRL needs to take a coordinated approach to the game, rather than leaving it to the whim of clubs.

In the scenario I proposed:

1. Perth gets a club
2. Adelaide gets a club
3. Bears fans get a club
4. Wellington gets a club
5. Christchurch gets a club
6. Gosford gets a club and become co-home ground for the Sharks, which also help expand the Sharks brand
7. Cairns becomes a co-home ground for the Cowboys
8. Sunshine Coast becomes a co-home ground for the Dolphins
9. Sydney teams play out of 6 stadiums instead of 8 - so Sydney rationalisation
10. There are 27 games in New Zealand (more than needed to cover the Friday 6pm slot)
11. There is a Lang Park game in 21 out of 26 rounds - at least 2 games in QLD each week and an extra 6 games in QLD compared to the current draw
12. There are 4 games in regional NSW/QLD
13. Storm expand their brand into regional Victoria and Tasmania
14. 5 games in PNG/Fiji/other countries to build towards a future Pacifika team

I’d like to see another proposal that beats that.

 

[The Great Dane]

The NRL needs to take a coordinated approach to the game, rather than leaving it to the whim of clubs.

In the scenario I proposed:

1. Perth gets a club
2. Adelaide gets a club
3. Bears fans get a club
4. Wellington gets a club
5. Christchurch gets a club
6. Gosford gets a club and become co-home ground for the Sharks, which also help expand the Sharks brand
7. Cairns becomes a co-home ground for the Cowboys
8. Sunshine Coast becomes a co-home ground for the Dolphins
9. Sydney teams play out of 6 stadiums instead of 8 - so Sydney rationalisation
10. There are 27 games in New Zealand (more than needed to cover the Friday 6pm slot)
11. There is a Lang Park game in 21 out of 26 rounds - at least 2 games in QLD each week and an extra 6 games in QLD compared to the current draw
12. There are 4 games in regional NSW/QLD
13. Storm expand their brand into regional Victoria and Tasmania
14. 5 games in PNG/Fiji/other countries to build towards a future Pacifika team

I’d like to see another proposal that beats that.

Plenty of proposals beat yours, mainly because a bunch of the stuff in yours is airy fairy rubbish that looks great on paper but won't translate in real life.

Take having one club represent both Wellington and Christchurch for example; that would be like having a single club split games between Melbourne and Sydney, and it'd be about as successful. In fact pretty much all of the split homes stuff is nonsense.

 

[docbrown]

Plenty of proposals beat yours, mainly because a bunch of the stuff in yours is airy fairy rubbish that looks great on paper but won't translate in real life.

Take having one club represent both Wellington and Christchurch for example; that would be like having a single club split games between Melbourne and Sydney, and it'd be about as successful. In fact pretty much all of the split homes stuff is nonsense.

That second New Zealand club would be playing 16 games split equally between Wellington and Christchurch. That’s more than enough for fans to feel equal ownership of the team.

Actually if that New Zealand 2 team existed and played in the NRL this year, they’d actually be the primary tenants at both those stadiums. By comparison, Canterbury Crusaders and Wellington Hurricanes are only playing 6 games each respectively in Christchurch and Wellington this season.

 

[The Great Dane]

That second New Zealand club would be playing 16 games split equally between Wellington and Christchurch. That’s more than enough for fans to feel equal ownership of the team.

Is it now? Spoken like a Sydneysider whom has 8 other away games played in their city each year... Seriously, this sort of attitude is just plain old ignorance.

Splitting home venues and/or cities devalues membership/season ticket value, muddies brand identity, and creates disunity both in the club and fan base. You can get away with selling a small amount of games to other cities (just because you can doesn't mean you should BTW), but trying to represent multiple culturally and geographically distinct regions under the one brand is always janky at best, and commercial cancer at worst.

I go back to the example I used before; having a single team that splits home games between Christchurch and Wellington would be the equivalent of forcing two of capital cities in Australia to "share" a side, and it'd be just as successful...

Actually if that New Zealand 2 team existed and played in the NRL this year, they’d actually be the primary tenants at both those stadiums. By comparison, Canterbury Crusaders and Wellington Hurricanes are only playing 6 games each respectively in Christchurch and Wellington this season.

Only because there's only 15 rounds in the Super Rugby season, and each side only gets 6 home games. If SR's season was longer they'd play more games in their respective regions.

It's honestly pretty disingenuous for you to try and suggest that that isn't the case as well.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Central Coast ain't getting one. The best option for the Central Coast is to get the Central Coast Council and local businesses to liaise with the Manly Sea Eagles.

Manly struggles to generate revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality at Brookvale. Work out a sponsorship deal with the CCC and local businesses in exchange for a few games at CC Stadium.

 

[AdelaideRLFC]

The NRL needs to take a coordinated approach to the game, rather than leaving it to the whim of clubs.

