A look back at 1990's expansion

[Perth Red]

1986
"Ken Arthurson has proposed a Super League... comprising four or five teams from Sydney, two from Brisbane, three New South WalesCountry teams, Queensland Country and Auckland. You could amalgamate Manly/Northern Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs/Souths, Parramatta/Penrith and so on."

1992
"...to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."

1995
News presented its proposal to the ARL on 30 January. The key points were.

1. There would be a 12 team competition that would be an integral part of an international competition, with a world-wide audience of tens or even hundreds of millions.
2. The existing 20 team competition would continue, along with the ARL's "pivotal role" in administering the game. The ARL would run the State competition and Test matches, and be responsible for the judiciary, referees and junior development. The existing 20 clubs would be shareholders in the licensed, privately owned Super League teams, thus eliminating any breach of players' contracts. The 20-club competition would be the "breeding ground for the stars of the future".
3. The franchises would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland (1 each).

February 1995, Mr Hudson, the chairman of the board of Manly-Warringah, wrote to Mr Quayle: "there are great advantages for News Limited in getting their current proposal, or some version of it, finally accepted. Hence, we feel that the proposition is not 'dead and buried' and that attempts to de-stabilise the competition will continue. There is a vulnerability in this which News Limited have identified. Their twelve (12) team competition has just four (4) teams in Sydney. They can see that a Sydney club can only survive with great difficulty financially and logistically, against the competition provided by one city clubs, and now (for Brisbane) a two (2) club city. If the situation of the eleven (11) teams in Sydney is not addressed in some way by the League, the threat of a take-over, or such like, will continue to loom large. We suggest that a plan to address the problems of the eleven (11) Sydney clubs vis-a-vis their colleagues in other cities and in other states is urgently needed."


Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war

 

[Perth Red]

SL did take over if you ask me

No it just put the game into a twenty year hibernation, strategically speaking.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Is it true that every team that defected to Super League survived the purge other than the Western Reds?

What was Rupert thinking?

Later add ons Mariners and Rams got the chop as well but still...

 

[Stallion]

Is it true that every team that defected to Super League survived the purge other than the Western Reds?

What was Rupert thinking?

Later add ons Mariners and Rams got the chop as well but still...

Rupert was thinking" I dont like this code! How do I damage its standing in the Australian community? And at the same time give some other codes that I like more of an advantage? Mmmmm! Divide and then conquer them! That's it. What a great idea!

 

[BuderusIsaBeast]

If the ARL had been left alone I think the number of teams in Sydney definetley would have dropped. When the ARL moved to 20 teams I think that would have been establsihed as the maximum number of teams with then existing sydney teams relocated. From memory there were rumors/talk of the Balmain Tigers relocating to Adelaide. The Tigers would have been a great relocation to Brisbane if they felt the need for three Brisbane teams as they could tie in with the Easts Tigers. After 1995 Adelaide and Melbourne would have certaintley had sydney teams relocate to there area and plans were obviousley underway for the Bears to move to the Central Coast which would atleast spread Sydney out

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The NSWRLs failing was that, from 1982-1995, they expanded as they brought in Canberra, Illawarra, Brisbane, Gold Coast [not that they ever really wanted this team, it merely eliminated the bye], Newcastle, Townsville/Nth Qld, Brisbane 2, Auckland and Perth and they only culled Newtown [albeit Wests got the chop, but they fought back].

The NSWRL had eyes on Melbourne and Adelaide too.

So they expanded but instead of making hard choices, they hoped 3-4 Sydney teams would wither on the vine and die a natural death, which they probably would have - e.g., Wests, Souths, Balmain for example.

That they brought in regions like Illawarra, Newcastle and Brisbane with strong local comps but didn't have those local teams tiered in as feeders to the new teams which beggars belief.

That once the shit fight of SL ended, they went from 22 to 20 in 1998 and then destroyed the expansion footprint they had, then forced teams in to illogical mergers was never going to work. Killing teams with long histories also hurt them too. Some Souths people I know were certain if Souths hadn't been forced out they would have died and gone broke by 2005 anyway. So no costly court battle, etc.

