Daily Telegraph Article Today - Gallop For Expansion

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

hmmm??

theres a massive difference between Football having an impact with the NFL in the USA and having an impact with RL in NZ.

the NFL is probably the largest sport in the USA.... RL is 2nd at best in NZ.... and its well behind RU.

Football in the USA is far too small to seriously threaten the NFL... RL isnt that much bigger than Football in NZ to start with... if the nix prove to be more successful than the Warriors than it could overtake RL easily.

i think you need to realise that RL is a minor sport in NZ... it fights for it's share against the Cricket, Football, Netball & to a lesser extent Basketball.

i think theres space for a 2nd NRL team in NZ... but i dont know if it would be in Wellington if the Nix are pumping...

Yes I know what your saying, but lets have a look at other sports in the USA then. The NBA, NHL, MLB, none of them have been effected by the MLS over there. Its a non event. Perhaps because there is plenty of room in the states for all of the sports to be at a high level. Perhaps looking at South Africa would be a better comparison.

 

[kmav23]

we all know the solution is to get rid of cronulla

 

[bobmar28]

we all know the solution is to get rid of cronulla

Cronulla is a suburb. You mean get rid of the Sharks. Better still merge with one of the inner city teams. Like the Roosters.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Yep, Saturated. That's the exact word used by the CEO of the NRL to describe the game's situation in that region. But regardless of what you think of Gallop's point of view, given the size of Australia and the size of Rugby League heartlands in NSW, Qld and NZ, what else would you call having 11 of our 18 teams in a single 200km long corridor if not saturated?


What, apart from a 4th Queensland, 2nd New Zealand or Perth team? There are no bids on the table at all because there isn't a table, bids haven't been called for. But quite apart from that, you don't just go with the squeakiest wheel to the exclusion of the many other more quantifiable considerations. You look at where would be best for the game to go and then call for bids from that area. Too much of this argument is being driven by the emotional needs associated with the identity of one bid team (ie. the former North Sydney Bears) and not nearly enough by the needs of the Central Coast as an area, the needs of the game in the wider Newcastle to Wollongong region, and the game's goals in considering expanding the competition to 18 teams. The Central Coast needs a team and the Central Coast deserves a team, but it must come through relocation of one of the existing teams in that region instead of burning an expansion license on a region already saturated with teams.

Leigh.

Absolute horsesh*t.

The Central Coast was identified as a core rugby league area 15-20 years ago. That is why the league basically told the Bears to relocate there - even tho they used lies like "NSO is unfit" etc etc. The Bears got the stadium built and contributed millions to the funding.

It was politics that got the Titans in - when their bid was 5% of what the CC Bears had.

In no other sport would a 100 year establishment club be treated so appallingly as rugby league does to the Bears. not only does the NRL make the Bears wait 11 years thus far, they even try to kill them off by offering relocation incentives to ther clubs - not unlike the northern eagles fraud.

If rugby league has even a shred of decency or integrity left, the NRL will announce a CC Bears team for 2013 by the end of the year.

 

[hellteam]

It just seems to me like the only people that REALLY care about a Central Coast team is old Bears supporters...

Otherwise more Central Coast supporters would have turned up to all the NRL games they have there every year.

 

[Quidgybo]

The Central Coast was identified as a core rugby league area 15-20 years ago. That is why the league basically told the Bears to relocate there - even tho they used lies like "NSO is unfit" etc etc. The Bears got the stadium built and contributed millions to the funding.

It was politics that got the Titans in - when their bid was 5% of what the CC Bears had.

In no other sport would a 100 year establishment club be treated so appallingly as rugby league does to the Bears. not only does the NRL make the Bears wait 11 years thus far, they even try to kill them off by offering relocation incentives to ther clubs - not unlike the northern eagles fraud.

If rugby league has even a shred of decency or integrity left, the NRL will announce a CC Bears team for 2013 by the end of the year.

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A. It really is about what is good for the Bears. Not about getting a team on the CC but specifically about getting the Bears there. It's an argument based on emotion (primarily guilt), not on a strategic plan for using expansion licenses, nor based on which locations will improve the competitions's television revenue the most. Ronnie, you and others here are so blinded by your desire to see the Bears back that you've lost sight of the fact that there is more than one way to satisfy the needs of the Central Coast. Your response to (half hearted) efforts by the NRL to encourage relocation to meet the needs the CC isn't to offer a logical argument against it but instead to pull a guilt trip. While your love of the Bears is understandable, it doesn't exactly result in a compelling argument.

To be clear on what I am arguing, I am neither opposed to a team based on the Central Coast nor to the re-entry of the Bears into the competition. What I am opposed to is using an expansion license for the Central Coast instead of relocating an existing license there. If the Bears were to take over the existing Melbourne license or take over the Perth bid then I would have no problem with the Bears back in the competition based in either of those cities. And if they were to take over an existing license from the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor and move it to the Central Coast then again I would have no argument. I have nothing against the Bears or the Central Coast specifically. What I am against is introducing an 11th team in the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor, especially if it is to the exclusion of a team in Perth, a 4th Queensland team or a 2nd New Zealand team. All these areas offer much more to the game than an 11th team in the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor - regardless of whether that additional team is called the Bears, Curl, Rip, Centurions or Storm.

