Central Coast Bears, 2013.

[Cliffhanger]

not turning it into a merging discussion, but an Easts/Souffs merger has a lot of merit. but to achieve it they'd need to Do it in a way which keeps the fans happy, and preserve the history of both clubs.

Don't think the fans would support it though

If we merged with Souths I would stop following Rugby League. If they do it what they should do is get Souths to drop the South and the Rabbitohs and keep the Sydney. We drop our Sydney and the Roosters. Then we drop our red and they drop their green.

I would be happy with the Central Coast to get a team, they've worked hard enough for it.

 

[BunniesMan]

dont think they should stagger

nobody likes byes

and to maximise the tv deal - they can have an extra match / extra timeslot for a whole year by bringing them in together

Seeing they so easily pushed expansion back past 2013 then 1 year of byes or no extra team isn't a big deal apparently.

Bears '14.
Perth '15.

 

[flippikat]

None of the top three contenders are a gamble and the truth is we need all three, Perth, Brisbane II & Central Coast, in our national competition. The biggest gamble is to persist with 8.5 Sydney clubs in the national competition.

Exactly. it's damn hard to pick 2 out of the 3 frontrunners.

Personally I'm in favour of a SEQ bid (Whoever emerges with the strongest case) and Perth - but the real problem is the over-representation of Sydney in a major international league.

We can keep expanding maybe to 20 teams - bringing players back from England, headhunting from Rugby Union, and fast-tracking young players that are ready..

In 1995 we just didn't have the depth to carry 20 teams, nowdays we might but I still wouldn't want to get there in a hurry.

I can only call it from where I see it, but as an NRL fan in Wellington it just seems mad that one stronghold of the game has so much representation at the top level at the expense of others.

 

[Perth Red]

Interesting a stadium owning a club, normally its clubs that look to own stadiums! Does this mean the Bears would play at Bluetongue free of charge?

 

[herbert henry1908]

Exactly. it's damn hard to pick 2 out of the 3 frontrunners.

Personally I'm in favour of a SEQ bid (Whoever emerges with the strongest case) and Perth - but the real problem is the over-representation of Sydney in a major international league.

We can keep expanding maybe to 20 teams - bringing players back from England, headhunting from Rugby Union, and fast-tracking young players that are ready..

In 1995 we just didn't have the depth to carry 20 teams, nowdays we might but I still wouldn't want to get there in a hurry.

I can only call it from where I see it, but as an NRL fan in Wellington it just seems mad that one stronghold of the game has so much representation at the top level at the expense of others.

the NRL is simply an expanded NSWRL comp. If it wasnt for the ARL/NSWRL there wouldnt be a team in townsville, gold coast , brisbane , auckland etc. in a national comp.

They started it all.

No doubt sydney is over represented. But its just a fact of life we need to deal with.

I'd say within 10 years there will be 1 less sydney team. Within 20 probably another will go.

That would leave sydney with 6.5/7 teams. Given the population of sydney that will be close enough to being about right.

In an 18 team comp that leaves 11 teams to the rest of aus/nz or 13 in a 20 team comp.

Thats a pretty fair spread imo.

 

[Beowulf]

Interesting a stadium owning a club, normally its clubs that look to own stadiums! Does this mean the Bears would play at Bluetongue free of charge?

Unusual situation in that the stadium being purpose built for the Bears in 1999 had their team taken away. Its a business decision first and foremost, but the stadium is white elephant without the Bears playing every second week in winter and the Mariners ave around 10K these days as the A league stumbles along...

So reduced fee structure would be part of the arrangement to convince the NRL the Bears have a very low cost structure, making the breakeven crowd point at Bluetongue miniscule, making the Bears profitable and increasingly so year after year. It also means current Sydney Clubs have no fears about their corporate opportunities being threatened by a new entrant, and also means the NRL won't have fears abt the Club requiring financial assistance like many others in recent years.

It really is the perfect synergy. Cronulla owning their ground is the only other comparison, and no disrespect to Sharks fans, but Bluetongue corporate and supporter facilities are light years ahead.

 

[flippikat]

the NRL is simply an expanded NSWRL comp. If it wasnt for the ARL/NSWRL there wouldnt be a team in townsville, gold coast , brisbane , auckland etc. in a national comp.

They started it all.

No doubt sydney is over represented. But its just a fact of life we need to deal with.

I'd say within 10 years there will be 1 less sydney team. Within 20 probably another will go.

That would leave sydney with 6.5/7 teams. Given the population of sydney that will be close enough to being about right.

In an 18 team comp that leaves 11 teams to the rest of aus/nz or 13 in a 20 team comp.

Thats a pretty fair spread imo.

I don't want to sound jaded, but predictions of there being 1 or 2 less Sydney teams in the future have been around since at least the late 1980s.

The only time that this happened was after the Superleague war, and it was bungled badly.

The Northern Eagles was a marriage made in hell, St George Illawarra was virtually a takeover of a regional centre by a Sydney team that stayed put, and the Wests Tigers - although harmonious enough and moderately successful - was not even the product of adjoining suburbs!

And that's before getting into the criteria lead to South Sydney being excluded.

I think the Gallop should rethink his opposition to relocations. i'd support any team who want to move to be New Zealand's 2nd team. especially if they play any games in Wellington.

 

[docbrown]

not turning it into a merging discussion, but an Easts/Souffs merger has a lot of merit. but to achieve it they'd need to Do it in a way which keeps the fans happy, and preserve the history of both clubs.

Don't think the fans would support it though

I think there's just too much spite in that, it would go belly up in the vein of 'Northern Eagles'.

Sharks need to keep a presence in Cronulla. If they relocate outside of Sydney, their going to struggle to get people interested in travelling to places like Penrith & Brookvale to see their 'home team'.