They erred by allowing Norths and Manly to merge and move to the CC, then didn't specify that the licence was only for the CC, so if the Beagles folded, the licence remained a CC team.

That they haven't got a 2nd Brisbane team, Perth or Adelaide sorted since 1998, and teams in Sydney whose teams fluctuate up and down without making hard decisions, is a failing of the NRL/ARLC.

The NRL should know its expansion markets. It should be reading the riot act to all Sydney teams, and be looking at reducing the Sydney footprint by at least 2 teams OR ensuring that all Sydney and surrounding areas from Wollongong, to the Macarthur/Campbelltown/Narellan region, to Penrith/Nepean, to CC and the Northern Beaches are catered for with a team that plays in that area every fortnight.

As for Rupert, sure demonise him. He just wanted content. Content is king. Had nothing to do with anything else. He's now pretty much got RL, RU, AFL and Soccer domestically. He doesn't give a shit what you think, if you care etc. He just wants your $$$ paying for one or some or all of those sports.

 

[Stallion]

The NSWRLs failing was that, from 1982-1995, they expanded as they brought in Canberra, Illawarra, Brisbane, Gold Coast [not that they ever really wanted this team, it merely eliminated the bye], Newcastle, Townsville/Nth Qld, Brisbane 2, Auckland and Perth and they only culled Newtown [albeit Wests got the chop, but they fought back].

The NSWRL had eyes on Melbourne and Adelaide too.

So they expanded but instead of making hard choices, they hoped 3-4 Sydney teams would wither on the vine and die a natural death, which they probably would have - e.g., Wests, Souths, Balmain for example.

That they brought in regions like Illawarra, Newcastle and Brisbane with strong local comps but didn't have those local teams tiered in as feeders to the new teams which beggars belief.

That once the shit fight of SL ended, they went from 22 to 20 in 1998 and then destroyed the expansion footprint they had, then forced teams in to illogical mergers was never going to work. Killing teams with long histories also hurt them too. Some Souths people I know were certain if Souths hadn't been forced out they would have died and gone broke by 2005 anyway. So no costly court battle, etc.

They erred by allowing Norths and Manly to merge and move to the CC, then didn't specify that the licence was only for the CC, so if the Beagles folded, the licence remained a CC team.

That they haven't got a 2nd Brisbane team, Perth or Adelaide sorted since 1998, and teams in Sydney whose teams fluctuate up and down without making hard decisions, is a failing of the NRL/ARLC.

The NRL should know its expansion markets. It should be reading the riot act to all Sydney teams, and be looking at reducing the Sydney footprint by at least 2 teams OR ensuring that all Sydney and surrounding areas from Wollongong, to the Macarthur/Campbelltown/Narellan region, to Penrith/Nepean, to CC and the Northern Beaches are catered for with a team that plays in that area every fortnight.

As for Rupert, sure demonise him. He just wanted content. Content is king. Had nothing to do with anything else. He's now pretty much got RL, RU, AFL and Soccer domestically. He doesn't give a shit what you think, if you care etc. He just wants your $$$ paying for one or some or all of those sports.

Dissagree with the Rupert description. Rugby league isn't given the appropriate coverage like other less popular codes. Let's look at AFL. Im pretty sure that code gets live content on its designated channel throughout the off season. Rugby league does not receive such favourable coverage. In fact I suspect the belated NRL360 Monday serving is as a result of viewer complaints concerned with the approaching world cup. Another code, rugby union gets live coverage of a domestic competition which has no attraction to the general public but keeps the leather patch brigade contented? Rugby league does not enjoy the favours other codes are getting despite proving to be the most popular football tv sport over recent decades. This is unfair and I dont think coincidence or an oversight!

 

[Stallion]

1986
"Ken Arthurson has proposed a Super League... comprising four or five teams from Sydney, two from Brisbane, three New South WalesCountry teams, Queensland Country and Auckland. You could amalgamate Manly/Northern Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs/Souths, Parramatta/Penrith and so on."

1992
"...to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."