Leigh.

 

[griff]

Yep, Saturated. That's the exact word used by the CEO of the NRL to describe the game's situation in that region. But regardless of what you think of Gallop's point of view, given the size of Australia and the size of Rugby League heartlands in NSW, Qld and NZ, what else would you call having 11 of our 18 teams in a single 200km long corridor if not saturated?


What, apart from a 4th Queensland, 2nd New Zealand or Perth team? There are no bids on the table at all because there isn't a table, bids haven't been called for. But quite apart from that, you don't just go with the squeakiest wheel to the exclusion of the many other more quantifiable considerations. You look at where would be best for the game to go and then call for bids from that area. Too much of this argument is being driven by the emotional needs associated with the identity of one bid team (ie. the former North Sydney Bears) and not nearly enough by the needs of the Central Coast as an area, the needs of the game in the wider Newcastle to Wollongong region, and the game's goals in considering expanding the competition to 18 teams. The Central Coast needs a team and the Central Coast deserves a team, but it must come through relocation of one of the existing teams in that region instead of burning an expansion license on a region already saturated with teams.

Leigh I think you are overlooking the fact that emotion actually is a quantifiable consideration. If the Central Coast Bears were admitted, the emotion associated with that would translate into greater support for RL in North Sydney, the Central Coast, and would also re-introduce the Bears "diaspora" across Australia who have gone off RL because the Bears arent involved. Not to mention the quantifiable benefits of local derbies with Manly - which would bring in much larger crowds than if the Sharks relocated or something like that.

There are strong hard headed reasons why it makes a lot of sense to admit the Central Coast Bears, and it makes a lot less sense to encourage a relocation.

 

[Loudstrat]

Quidgey also forgets that No CC Bears = no Perth. Its the one fact that is brushed under the carpet by NSW haters.

Besides, the Bears is the relocated Sydney team!!!!

What other bids exist that will allow Perth to become the 18th team?

 

[TheDalek079]

the Coast loves the Bears, and don't want any other relocation. Do you really think Gosford would be happy if Cronulla or Parra relocated and took over the area??

the Bears is the only fit for the Central Coast

 

[bobmar28]

Quidgey also forgets that No CC Bears = no Perth. Its the one fact that is brushed under the carpet by NSW haters.

Besides, the Bears is the relocated Sydney team!!!!

What other bids exist that will allow Perth to become the 18th team?

Nine teams in the Sydney region is already too many. Why make it ten? Expansion must be outside NSW.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Nine teams in the Sydney region is already too many. Why make it ten? Expansion must be outside NSW.

Simple solution.
Relocate Canterbury to Perth and bring in the CC Bears.

 

[TheRam]

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A. It really is about what is good for the Bears. Not about getting a team on the CC but specifically about getting the Bears there. It's an argument based on emotion (primarily guilt), not on a strategic plan for using expansion licenses, nor based on which locations will improve the competitions's television revenue the most. Ronnie, you and others here are so blinded by your desire to see the Bears back that you've lost sight of the fact that there is more than one way to satisfy the needs of the Central Coast. Your response to (half hearted) efforts by the NRL to encourage relocation to meet the needs the CC isn't to offer a logical argument against it but instead to pull a guilt trip. While your love of the Bears is understandable, it doesn't exactly result in a compelling argument.

To be clear on what I am arguing, I am neither opposed to a team based on the Central Coast nor to the re-entry of the Bears into the competition. What I am opposed to is using an expansion license for the Central Coast instead of relocating an existing license there. If the Bears were to take over the existing Melbourne license or take over the Perth bid then I would have no problem with the Bears back in the competition based in either of those cities. And if they were to take over an existing license from the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor and move it to the Central Coast then again I would have no argument. I have nothing against the Bears or the Central Coast specifically. What I am against is introducing an 11th team in the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor, especially if it is to the exclusion of a team in Perth, a 4th Queensland team or a 2nd New Zealand team. All these areas offer much more to the game than an 11th team in the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor - regardless of whether that additional team is called the Bears, Curl, Rip, Centurions or Storm.

Leigh.

Yeah what he said X 1000

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A. It really is about what is good for the Bears. Not about getting a team on the CC but specifically about getting the Bears there. It's an argument based on emotion (primarily guilt), not on a strategic plan for using expansion licenses, nor based on which locations will improve the competitions's television revenue the most. Ronnie, you and others here are so blinded by your desire to see the Bears back that you've lost sight of the fact that there is more than one way to satisfy the needs of the Central Coast. Your response to (half hearted) efforts by the NRL to encourage relocation to meet the needs the CC isn't to offer a logical argument against it but instead to pull a guilt trip. While your love of the Bears is understandable, it doesn't exactly result in a compelling argument.