In the scenario I proposed:

1. Perth gets a club
2. Adelaide gets a club
3. Bears fans get a club
4. Wellington gets a club
5. Christchurch gets a club
6. Gosford gets a club and become co-home ground for the Sharks, which also help expand the Sharks brand
7. Cairns becomes a co-home ground for the Cowboys
8. Sunshine Coast becomes a co-home ground for the Dolphins
9. Sydney teams play out of 6 stadiums instead of 8 - so Sydney rationalisation
10. There are 27 games in New Zealand (more than needed to cover the Friday 6pm slot)
11. There is a Lang Park game in 21 out of 26 rounds - at least 2 games in QLD each week and an extra 6 games in QLD compared to the current draw
12. There are 4 games in regional NSW/QLD
13. Storm expand their brand into regional Victoria and Tasmania
14. 5 games in PNG/Fiji/other countries to build towards a future Pacifika team

I’d like to see another proposal that beats that.

You had me at "Adelaide gets a club".

 

[Pippen94]

Central Coast ain't getting one. The best option for the Central Coast is to get the Central Coast Council and local businesses to liaise with the Manly Sea Eagles.

Manly struggles to generate revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality at Brookvale. Work out a sponsorship deal with the CCC and local businesses in exchange for a few games at CC Stadium.

Manly should speak to cowboys about how to maximize gaming

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Manly should speak to cowboys about how to maximize gaming

Why the Cowboys?

Last year North Queensland generated just $15m from gaming.

The Bulldogs generated $79m from gaming.

 

[docbrown]

Agree re your idea of making sure clubs take games on road, at moment it only happens if a host city is willing to stump up big cash so there’s nothing strategic or long term about how it happens.

Everyone taking game to a city that doesnt have an nrl club would help keep up interest in the game. I don’t think it makes much difference other that though having had ten years of that in perth now. I can’t say it’s particularly led to any major growth having sporadic neutral teams every year or two.

That’s the difference between having a sporadic plan that changes frequently to a long term strategy.

 

[docbrown]

Is it now? Spoken like a Sydneysider whom has 8 other away games played in their city each year... Seriously, this sort of attitude is just plain old ignorance.

Splitting home venues and/or cities devalues membership/season ticket value, muddies brand identity, and creates disunity both in the club and fan base. You can get away with selling a small amount of games to other cities (just because you can doesn't mean you should BTW), but trying to represent multiple culturally and geographically distinct regions under the one brand is always janky at best, and commercial cancer at worst.

I go back to the example I used before; having a single team that splits home games between Christchurch and Wellington would be the equivalent of forcing two of capital cities in Australia to "share" a side, and it'd be just as successful...

Only because there's only 15 rounds in the Super Rugby season, and each side only gets 6 home games. If SR's season was longer they'd play more games in their respective regions.

It's honestly pretty disingenuous for you to try and suggest that that isn't the case as well.

I don’t consider myself a Sydneysider. I grew up in a country town and occasional come back here. Sometimes Sydney, sometimes Melbourne. I’m actually a Los Angelino if anything.

As for your arguments, all the major leagues in the US are based in a handful of key markets. So it’s normal practice to follow teams that aren’t specifically named after the precise geographical location that you live in, even if your city has a million people in it. People all over Texas follow a Dallas side. Even people in Oklahoma too. Rednecks in Virginia watch the Commanders, even though they’re also supported by K street types too.

It’s normal for a team in one city to be the team that stands in for multiple cities and even multiple states. These locations are just as geographically and culturally diverse as in Australia or New Zealand and comprise much larger population. These sports teams are also for more successful than most Australian sports teams so I don’t buy that culture/geography commercial cancer argument. People in regional NSW and even outback Queensland follow NRL clubs based in Sydney.

The only example you’ve got is some hypothetical Sydney-Melbourne scenario. Feel free to post a real life example.

Also if Super Rugby played more than 15 rounds it would probably collapse. It doesn’t change the reality that a NZ NRL club playing more than 6 games at either of those grounds makes them the primary tenant.

 

[docbrown]

Central Coast ain't getting one. The best option for the Central Coast is to get the Central Coast Council and local businesses to liaise with the Manly Sea Eagles.

Manly struggles to generate revenue from sponsorship and corporate hospitality at Brookvale. Work out a sponsorship deal with the CCC and local businesses in exchange for a few games at CC Stadium.

Reread the post. It’s the Sharks partially relocating to expand their team to cover the Central Coast. It doesn’t add an extra team to the competition.

The same concept works with Manly but as the only club on the Northside of the Harbour they should work on expanding their appeal there first.

 

[The Great Dane]

I don’t consider myself a Sydneysider. I grew up in a country town and occasional come back here. Sometimes Sydney, sometimes Melbourne. I’m actually a Los Angelino if anything.

As for your arguments, all the major leagues in the US are based in a handful of key markets. So it’s normal practice to follow teams that aren’t specifically named after the precise geographical location that you live in, even if your city has a million people in it. People all over Texas follow a Dallas side. Even people in Oklahoma too. Rednecks in Virginia watch the Commanders, even though they’re also supported by K street types too.