They need to keep their Cronulla base and their best bet is to create a city-wide franchise with a merger. I don't believe that they need to be adjoining areas - it's actually better when they're not (because of preexisting neighbouring rivalries) and that it leads to the franchise becoming a 'Sydney' team rather than just a suburban one.

Their best brand is their mascot - SHARKS - so they should seek to merge with a team that has a strong 'location' but that fits that mascot (like WESTS tigers). That why I've said EASTERN SHARKS or SYDNEY CITY SHARKS is a good fit.

So no - we shouldn't cull or relocate the sharks to bring the Bears in - because we'd be repeating the same mistake.

That said I was talking to a mate today about Knight's greatest rivals and we were actually salivating a Knights-Bears clash.

 

[flippikat]

I think there's just too much spite in that, it would go belly up in the vein of 'Northern Eagles'.

Sharks need to keep a presence in Cronulla. If they relocate outside of Sydney, their going to struggle to get people interested in travelling to places like Penrith & Brookvale to see their 'home team'.

They need to keep their Cronulla base and their best bet is to create a city-wide franchise with a merger. I don't believe that they need to be adjoining areas - it's actually better when they're not (because of preexisting neighbouring rivalries) and that it leads to the franchise becoming a 'Sydney' team rather than just a suburban one.

Their best brand is their mascot - SHARKS - so they should seek to merge with a team that has a strong 'location' but that fits that mascot (like WESTS tigers). That why I've said EASTERN SHARKS or SYDNEY CITY SHARKS is a good fit.

So no - we shouldn't cull or relocate the sharks to bring the Bears in - because we'd be repeating the same mistake.

That said I was talking to a mate today about Knight's greatest rivals and we were actually salivating a Knights-Bears clash.

Some good points here.. Especially the one about adjoining areas.. I hadn't thought of it being detrimental like that.

And I think you've identified a good candidate for a joint venture.. It has been mentioned here before. and the point was also raised that the Roosters World War II era jersey (light blue, with red and white vee) would be a good choice for the strip.

Basically because that jersey is roughly a combination of the 1967 original Cronulla V jersey and some red from the Roosters as well.

The only other candidate for a joint venture would be a Parramatta Panthers superclub, playing in black, white, blue and gold jerseys, I guess...

 

[herbert henry1908]

I don't want to sound jaded, but predictions of there being 1 or 2 less Sydney teams in the future have been around since at least the late 1980s.

The only time that this happened was after the Superleague war, and it was bungled badly.

The Northern Eagles was a marriage made in hell, St George Illawarra was virtually a takeover of a regional centre by a Sydney team that stayed put, and the Wests Tigers - although harmonious enough and moderately successful - was not even the product of adjoining suburbs!

And that's before getting into the criteria lead to South Sydney being excluded.

I think the Gallop should rethink his opposition to relocations. i'd support any team who want to move to be New Zealand's 2nd team. especially if they play any games in Wellington.

Teams have come and gone from sydney plenty of times before.

Newtown

Glebe

Wests ( then re-instated)

University

Cumberland

Newcastle ( brought back 79 years later)

Annandale

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[LeagueXIII]

True however from 1938 to 1996 the game grew, other than Newtown's demise and of course we know what happened in 1997.

People thinking the culling of teams is good for RL has forgotten the past very quickly. The traditional clubs in Sydney are a huge strength not a weakness.

 

[LeagueXIII]

The only reason clubs merged was due to there being no cash/sponsors etc after the SL war.

I think a club such as Balmain could have survived as a stand alone club.

 

[Timmah]

To be perfectly fair, the Bears may well have survived if constant rain didn't hamper the construction of Northpower (now Bluetongue) Stadium. That crippled them financially and probably forced them to jump into bed with Manly ultimately.

 

[Teddyboy]

This is about the only way I would be happy to have the Bears in the comp. Or Cronulla folding.

But the Sharks crowds have been decent this year.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Exactly Cronulla are averaging more than Penrith (last in the league), Canberra, Nth Qld and Melbourne.

 

[BDGS]

relocation and/or mergers shouldn't happen to Sydney teams unless they decide too.

 

[Teddyboy]

relocation and/or mergers shouldn't happen to Sydney teams unless they decide too.

But something has to give for the good of the sport.

 

[BDGS]

Nah, the comp can hold 20-22 teams into the future.

8 Sydney teams (Manly, Wests, Penrith, Cronulla, South Sydney, Canterbury, Parramatta, Roosters)
2-3 NSW regional teams (Newcastle, St George Illawarra, Central Coast)
4-5 QLD teams (Brisbane, Gold Coast, North Queensland, Brisbane, Central Queensland)
1 Melbourne (Melbourne)
1 New Zealand (Warriors)
1 ACT (Canberra Raiders)
1 WA (Western Australia)

from that group i would have 20 of those teams with room in the future for PNG and a second NZ team.

 

[BunniesMan]

But something has to give for the good of the sport.

That's bullshit. The next tv deal will likely be double per year what the current one is. If the weakest Sydney clubs such as Cronulla and Manly are able to survive this tv deal, they won't die in the forseeable future.

And if the possibility of folding isn't likely, no Sydney team will merge or relocate. And nor should they.

I bet any money the Sydney teams we have now will exist in the same place in 2031.

 

[herbert henry1908]

True however from 1938 to 1996 the game grew, other than Newtown's demise and of course we know what happened in 1997.

People thinking the culling of teams is good for RL has forgotten the past very quickly. The traditional clubs in Sydney are a huge strength not a weakness.

Im not advocating culling clubs.

I just believe its inevitable that some will fold.

Especially if a minimum criteria is placed upon teams to remain in the NRL.