To be clear on what I am arguing, I am neither opposed to a team based on the Central Coast nor to the re-entry of the Bears into the competition. What I am opposed to is using an expansion license for the Central Coast instead of relocating an existing license there. If the Bears were to take over the existing Melbourne license or take over the Perth bid then I would have no problem with the Bears back in the competition based in either of those cities. And if they were to take over an existing license from the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor and move it to the Central Coast then again I would have no argument. I have nothing against the Bears or the Central Coast specifically. What I am against is introducing an 11th team in the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor, especially if it is to the exclusion of a team in Perth, a 4th Queensland team or a 2nd New Zealand team. All these areas offer much more to the game than an 11th team in the Newcastle-Wollongong corridor - regardless of whether that additional team is called the Bears, Curl, Rip, Centurions or Storm.

Leigh.

bullsh*t.

quidgy, no doubt you refer to rugby league as a "product" and think only teh business side of teh game is relevant.

Fact is - ruby league was at its strongest when tribal and player loyalty actually meant something. Not so long ago, if a team lost, players would be gutted. Now, they laugh it up with the opposition because teh emotional sie of teh game is irrelevant. The only time you see real passion is with Queensland in SOO.

What the News Limited scum didn't realise is that the tribal aspect is what made rugby league great. That's been taken away. News Limited finally recognised this and tried to reinvent local derbies or traditional rivalries which don't really exist.

The CC Bears was the "relocation" that everyone wants. It wil start bringing rugby league back to its roots and create a new tribal area which can only be great for the game.

let's also not pretend that there are other great areas for expansion aside from CC and Perth. fact is - rugby league has stayed the same pretty much for 100 years. This is because dinosaurs and idiots have run the game. Now, the game is run by a company with B-grade media operations whose sole interest is making money regardless of damage to the game.

 

[Blind Freddy]

Lets put a team in Beijing, purely for the sole reason its far away from Sydney.

 

[Loudstrat]

Exactly. We can funnel $20 million into it every year until 2060, and put up with the 5k crowds. Throw some origins at it -and of course give it salary cap concessions - say $1m on top of the other clubs.

Of course, that would come out of the TV rights money from the other clubs, meaning the cream would still be poached by Union/AFL/Tiddlywinks or whatever other code wants some cheap publicity over League at the time. Clubs will close down - no one will moan about Cronulla, but when Canberra, Gold Coast and Newcastle fold Gus Gould will lead a chorus of anger at the Independent commission for allowing this to happen.

Meanwhile, some twat complains that the game isn't "National" because there isn't a team in Broome.

The new Super 16 will have a team based at Bluetongue/EA, AFL will go into Canberra and suddenly League's strongholds wither and die.

But at least we expanded - and didn't put another team in "Sydney" (even though Gosford isnt in Sydney) despite being self sufficient and averaging 16k.

 

[Goddo]

I am in favour of Central Coast and Perth for the next expansion, as they are the only bids ready to go now. I would prefer to see expansion in QLD and NZ over CC, but they aren't ready.

Short term the Bears are a good fit, lots of positve PR, bringing back lost fans and consolidates North Sydney - North Sydney CBD is 5th largest in the country - through to the Central Coast (huge juniors base) taking in around 1m people. The Bears also help mitigate the short-medium term risk of Perth, which will be successful but may need a few years to get going.

But they do nothing to ease the preassure in Sydney - unlike the introduction/relocation to Perth, Wellington or a 4th QLD side.

I think Quigbo is just looking at the longer term picture - CC will only make things harder for the poorest 2/3 Sydney sides in 10 years time.

This has been a problem for 30 years now. The NRL needs to have a pot of money that grows each year to get sides like Cronulla to relocate. The injustice with the Bears is that they agreed to relocate, and were still shafted.

We can't afford to keep creating and destroying clubs as we have for 100 years. The game needs a solid relocation plan. Reds and Bears for 2013, but after that...

 

[Loudstrat]

One point re Sydney - it's growth rate. Every decade or so it adds another Newcastle in population. No other area can match that.

 

[Perth Red]

One point re Sydney - it's growth rate. Every decade or so it adds another Newcastle in population. No other area can match that.

whch doesn't seem to be reflected in the number of people supporting the game?

From a purely selfish point of view Bears are a great idea as they will help bring back Perth. For the long term future of the game I think another Sydney/NSW club is a poor choice when we should be using our last few remaining places to grow the game into new markets.

I've already said Bears deserve a shot for the damn hard work they have put into their bid so I hope they do get in alongside us in 2013.


ps if you equate a Beijing team to a 2nd Brisane or Wellington team you are either very stupid or very very stupid!

 

[Blind Freddy]

And if you don't understand the rather obvious sarcastic point I was making you've gotta be pretty damn stupid too.

 

[Loudstrat]

So, PR, we don't expand at all? Perth is expansion, is it not? The key to that is the Bears.

It will be 2020 at the earliest before another bid gets ready to add a team from another area. A lot can happen in that time. Why wait until then?