Clubs fear NRL can’t afford to expand

[Diesel]

If the NRL is not going to expand, then what clubs need to leave where they currently are?

Only the strong survive, it's time to cut lose the clubs holding the NRL back, the ones that think they can cut it need to prove they can survive or be relocated or move to a revamped stronger second tier comp.

How clubs that merged 15 years ago with vertically 2 groups of supporters can be either propped up or extinct is beyond belief.

Sydney needs a part overhaul. Sydney teams have a major advantage over non Sydney teams and the wealth should be spread instead of 10 clubs all having similar agendas

 

[franklin2323]

Well, it did happen with the Titans. When it was announced in 2005 the Titans would be the 16th team in 2007, there were plenty of NRL teams that were struggling financially and weren't 'sustainable' as you say it. Souths were an absolute basket case on and off the field at the time until Crowe/Holmes a Court came on board the following year.

So, why all of a sudden the change in criteria to make sure all clubs are sustainable before expansion is considered? It's this sort of inconsistency and hypocrisy from the NRL that is turning casual fans away from the game.

It will happen. It's just making sure they learn from the mistakes of GC 1st. That 9th game is 52 hours extra live content a year

 

[insert.pause]

Smith is pragmatic, the case has to be made that any new sides will add value in excess of their cost.

A second side playing out of Suncorp is a no brainier, gives brisbane a game of rugby league every week, rather than under leveraged situation now where people spend their money on other entertainment options every second week. The networks will pay for it as well.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Except there's different kinds of value, not just financial. I doubt the NRL would understand that though.

 

[El Diablo]

Smith is pragmatic, the case has to be made that any new sides will add value in excess of their cost.

A second side playing out of Suncorp is a no brainier, gives brisbane a game of rugby league every week, rather than under leveraged situation now where people spend their money on other entertainment options every second week. The networks will pay for it as well.

it would also attract more Brisbane people to pay TV

a lot of Broncos fans don't get pay TV as there team is on FTA just about every week

having a second Brisbane team and putting more Broncos games on pay would make Fox happy

 

[insert.pause]

it would also attract more Brisbane people to pay TV

a lot of Broncos fans don't get pay TV as there team is on FTA just about every week

having a second Brisbane team and putting more Broncos games on pay would make Fox happy

Yep, it's bound to happen and an area like ipswich has the development nursery to support it as well. The competition will also push the Broncos to be better.

 

[applesauce]

Imagine if the NRL didn't have the Storm in regards to TV value and national profile?!?

Now imagine what the NRL could add the equivalent of 2 more Storm franchises!

BNE2 and Perth both represent the huge possibilities of expansion to strengthen to competition.

Maybe not overnight but in 5-10years they will be priceless to the NRL's value commercially and perceptively.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Well, it did happen with the Titans. When it was announced in 2005 the Titans would be the 16th team in 2007, there were plenty of NRL teams that were struggling financially and weren't 'sustainable' as you say it. Souths were an absolute basket case on and off the field at the time until Crowe/Holmes a Court came on board the following year.

So, why all of a sudden the change in criteria to make sure all clubs are sustainable before expansion is considered? It's this sort of inconsistency and hypocrisy from the NRL that is turning casual fans away from the game.

First of all, we need to understand who said this....

No one at the ARLC (the only ones whose opinions actually matter) was quoted in the article, so we cant say "this is the NRL being short sighted".

This is just a bargaining move by the clubs; they are the self-interested parties (as they should be) but they are only one of many voices here.

I do agree that its a terrible arguement to use against expansion (if a club cant survive in this climate, we either need to cut the team or replace the board), but anyone that directs this at DSmith or the IC is making quite a large leap....

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I was trawling some NRL FB posts and the amount of people based in Adelaide who were going off about not having a team, or being completely ignored for TV coverage was astounding. I know it probably doesn't mean much, but all these areas people consider as expansion areas - Perth, Brisbane 2/Ipswich, Central Qld, NZ2 or 3 - are really worth investing in IMO. Sure can't do all at once but there has to be some plan (which there could be).

I was discussing with my brother-in-law and father-in-law about a Sydney team being relocated to Adelaide as a hypothetical.

We figured that if a club had an average of 15,000 go to home games in Sydney but they rate well on TV, where's the pain in moving the team to Adelaide and hyping the hell out of them and aiming for the same crowd - initially - with hopes of 20,000+ within 5-10 years.

Now we suggested that the newly done Adelaide Oval could be a good place to go - I'm not too savvy on Adelaide fields though - the soccer one could do I suppose (the one Adelaide Utd use). But I was thinking Adelaide Oval, with the NRL taking a hit/investment by giving the big SA corporates massive mates rates for advertisement and corporate boxes for the first 5, 10, 20 years with a %age of investment in the team too.

Then you keep the Sydney fan base happy by doing an 'away' Member Ticket by having the Adelaide team play at least 8 games in Sydney every season. So those people who would normally be season ticket holders of the relocated team would still get 8 games a year, pretty much similar to what they get. The casual fans could still go to their 1-8 games as they pleased too. So you'd build the new home membership and maintain the new 'away' membership.

Plus you put them on TV at a decent time for 5-10 years so that :

A) SA sponsors are getting exposure in to Eastern markets.
B) Sydney based fans still can sit and watch their team like they did before.

Anyway, I'm sure there are smarter people than me working on this and able to poke holes through all of my hypothetical.

