Expansion in the next 10 years: Discussing the merits of each team

[Perth Red]

Ok a few points!

Sl clubs have to reduce their overseas players by one a year for the next 5 years. That is 12 NRL players a year that won't be going to SL every year for the next 5 years.

Even if Perth were admitted in 2012 I'd lay money on that by 2017 we'd have more WA players in the first team squad than melbourne will have Victorian players despite having over a 15 year head start.

There will be no "plonking" a team in Perth! If we get a team it will be because of a lot of hard work by RL people in Perth. The Reds should be the model for expanding our game and so far they are looking like a very good bet to be in a position to add value to the NRL come 2012.

Last but not least I want the NRL to KNOW which areas are important and will add value to the competition. I want the NRL to SUPPORT those potential areas and I want the NRL to have a fighting fund to make sure our sport is National and number 1 by 2020.

 

[T to the T]

WA Reds and Northern Bears (Based on the Central Coast with 1 or 2 games at NS Oval)

If you think we have too many Sydney sides, give Illawarra it's Steelers back and have St. George-Sutherland Dragons be the new super side representing southern Sydney. It seems farcical that the Dragons current area is split up with a 'weak' franchise if that in the middle. Surely it would make more sense for Wollongong to have it's own side

Therefore:

Wollongong: Illawarra Steelers
Newcastle: Knights
Central Coast: Northern Bears
Sydney: Parramatta, Easts, Wests, Souths, Canterbury, St. George-Sutherland, Manly and Penrith (If that is even classed as Sydney these days?)

This leaves 7/8 teams in the City itself and although I think that this is too much, it is viable. 6 would be the optimum number (Not including Penrith in Sydney) so I think 7 is bearable

 

[herbert henry1908]

No I wasn't serious actually... Players go to England for the money obviosly. And if they want a retirement zone is Aus they'll go to Souths (no offence intended) or other poor performing Sydney club instead of travelling across the country.

As I said the 8 million has to come from somewhere. Those 4 million dollar salaries are not going to pay themselves.

You're kidding yourself if you think the reason players are leaving the NRL to play in the ESL simply because "they're isn't a team for them here". You reckon no team wanted Mick Monaghan, Trent Barrett, Shaun Berrigan etc...

Players are still going to be moving to England because they offer more money. I'd like to see salary cap concessions prevent that but nothing is in the pipeline. Adding more teams will decrease the depth and result in more sides fielding players who arent up to first grade standard.

:crazy:


Offcourse there are clubs that would want them , but at the time the clubs couldnt fit them under the cap.

my point is this. If you have two more clubs , thats two more clubs that are competing for their signature to stay in Australia.

 

[Razor]

Logan/Ipswich is too close to the Gold Coast

The Titans are at the southern end of the Gold Coast. The Broncos are (just) on the northside of Brisbane.

Ipswich is much closer to the Broncos, than it is to the Titans.

The Broncos are closer to the Titans, than Ipswich is to the Titans.

 

[Razor]

You're kidding yourself if you think the reason players are leaving the NRL to play in the ESL simply because "they're isn't a team for them here". You reckon no team wanted Mick Monaghan, Trent Barrett, Shaun Berrigan etc...

Michael Monaghan has made it clear he wanted to stay in the NRL, but no team could afford him under the salary cap. If there were 2 more teams, then there'd be another 2 options that could possibly afford him.

 

[bobmar28]

But Perth and Adelaide from memory had crowds equal to and if not slightly better than some of the Sydney clubs, their culling was more due to the fact these teams were quite new and far away from the eastern states, more like an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality, people weren't really going to complain about them getting the chop if it meant their team got to stay in. I think the corporate $$$$ in WA and the people over there are more open minded about other sports than the Adelaide/SA people, being that the mining boom and all, WA seems to have a lot of eastern seaboard ex-pats over there, I think they would be supported quite well in not only attendance but from the corporate sector. I think as the corporates realise how much a pig of a game Yawnion is, they will be happy to cease their $$$ going into the rah rah coffers and start throwing it our way. Just my opinion. I think the Reds don't really need a relocated side, Adelaide I think would, but the Reds I think can go on their own and get a team up and running.

See below

 

[bobmar28]

The ARU lost 8 million last year so there is a need to be cautious.

WA Reds should be next team admitted followed by Wellington.

And yes T to the T Wollongong should get the Steelers back but why would Penrith not be included in Sydney?

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

I happen to think 16 is about the right amount of teams. However, for future expansion to 18 teams I think two out of Perth, Wellington (or Christchurch or some combination of the two) and a third SE Queensland team is what we need.

Central Coast Bears would be nice, but I can only justify that if a Sydney club falls over or relocates.

