Geographically, which teams in the NRL don't make sense?

[Moffo]

It's an ugly topic, but when you look at geographies and demographics, a number of NRL teams are poorly placed. These include:

Sharks - with the dragons entrenched in southern sydney and their partnership with Illawarra, it makes little sense to have a team in between

Dogs - again, with the dragons nearby, borders with the rabbits and within shooting distance of parramatta catchments, probably an example of poor placement

Rabbits/roosters/tigers - depending on where you agree they are based, they are very close too each other

Cowboys - not a large population and are strategically weak when it comes to rivalries and attracting away fans to games

I'm not suggesting that these clubs should be booted, but it's interesting when you consider some of the larger Australian geographies that are not covered (second Brisbane team and perth) by the NRL at the moment

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Dr Crane]

can see your arguments for the sydney teams, but the cowboys?

given how they've basically been a rabble since 1995 they're doing great.

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

Well I think being close actually makes sense because it means less travelling times, stretching it further to the outers of Perth etc...just takes up more time in terms of the travelling done for teams for 1 game before coming back.

In terms of the Sydney clubs I find Parra and Penrith are a bit too close and probably Wests as well.

 

[Canard]

Your points seems a little mixed.

On the one hand you say that teams are located in places that are already "covered" by others (Sharks, Dogs), then you seemingly argue that others that are located in areas that aren't, shouldn't be (Cowboys)

Surely your logic of no away rivalry would also apply to Brisbane, Canberra or Melbourne?

(Id like it explained to me why Brisbane V Cowboys which has one of the biggest crowd averages in the league isn't a "rivalry")

 

[Mr Angry]

Sharks - with the dragons entrenched in southern sydney and their partnership with Illawarra, it makes little sense to have a team in between

One could argue
Bullbogs - with the Tigers entrenched in from the inner -west all the way out to Campbelltown, it makes little sense to have a team in between.

 

[Goddo]

In an ideal world, the NRL needs in NSW:

1. "Sydney" city and Eastern Suburbs club (Rabbitohs and Roosters)
2. North Shore/Northern Beaches/Central Coast club (Sea Eagles and Bears)
3. An Inner west club - Ryde, Five Dock, Leichhardt, Balmain, Glebe area (Tigers and Magpies)
4. Parramatta geographic centre, transport and economic hub (Eels)
5. Somewhere along the Campbelltown-Liverpool-Bankstown coridor, Liverpool ideal (Bulldogs)
6. Southern districts club - St George, the Shire (Dragons and Sharks)
7. Maybe an outer west side, Penrith-Blacktown (Panthers)
8. Wollongong (Dragons)
9. Newcastle (Knights)

But it isn't an ideal world, so we have to work with what we have got. If we need to, shuffle the current deck.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Agree on the Sharks.

Dogs have a decent catchment, they've still got the bulk of SW Sydney.

Inner Sydney has one too many teams with the Tigers, Roosters and Bunnies sharing a fairly small geographical area, though the Tigers have their addition junior base in the outer SW.

Manly have the problem of changing demographics with the Northern Beaches becoming a very expensive place to live, they will struggle to maintain good junior number as the number of young families in the region drops off. This will partly be offset by the fact that Manly is a pretty desirable place for young players to come and live, so they need to foster links with junior clubs outside Sydney.

The North Shore is still unrepresented. The return of the Bears would fix this.

North Qld are fine, they have a loyal following, though their catchment is very spread out. Your point about being strategically weak with rivalries and attracting away fans is pretty meaningless as it could equally be applied to the Warriors, Canberra, Melbourne and to a lesser extent Newcastle.

If there's one thing we could learn from the AFL is that geographical boundaries are fairly meaningless- I've recently moved to Melbourne and was very surprised by the fact that about half of all the AFL sides "represent" inner melbourne suburbs, but they all get better crowds than even the most popular Sydney NRL teams.

 

[Goddo]

The "simple fix" on paper with Sydney would be to:

merge the Roosters and Rabbitohs,
drop the Sharks,
shift Manly to Sunshine Coast,
bring in the Central Coast-North Sydney Bears, and
expand in Perth, Ipswich and Wellington

But to actually do these things is next to impossible.

 

[Panther_Daz]

In terms of the Sydney clubs I find Parra and Penrith are a bit too close and probably Wests as well.

Roosters/Souths
Sharks/Dragons
Dragons/Dogs
Tigers/Dogs

All of the above are a lot closer than Penrith is to Parramatta.

 

[Gippsy]

Good points. In fact, why don't we reduce Sydney to four franchises, North, South, East & West. Then we could expand and have teams in all the major centres including Adelaide, Perth, PNG. We need a vision, the players would become household names in China. It would be a super competion. In fact, we could even call it something like um... "super league"...