But in the long run, I think an Adelaide team could/should/would work if done properly.



PS - does the NRL app allow people to watch live games if Ch 9 don't do FTA? If so, I'd assume people in Adelaide can use it to watch live footy via this app (if they don't have Fox).

 

[BuffaloRules]

Same old same old from the clubs. Keep bailing out unviable clubs drawing 10k fans whilst the game misses the opportunity to grow into new markets with more long term lucrative outcomes. Wouldn't surprise me, our great game has been run terribly for hundred years, hence why it is still so regionally isolated.

!

I agree completely.

When are Canberra and Gold Coast getting the chop?

 

[thorson1987]

Problem is easily solved. The NRL can expand and keep the same number of teams by cutting some Sydney teams.

Agreed.

Goodbye Souths.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Smith is pragmatic, the case has to be made that any new sides will add value in excess of their cost.

A second side playing out of Suncorp is a no brainier, gives brisbane a game of rugby league every week, rather than under leveraged situation now where people spend their money on other entertainment options every second week. The networks will pay for it as well.

This is true.

Can we say the same about Perth though?

They will be there with their hand out for decades much like the AFL expansion markets...

However, I think the NRL should fund Perth, like they do Melbourne...

They can afford to.

 

[alien]

there could always be a team (or more) who need help from the nrl, but that shouldn't mean that the nrl shouldn't expand. expansion can actually make them money.

if no sydney teams relocate then i would like to see:

2018 - perth and a second brisbane side (playing it's home games at suncorp stadium)
2023 - adelaide and central coast bears
2028 - wellington and christchurch
2033 - central qld and sunshine coast

if some sydney clubs can relocate to these new areas then expansion could happen a bit quicker

 

[BrisVegas]

Sounds suspiciously similar to declarations about sustainability made in previous years. If these clubs haven't been able to get there houses in order over the past 5 years perhaps the executive should be asking themselves if they are truly the best people to be running things...

From 2009:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/no-more-clubs-say-league-bosses/story-e6frfgbo-1225805908912

No more clubs say league bosses

* By Dean Ritchie
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* December 02, 2009 12:01AM

THEY are queuing up to join the Telstra Premiership but all 16 club chief executives have told the NRL to abandon expansion plans.

At a club CEOs' conference in Coogee, delegates agreed the existing 16 clubs must have financial stability - and survive - before any teams are added. It is the first time club CEOs have publicly voted against expanding from 16 teams to 18.

The move was a nasty blow to the Central Coast, Central Queensland, a second Brisbane side and even Papua New Guinea - clubs wanting entry after the 2012 season.

Asked about expansion, Penrith CEO Mick Leary said it would be "difficult at this stage". Broncos chief executive Bruno Cullen added: "That's the most important thing on the agenda at the moment - to ensure the 16 clubs we have continue in the NRL and survive and that we do everything in our power to make sure that happens.

"That doesn't mean there definitely won't be an expansion but it isn't something that's on the table."

NRL chief executive David Gallop confirmed that his clubs were against an expanded competition.

"There was unanimous support that the game needs to be able to grow the existing pie so that we can increase revenue for the existing clubs, increase payments for players and increase the amount we can invest in junior development," Mr Gallop said afterwards.

"You can't do those things and invest in expansion ... and until there is a strong business case for any expansion contributing to the growth of the competition, then it will not be part of [the NRL's] immediate plans.

"A key point remains the success and strength of the competition and the reach we have at the moment."

Meanwhile, rugby league's brave new world moved a step closer to reality yesterday when the 16 CEOs agreed the game must be run by an independent commission. That new commission is expected to be finalised early next year.

"The parties are certainly trying to support the process," Titans CEO Michael Searle said. "There isn't a firm timeline on it and people may need to be a bit more patient but there are some good signs for what can be achieved in the months ahead."

The conference continues today.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Isn't this an obvious story?

The Club CEO's are never going to be pro expansion, because all they see is "the pie" being divided by 18 teams instead of 16.

It's self interest talking , much the same way that the Broncos are never going to be supportive of a 2nd Brisbane team.

Doesnt the NRL have strong leadership now though that can make decisions like this for the overall good of the game?

 

[undertaker]

Agreed.

Goodbye Souths.

:lol:

 

[Diesel]

I can't see the NRL moving the Titans or Knights but the other two clubs that have had serious money invested -Tigers and to a lesser extent Dragons could be a little nervous if the NRL decided it was to expand without adding teams.
The balance for Sydney would be two less teams

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It remains to be seen whether the NRL has the balls to expand when some clubs don't want them to, let alone start booting Sydney sides. There is no way they will force Sydney teams out or to relocate. They simply don't have the guts, especially when they are obsessed with PR.

 

[franklin2323]

This is true.

Can we say the same about Perth though?

They will be there with their hand out for decades much like the AFL expansion markets...

However, I think the NRL should fund Perth, like they do Melbourne...

They can afford to.

Yep. That's why they are doing all their homework before expanding. Melbourne had all these internationals and rarely miss the finals yet still lose money. No guarantee after the new team glow goes off Perth they won't struggle.

That said they need to take that risk

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

It remains to be seen whether the NRL has the balls to expand when some clubs don't want them to, let alone start booting Sydney sides. There is no way they will force Sydney teams out or to relocate. They simply don't have the guts, especially when they are obsessed with PR.

I think youre seeing what you want to see.....