1995
News presented its proposal to the ARL on 30 January. The key points were.

1. There would be a 12 team competition that would be an integral part of an international competition, with a world-wide audience of tens or even hundreds of millions.
2. The existing 20 team competition would continue, along with the ARL's "pivotal role" in administering the game. The ARL would run the State competition and Test matches, and be responsible for the judiciary, referees and junior development. The existing 20 clubs would be shareholders in the licensed, privately owned Super League teams, thus eliminating any breach of players' contracts. The 20-club competition would be the "breeding ground for the stars of the future".
3. The franchises would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland (1 each).

February 1995, Mr Hudson, the chairman of the board of Manly-Warringah, wrote to Mr Quayle: "there are great advantages for News Limited in getting their current proposal, or some version of it, finally accepted. Hence, we feel that the proposition is not 'dead and buried' and that attempts to de-stabilise the competition will continue. There is a vulnerability in this which News Limited have identified. Their twelve (12) team competition has just four (4) teams in Sydney. They can see that a Sydney club can only survive with great difficulty financially and logistically, against the competition provided by one city clubs, and now (for Brisbane) a two (2) club city. If the situation of the eleven (11) teams in Sydney is not addressed in some way by the League, the threat of a take-over, or such like, will continue to loom large. We suggest that a plan to address the problems of the eleven (11) Sydney clubs vis-a-vis their colleagues in other cities and in other states is urgently needed."


Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war

I would suggest their was some very poor logic about at this time. Pretty sure that the thinking in 1986 was revised once realising what would be lost if a carve up occured! In fact Arko was interviewed on this very topic and had realised the immense damage that the game would have suffered had that carve up of Sydney clubs occured. Noticed you haven't mentioned that fact PR!?

 

[siv]

Lets go right back

1982 there was a proposal to bring in Illawarra and Newcastle

This got stuffed up when Newcastle chose not to join. Canberra or the old Monaro division was a after thought to not have a bye for 13 teams.

There was a plan for natural attrition at this time.

If they didnt add Canberra it would have been sort out the following year.

Newtown folded at the end of 1983 and Wests were culled. But won their way back in via the courts.

Newcastle finally said yes in 1988.

But I beleive the biggest error occured next in bringing in Brisbane.

It demoted the existing BRL comp and clubs. Something that QRL has been fighting for 30 years to restablish.

But it did cause the QRL to restructure the BRL into a true statewide Qld Cup - which NSWRL still need to implement one day.

Gold Coast is a strange animal but again a after thought to get to 16 teams. It was really a NSW Far North Coast team that tried to tap into a GC market. In hindsight may have been smarter to base themselves further south like Lismore

 

[Perth Red]

I would suggest their was some very poor logic about at this time. Pretty sure that the thinking in 1986 was revised once realising what would be lost if a carve up occured! In fact Arko was interviewed on this very topic and had realised the immense damage that the game would have suffered had that carve up of Sydney clubs occured. Noticed you haven't mentioned that fact PR!?

Reference?

It's clear from my timeline I've posted that as far back as the early 80's the governing body could see that too many Sydney teams was both holding back expansion and making it difficult for those teams to be competitive against out of town teams. Nothing's changed

 

[Stallion]

Reference?

It's clear from my timeline I've posted that as far back as the early 80's the governing body could see that too many Sydney teams was both holding back expansion and making it difficult for those teams to be competitive against out of town teams. Nothing's changed

Sorry I don't get details of every interview I watch. However Arko was questioned about this topic and that is what he said. Might have been on Sterlo's show on fox. He definitely said this. I was disappointed that they were even contemplating a carve up but they eventually realised what was at stake! The historical and cultural advantage of the Sydney rugby league's foundation clubs. Sadly something you have missed in your slash and burn logic!

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Sorry I don't get details of every interview I watch. However Arko was questioned about this topic and that is what he said. Might have been on Sterlo's show on fox. He definitely said this. I was disappointed that they were even contemplating a carve up but they eventually realised what was at stake! The historical and cultural advantage of the Sydney rugby league's foundation clubs. Sadly something you have missed in your slash and burn logic!