It’s normal for a team in one city to be the team that stands in for multiple cities and even multiple states. These locations are just as geographically and culturally diverse as in Australia or New Zealand and comprise much larger population. These sports teams are also for more successful than most Australian sports teams so I don’t buy that culture/geography commercial cancer argument. People in regional NSW and even outback Queensland follow NRL clubs based in Sydney.

The only example you’ve got is some hypothetical Sydney-Melbourne scenario. Feel free to post a real life example.

Also if Super Rugby played more than 15 rounds it would probably collapse. It doesn’t change the reality that a NZ NRL club playing more than 6 games at either of those grounds makes them the primary tenant.

As far as I know there isn't a single major league team in America that has a split home arrangement similar to what you are suggesting for NZ. Nor would any American fanbase ever accept such an arrangement.

An American equivalent to what you are suggesting would be if, for example, the Raiders were to split their home games between Oakland and Las Vegas. As far as I know nothing even close to that has ever happened in the pro-leagues, and the average American would consider it an insulting farce if a team ever attempted it.

Before you say it; yes, some of them do sell games to other markets on occasion, such as the NFL's current international strategy, or have been forced to move home games on a short term basis. However that isn't the same as claiming two "home" cities and grounds, and trying to actively represent both.

In other words your example is a BS false equivalency, and frankly I think you know it as well.

The real life examples that are as close as possible to what you're suggesting are probably GWS, St George Illawarra Dragons, Wests Tigers, Northern Eagles, etc, and not one of them could be considered particularly successful. In fact most would be considered varying levels of failure, and most people I've heard talk about them would argue that most of those clubs biggest issues are linked to their having split identities.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I don’t consider myself a Sydneysider. I grew up in a country town and occasional come back here. Sometimes Sydney, sometimes Melbourne. I’m actually a Los Angelino if anything.

As for your arguments, all the major leagues in the US are based in a handful of key markets. So it’s normal practice to follow teams that aren’t specifically named after the precise geographical location that you live in, even if your city has a million people in it. People all over Texas follow a Dallas side. Even people in Oklahoma too. Rednecks in Virginia watch the Commanders, even though they’re also supported by K street types too.

It’s normal for a team in one city to be the team that stands in for multiple cities and even multiple states. These locations are just as geographically and culturally diverse as in Australia or New Zealand and comprise much larger population. These sports teams are also for more successful than most Australian sports teams so I don’t buy that culture/geography commercial cancer argument. People in regional NSW and even outback Queensland follow NRL clubs based in Sydney.

The only example you’ve got is some hypothetical Sydney-Melbourne scenario. Feel free to post a real life example.

Also if Super Rugby played more than 15 rounds it would probably collapse. It doesn’t change the reality that a NZ NRL club playing more than 6 games at either of those grounds makes them the primary tenant.

What's your point?

Most Queenslanders do not support a Sydney team.

Having nine teams in Sydney is at odds with the NFL's model of one team per market.

America has over 300m people and 50 large cities. It's never going to have a professional football team in every market.

Australia only has six or seven large markets. Basing nine of the NRL's teams in Sydney while others have none is insane and bad business. The poor returns that Sydney's clubs make from football operations prove it's a dud model that should have been thrown out decades ago.

Reread the post. It’s the Sharks partially relocating to expand their team to cover the Central Coast. It doesn’t add an extra team to the competition.

The same concept works with Manly but as the only club on the Northside of the Harbour they should work on expanding their appeal there first.

Have you seen the annual reports for the clubs?

Sydney's clubs struggle to generate revenue from football operations. If they didn't have pokies and the annual grant then they would be f**ked. It's a terrible model. We should be rationalising Sydney down to six or five teams.

 

[Stormy weather]

I don’t consider myself a Sydneysider. I grew up in a country town and occasional come back here. Sometimes Sydney, sometimes Melbourne. I’m actually a Los Angelino if anything.

As for your arguments, all the major leagues in the US are based in a handful of key markets. So it’s normal practice to follow teams that aren’t specifically named after the precise geographical location that you live in, even if your city has a million people in it. People all over Texas follow a Dallas side. Even people in Oklahoma too. Rednecks in Virginia watch the Commanders, even though they’re also supported by K street types too.

It’s normal for a team in one city to be the team that stands in for multiple cities and even multiple states. These locations are just as geographically and culturally diverse as in Australia or New Zealand and comprise much larger population. These sports teams are also for more successful than most Australian sports teams so I don’t buy that culture/geography commercial cancer argument. People in regional NSW and even outback Queensland follow NRL clubs based in Sydney.

The only example you’ve got is some hypothetical Sydney-Melbourne scenario. Feel free to post a real life example.

Also if Super Rugby played more than 15 rounds it would probably collapse. It doesn’t change the reality that a NZ NRL club playing more than 6 games at either of those grounds makes them the primary tenant.

Yeah compare the Australian sporting landscape to the USA. There are over 50 cities in the USA over a million people, of course they will never all have a team.

But if you seriously think splitting a team between the north and South Island in NZ is the way to go then you are kidding yourself.

With the Storm a game a year in regional Victoria will do absolutely nothing to grow the game.