Perth and Wellington are advantageous because they have (a) have a base of support on which a team could be built and (b) they give time zone advantages for broadcasting, thus increasing the quality and value of the television product.

On the television side of things, you'd probably need to restructure the way that the scheduling was done (i.e. have a complete draw negotiated with clubs and television before the season and also have certain teams play only on certain dates, a la the AFL) but the potential is huge.

Two New Zealand teams means you could have a game in New Zealand every week. Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons would be perfect, with the NZ fixture preempting the Australian ones. You could have the NZ teams play at 7:30pm NZ time or even have it at 5:30pm NZ time, making for a Super Saturday triple header. Similar options would be available on Sundays.

And of course Perth has the opposite advantage. Frankly Perth would suit all of the broadcast days except Monday. Friday night games aren't likely to interest Channel 9 a great deal, but from time to time could fit into the broadcast arrangements as a second live game in the double header.

More likely to attract broadcasters (i.e. Fox) would be Saturday and Sunday nights. Saturdays of course would make Super Duper Saturday. Sundays would potentially make Sunday twilight football on Fox with a live game 4:00pm Perth time.

Adding Perth and Wellington teams also solves the question of what to do with the extra game. Since the one extra game each week will be in either Perth or New Zealand it won't effect the current schedule greatly, although that would depend upon exactly how the NRL decided to approach it.

As I said before I also like the idea of third SE Queensland team. I think the benefits of this are pretty obvious, so I won't go into detail now.

 

[Chapsta]

Logan/Ipswich is too close to the Gold Coast;

Logan/Ipswitch is actually closer to Brisbane. Do you know anything about SEQ?
The area has produced some of Queensland greatest, has a rich League history and is growing rapidly.

 

[Brownie.Kougari]

2012
WA Reds
Southern Orcas

Both of these teams will add to the player pool & increase TV revenue

next.. 2017 maybe?
Ipswich Jets
Central Coast Bears

Jets are a no-brainer but Bears only if they can be financially viable, there's enough NSW clubs bleeding the game dry already

Adelaide maybe sometime...

 

[Chapsta]

Northern Bears (Based on the Central Coast with 1 or 2 games at NS Oval)

If you think we have too many Sydney sides, give Illawarra it's Steelers back and have St. George-Sutherland Dragons be the new super side representing southern Sydney

If the bears are readmitted on the C.C, it would be great if they could still play a few games out of N.Syd oval. Or atleast their trial matches...


I've always thought Sharks + Dragons would have been a better option for a merger, geographically anyway. Dont think the fans would like it though.

If it were possible to 'de-merge' clubs Sharks/Dragons would be best. Also Penrith/Magpies (sharing Campbeltown & Penrith stadium). Souths/Tigers (or a three way merger with the Bears?) might also work out well.

All of it unlikely to happen, but it would free up some room for expansion. For the newly merged clubs this would: combine finances, supporter numbers & junior talent.

 

[Billythekid]

If the bears are readmitted on the C.C, it would be great if they could still play a few games out of N.Syd oval. Or atleast their trial matches...

I've always thought Sharks + Dragons would have been a better option for a merger, geographically anyway. Dont think the fans would like it though.

If it were possible to 'de-merge' clubs Sharks/Dragons would be best. Also Penrith/Magpies (sharing Campbeltown & Penrith stadium). Souths/Tigers (or a three way merger with the Bears?) might also work out well.

All of it unlikely to happen, but it would free up some room for expansion. For the newly merged clubs this would: combine finances, supporter numbers & junior talent.

Hopefully this is some kind of joke? None of that is happening, it's a pipe dream and it would be terrible for the game. Not to mention you've hardly even reduced the number of teams in Sydney while pissing off Sharks/Dragons/Steelers/tigers/wests/souths/penrith/bears fans. Great idea that is.

To me the ideal situation is to get rid of the sharks. Probably gonna cop some flak for it but that's what i think. We may lose the die-hard sharks fans but i don't think they're are that many. Not to mention there are other NRL teams nearby so the area will still be somewhat represented.

Every time someone suggests removing a Sydney team they are met with the same response. We would lost to many fans. I think we are losing more fans by not putting an NRL team into places like WA. So if the removal of a team like the sharks opens the way for a team in S/E QLD or NZ than i'm all for it.

Back on topic. WA have done enough to get their spot in the NRL, and i don't think to many question that. I think the discussion should be about who the second team will be. I personally think it should be the orca's. Then bring in another team in S/E QLD when we get rid of one of the Sydney teams.