I guess it’s how you look at it. If Arko had made the hard decision early and not been so Sydney-centric I believe super league wouldn’t and couldn’t of happened. Ideally the only option would and should of been to run a higher level comp over the top and invite the clubs that should of been there. Super league couldn’t of happened if there was no demand in those expansion areas no matter how much money was thrown at them. The arl took to long and was too biased to Sydney. And hence super league happened. Similar to Aru or east coast RU and twiggy.

Having a unsuccessful, financial destitute club no matter there age and historical relevance can’t be just taken for granted and remain in the top tier Nrl. There age and history should help them, not hinder.

If you had your way the Nrl over the past 20-30yrs we would of had to own balmain, north Sydney, Newcastle, Illawarra, possibly cronulla, souths, etc. Before it becomes an arl/Nrl decision, there is constant, sometimes decade long mismanagment at the club. Blame them for the clubs demise from top tier Nrl.

I think you miss the point. Your idea of Nrl growing is having more Sydney teams because of there age and historical relevance. Can you be anymore idiotic? You would of never had me as a fan if they hadn’t of expanded and became less Sydneycentric. Believe it or not there is more out there than Sydney. I think even Perth is a place.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I think Arko did make the hard decisions. They ousted Newtown and Wests. Wests fought on, and the clubs didn't have the gumption to back head office and become stronger.

I also think after that, expansion was on the cards, and Arko etc thought that clubs like Souths, Balmain and Wests would not be able to compete and would die a natural death or relocate (if there was an option).

But I also think he was hamstrung by the same clubs and admins that stuff the game now.

To blame Arko for Super League is not entirely fair.

RL had become a popular commodity between 1989-1994, with expansion, large crowds, great TV, exciting games, star players and a hugely popular advertisement/rallying cry in Simply The Best.

Packer got his hooks in to the game with FTA rights only because Ch 10 keeled over.

And Murdoch and Packer together were set to dominate Pay TV together until it was stopped. Then it became a case of who could get what for their own channels.

Then the big $$$ were dangled and the clubs and players scrambled for their loot and it was on for young and old.

That's what f**ked the game. Instant salary and cost inflation.

People also forget that prior to SL, many clubs ran on volunteerism. Gate people, folk working the merchandise and canteens, people on the gate, game day ushers, physio/strappers, etc. They were all club people who worked the day like local footy clubs do to this day. Now...every single thing is a paid job. And that's all a cost. Everything.

 

[Stallion]

? Stormwarrior82 Some of your rhetoric supports the Sydney clubs then you decide to call the support for Sydney's foundation clubs 'idiotic'? Very strange. The support of the well exposed and historically relevant Sydney club had and has massive support in the area Ive grown up in! Newcastle. You rid the league of a generationally supported and respected club and you lose much of that external respect and support. So I really do think your disjointed logic reflects idiotic traits. Wake up! Once again I firmly believe this code is good enough to expand with additional clubs welcomed and longstanding clubs still respected and maintaining generational support which is a major factor being ignored in the 'slash and burn' logic.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

? Stormwarrior82 Some of your rhetoric supports the Sydney clubs then you decide to call the support for Sydney's foundation clubs 'idiotic'? Very strange. The support of the well exposed and historically relevant Sydney club had and has massive support in the area Ive grown up in! Newcastle. You rid the league of a generationally supported and respected club and you lose much of that external respect and support. So I really do think your disjointed logic reflects idiotic traits. Wake up! Once again I firmly believe this code is good enough to expand with additional clubs welcomed and longstanding clubs still respected and maintaining generational support which is a major factor being ignored in the 'slash and burn' logic.

I didn’t call clubs idiotic I called you that. I have never deviated from my position which is,
The current clubs have been given more than enough chances by the arl/Nrl to sustain themselves. If ANY Sydney based club gets themselves into financial trouble due to inept mismanagement no matter how old they are, I believe they should be demoted back to nsw Cup or merged at the expense of a expansion team. Simples. I would even say that clubs outside Sydney should be given some slack but they to should becareful of continued failures. (Gold Coast)

The Nrl has allowed them to basically get one last chance through the set up of the sinking fund but I’m sure clubs would prefer it to be divided up amoungst everyone than go to one club.