:sarcasm:

 

[super_coach]

Clubs source their players for far and wide and a lot of the elite juniors are enticed from country, interstate and overseas to play in the junior rep comps before heading into grade. So boundary's mean little, except for one town teams, supporters for clubs also come from far and wide. Lets face it, not many Tigers fans could afford to live near Balmain anymore.

I suppose one issue with over lapping boundary's is having multiple teams competing for the local coperate dollars in the form of minor sponsorship.

Really the two that stand out are the chooks and rabbits, and the dragons and the Sharks. They are the ones in a ideal world would be merged or relocated, but while they meet the NRL criteria I cant see any reason for making changes. We are in a very tough economic environment at present , I think you will find over the next five years that one or two teams will have to make some really hard decisions and that will solve the problem.

 

[firechild]

The "simple fix" on paper with Sydney would be to:

merge the Roosters and Rabbitohs,
drop the Sharks,
shift Manly to Sunshine Coast,
bring in the Central Coast-North Sydney Bears, and
expand in Perth, Ipswich and Wellington

But to actually do these things is next to impossible.

To move one club out of Northern Sydney in order to bring another one in is just stupid.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Penrith is almost it's own city, it's a good distance from Parra.

If anything Wollongong/Illawarra region deserves it's own team and Saints/Sharks would have been a better merger.

The fact there's only one team between Sydney and Newcastle is a bit of a head scratcher though.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I reckon we need one extra Queensland team - Bowralville would be ideal.

 

[madunit]

Can't understand these people who continually say 'merge the Roosters and Souths'

Do we all forget the infighting that went on during the dismal existence of the Northern Eagles - that was over a 60-70 year old fued.

The Roosters and Souths have a century of angst towards one another. It will not work.

The Tigers are fine as they are, as they represent the south West.

Bulldogs and Parramatta are the only inner Sydney teams that don't make sense, geographically anymore.

However, they both have strong membership numbers and large juniors bases, so they don't need to be cut.

Every other side is fine.

 

[Hutty1986]

Good points. In fact, why don't we reduce Sydney to four franchises, North, South, East & West. Then we could expand and have teams in all the major centres including Adelaide, Perth, PNG. We need a vision, the players would become household names in China. It would be a super competion. In fact, we could even call it something like um... "super league"...

:sarcasm:

I dunno.. Topball seems like a better name..

 

[Goddo]

To move one club out of Northern Sydney in order to bring another one in is just stupid.

The reason is obvious though - Manly aren't a loved side outside their own turf, and if there is to be one northern "super club", the Bears are a better fit.

Won't happen though, this thread is all hypotheticals.

Can't understand these people who continually say 'merge the Roosters and Souths'

Do we all forget the infighting that went on during the dismal existence of the Northern Eagles - that was over a 60-70 year old fued.

The Roosters and Souths have a century of angst towards one another. It will not work.

Agreed, but this thread is about geography and licences in Sydney, and if you were to start the comp today, you wouldn't have both Souths and Easts.

 

[madunit]

Good points. In fact, why don't we reduce Sydney to four franchises, North, South, East & West. Then we could expand and have teams in all the major centres including Adelaide, Perth, PNG. We need a vision, the players would become household names in China. It would be a super competion. In fact, we could even call it something like um... "super league"...

:sarcasm:

alienating around 70% (my guess) of the games fans is not really a great idea.

There's no need to cull any more teams. There are enough players around and we don't have the residential rule in play anymore.

This type of discussion is plain dopey and pointless and is usually kept alive by bitter f**kwits who have a personal gripe against some team/region for some petty bullshit reason.

 

[Moffo]

Your points seems a little mixed.

On the one hand you say that teams are located in places that are already "covered" by others (Sharks, Dogs), then you seemingly argue that others that are located in areas that aren't, shouldn't be (Cowboys)

Surely your logic of no away rivalry would also apply to Brisbane, Canberra or Melbourne?

(Id like it explained to me why Brisbane V Cowboys which has one of the biggest crowd averages in the league isn't a "rivalry")

My cowboys thoughts are largely centered around the demographics. It's questionable whether there is the depth in population. Even now, a substantial amount of cows fans come from outside of Townsville. If I had to pick between a team in Townsville or Perth (or 2nd Brisbane team) it wouldn't be a hard decision

 

[firechild]

The reason is obvious though - Manly aren't a loved side outside their own turf, and if there is to be one northern "super club", the Bears are a better fit.

If you say so. I live in Western Sydney and it amazes me how many Manly fans there are around me. I have friends and acquaintances that have never lived anywhere near the northern beaches (they grew up in places like blacktown and campbelltown) that are Manly supporters. But that really doesn't matter because we are talking about the area that the team represents. Manly have plenty of supporters on the North Shore (despite what Bears fans would tell you) and it makes more sense to leave an existing club with a trong history where it is rather than dump the carcass of a historical failure on the area. The "Super club" you mention would have zero support on the northern beaches so it would not be a better fit at all.