 

[Perth Red]

IF we can increase the TV deal (and I am not just talking about the Australian one as we now have two rival satellite companies in the UK who would want NRL and we should be looking at more from NZ with the Wellington team as the carrot plus other international markets and the international SOO package seperately) then I don't see a need to cull a Sydney team. There are enough players (especially given WA and Wellington will be adding local talent to the playing pool and SL's diminishing overseas quota), we just need enough TV money to increase the grants to around $5million per club and to increase the ARL's grant for more development work.

Whilst I agree that there are too many Sydney clubs for long term viability I would hate any fan to have to go through what we went through in losing their club.

 

[Chapsta]

So many potential areas for expansion. Too many teams in the NRL.

There's no way the NRL will go beyond 18 teams. So if its a choice of 2 new clubs, the top contenders IMO are:

Central Coast: The area that proberly most 'deserves' a team. League stronghold, but for how much longer?

Wellington: Huge potential for League in New Zealand. A second team would give greater opportunities for League in NZ.

Perth: Grassroots support going strong.

Ipswitch/Logan: Massive population growth in a League heartland. Not giving Ipswitch/Logan a team would be like never admitting Parramatta or the Bulldogs into the comp.

 

[hutch]

another weekly too many sydney teams thread. (getting rather repetitive).

yes, we will expand. we need teams in perth and wellington next. then central coast and qld. no, a sydney team will not be cut or relocated. sydney is fine, it is well covered, every team is popular with the potential to average at least 20k each. you axe or relocate a team, you lose 90% of their supporters, it wont happen.

 

[MayMoo]

I think Central Coast Bears would have to be a decent shout.

Gallop said it was a close decison last time.

Howver after all the good and common sense and benefits continue to be shown, it will likely come down to a no from Politis and co who will continue to exclude us.

 

[mark123]

I happen to think 16 is about the right amount of teams. However, for future expansion to 18 teams I think two out of Perth, Wellington (or Christchurch or some combination of the two) and a third SE Queensland team is what we need.

Central Coast Bears would be nice, but I can only justify that if a Sydney club falls over or relocates.

Perth and Wellington are advantageous because they have (a) have a base of support on which a team could be built and (b) they give time zone advantages for broadcasting, thus increasing the quality and value of the television product.

On the television side of things, you'd probably need to restructure the way that the scheduling was done (i.e. have a complete draw negotiated with clubs and television before the season and also have certain teams play only on certain dates, a la the AFL) but the potential is huge.

Two New Zealand teams means you could have a game in New Zealand every week. Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons would be perfect, with the NZ fixture preempting the Australian ones. You could have the NZ teams play at 7:30pm NZ time or even have it at 5:30pm NZ time, making for a Super Saturday triple header. Similar options would be available on Sundays.

And of course Perth has the opposite advantage. Frankly Perth would suit all of the broadcast days except Monday. Friday night games aren't likely to interest Channel 9 a great deal, but from time to time could fit into the broadcast arrangements as a second live game in the double header.

More likely to attract broadcasters (i.e. Fox) would be Saturday and Sunday nights. Saturdays of course would make Super Duper Saturday. Sundays would potentially make Sunday twilight football on Fox with a live game 4:00pm Perth time.

Adding Perth and Wellington teams also solves the question of what to do with the extra game. Since the one extra game each week will be in either Perth or New Zealand it won't effect the current schedule greatly, although that would depend upon exactly how the NRL decided to approach it.

As I said before I also like the idea of third SE Queensland team. I think the benefits of this are pretty obvious, so I won't go into detail now.

----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----

Originally Posted by magpie_man
#1 WA Reds
- Economic Boom on the west coast;
- High population of eastern states expats which is still growing;
- Highest NRL player representation from non-rugby league states;
- Opening-up a totally new market to the game;
- The team is already building itself from the ground up by competing in the Jim Beam Cup and intends to continue progressing through the lower-tier competitions until it reaches the NRL attracting more players, sponsors and fans along the way.

Gentlemen! Some sense!

Perth and Wellington. Please.

A fantastic topic and some great arguments for each. However, to me its always been clear, I hope you can see so too, that Perth and Wellington will provide the greatest additions to the NRL competition whilst being "do-able" of all the hopeful teams that want to be a part of the NRL.

As for the number the comp can adequately support, I think that number is currently 18 teams. You also can't speculate beyond 5 years in this. Too many things change.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Illawarra Steelers
WIN Stadium, Wollongong
Backed by Bruce Gordon, WIN Corp



(The current joint venture deal finishes at the end of season 2010).

 

[panther mark]

merge sharks dragons Steelers raiders(base in wollongong then raiders can get players there) bring in cc bears

 

[magpie_man]

Logan/Ipswitch is actually closer to Brisbane. Do you know anything about SEQ?

not really lol. but what i meant is the titans have only just come in and they should be given time to grow before a new team is put so close to them.