History doesn’t pay the bills but it should help. If these clubs can’t stay afloat they will be forced to change. And so they should i my opinion.

 

[Stallion]

I didn’t call clubs idiotic I called you that. I have never deviated from my position which is,
The current clubs have been given more than enough chances by the arl/Nrl to sustain themselves. If ANY Sydney based club gets themselves into financial trouble due to inept mismanagement no matter how old they are, I believe they should be demoted back to nsw Cup or merged at the expense of a expansion team. Simples. I would even say that clubs outside Sydney should be given some slack but they to should becareful of continued fail
ures. (Gold Coast)


The Nrl has allowed them to basically get one last chance through the set up of the sinking fund but I’m sure clubs would prefer it to be divided up amoungst everyone than go to one club.

History doesn’t pay the bills but it should help. If these clubs can’t stay afloat they will be forced to change. And so they should i my opinion.

How disrespectful! What do you mean chances!? If it were not for these clubs you would not be discussing rugby league in this country as a mainstream sport! You need to work out where the strength of the NRL really is before espousing your disrespectful and ignorant stance. Remembering that many in this forum advocate genuine expansion thru additional clubs and you want to dismantle well established clubs with massive Australia wide notoriety and fan bases? Please go back to school and study history and its relevance to the future. Your flimsy regard for these magnificent foundation clubs of the NRL show your out of touch understanding of what makes the NRL really tick. More clubs don't kill clubs! Genuine growth with consolidation! A bit too sensible and prudent for the likes of you!

 

[siv]

And so begins all of the pain that a RL supporter everytime some thinks about culling my club

Emotions that had been built up for 30 years that the Sydney RL public never forget

I leaves a bitter taste for generations

 

[Stormwarrior82]

How disrespectful! What do you mean chances!? If it were not for these clubs you would not be discussing rugby league in this country as a mainstream sport! You need to work out where the strength of the NRL really is before espousing your disrespectful and ignorant stance. Remembering that many in this forum advocate genuine expansion thru additional clubs and you want to dismantle well established clubs with massive Australia wide notoriety and fan bases? Please go back to school and study history and its relevance to the future. Your flimsy regard for these magnificent foundation clubs of the NRL show your out of touch understanding of what makes the NRL really tick. More clubs don't kill clubs! Genuine growth with consolidation! A bit too sensible and prudent for the likes of you!

If you feel your view is so right, why do you think so many on here disagree with you? Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s actually true. Sometimes it’s best to try and understand the other point of view. Like others in here have said, you need to work on your comprehension.

Spare me the Sydney centric crap, Yes I would be discussing rugby league. You know that brisbane had a great comp? And super league would of stayed don’t you think? I’ll say again, I am happy for all the clubs to stay. History should help these clubs be financial and stay in the comp, but as I’ll say again if a wealthy backer doesn’t want club x it is the clubs own fault not the Nrl. I want genuine expansion as well. I have stated the fact multiple times. Good business sense is also knowing when to get rid of the dead wood. Did you read the bit where I said I’m happy for all the Sydney clubs to stay? But not if they don’t help themselves.

 

[Stallion]

And so begins all of the pain that a RL supporter everytime some thinks about culling my club

Emotions that had been built up for 30 years that the Sydney RL public never forget

I leaves a bitter taste for generations

How true! And not too mention the other 100,000 odd plus fans that have supported the club outside of the Sydney area! These guys just don't get it! Funnily enough we are not against expansion whatsoever. It just must be done with maintaining the integrity of the foundations of this great competition. The AFL know this and will not carve up any core clubs in Melbourne. Rugby league must take the same tact and even regain some lost ground(North Sydney Bears out of Gosford would not hurt!) All for expansion but genuine expansion not "smiling assassin "expansion!

 

[Stormwarrior82]

And so begins all of the pain that a RL supporter everytime some thinks about culling my club

Emotions that had been built up for 30 years that the Sydney RL public never forget

I leaves a bitter taste for generations

I’m sure it leaves a bit taste, I completely understand that. Why isn’t your anger directed at the useless management of the time that screwed your club? Maybe merged clubs need to bring the 2 teams history together better? So older clubs fans feel included?