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

[RedVee]

But Wollongong couldn't support it's own team, the current situation/position is perfect for the region. In saying this in 20-30 years this may be different with the local growth of the area

IMO Wollongong/Illawarra should have come in in 1967, not Cronulla.
However, what is done is done.

Unfortunately Illawarra Steelers could not afford to stay in the comp, indeed have now sold down to only 25% ownership of the JV. Ironically, if WIN and other Illawarra centric firms had contributed then what they do now they wouldnt have had to join the JV.
Having said that, I'm happy with the JV as it is, being a combination of my no1 and no2 clubs.

 

[H.H]

Ideally, but you are incorrect. Tigers are based at Concord and they play home games in 3 areas of the metropolitan region - Moore Park (South Sydney - east), Leichhardt (inner west) & Leumeah (greater south-west).

Moore Park is Souths or Easts turf.

It's Easts turf only.

We've played home games on that same patch of dirt since 1910.

 

[H.H]

If you remove the conjecture and judge the validity of teams in a long term advancement of the game it becomes a pretty cruel world.

If criteria was to become a team must represent a population area, not success, there would have to be changes.

It would mean that no team could simply buy players to survive. Teams that were not successful could not use sponsorship as an excuse because they represented a population big enough to secure it.

I'm not familiar with population figures but I'm sure some of you are. The only downside is that some populations are more interested in league than others.

On paper, a required density in Brisbane should yield more than the same in Melbourne. If the eastern suburbs of Sydney have the required density to support a team it is not evident in crowd figures.

People watching the game now can justify the team makeup the way it is but the future is bleak with the population having to move away from saturation

Really? Please explain?

 

[oval]

:crazy::crazy::crazy:
MANLY should play at Leichardt? And people think I say stupid things sometimes....

Do you not see the problem with a team from the northern beaches playing in the inner west? It would be like telling Penrith to play in Cronulla.

Dumbest post ever.

I was talking about Concord Oval, nice unused ground that it is.

I think it could work. The Sea Eagles could play a few games there, a few at Brookvale and a few at Gosford. Could change their name name to the Manly-Warringah-Canada Bay Bluetongue Sea Lizards. I think it would be a brave move for a club struggling to expand it's brand.

 

[Moffo]

Good conversation guys

 

[POPEYE]

Really? Please explain?

Don't take offence but league is not a commanding sport in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

If it was people would make more effort than just turning on the tele.

Now, you're going to try and justify their existence where they are but I would be willing to bet if they played out of Dubbo the crowds would more than a match at games.

More importantly, the Roosters would lose nothing and gain respectability by bringing their name to people who are crying out for a team that already has thousands of supporters in the bush

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Been going on for years hey.

Sydney -

North - Beaches, North shore, Central Coast, extending to Epping / Ryde.
East - Souths, Easts, Sydney heads to the airport and inland to Stanmore / St Peters.
South - Saints, Sharks, Steelers- Brighton to Eden and inland to King Georges road.
West - Everything else. Parra, Wests, Dogs, Penrith

Never ever happen obviously.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

There's another option that is obvious - but has not yet been canvassed.

Relocate Manly to the Gold Coast and call them the Scum.

 

[POPEYE]

Been going on for years hey.

Sydney -

North - Beaches, North shore, Central Coast, extending to Epping / Ryde.
East - Souths, Easts, Sydney heads to the airport and inland to Stanmore / St Peters.
South - Saints, Sharks, Steelers- Brighton to Eden and inland to King Georges road.
West - Everything else. Parra, Wests, Dogs, Penrith

Never ever happen obviously.

Well, that's four teams. So the players that can't fit into them will have to go to the other teams.

Sounds alright to me for 2050. Love to be around to see what teams make up the rest . . . ah well, can't have everything

 

[oval]

There's another option that is obvious - but has not yet been canvassed.

Relocate Manly to the Gold Coast and call them the Scum.

If you were walking along some headland and found a nest of Sea Ealges, would you completely lose your shit and go berserker, leaving nothing but blood and feathers?

 

[Eels Dude]

There's another option that is obvious - but has not yet been canvassed.

Relocate Manly to the Gold Coast and call them the Scum.

We already have a team south of the NSW border called the Scum. It'd be terribly confusing having two teams using the same nickname.

 

[firechild]

We already have a team south of the NSW border called the Scum. It'd be terribly confusing having two teams using the same nickname.

You beat me to it.

 

[ozjet1]

It's Easts turf only.

We've played home games on that same patch of dirt since 1910.

you're being a bit too technical re home ground. i consider it within roosters district too (I would consider everything east from Anzac Pde/Flinders St & north from Alison Rd as Roosters territory) but it's literally a stone's throw from Rabbitohs turf too.

 

[ozjet1]

I'm not familiar with population figures but I'm sure some of you are. The only downside is that some populations are more interested in league than others.

On paper, a required density in Brisbane should yield more than the same in Melbourne. If the eastern suburbs of Sydney have the required density to support a team it is not evident in crowd figures.

The Eastern Suburbs arent generally working class which is the social class Rugby League historically appeals too.

if it weren't for it's few multi-millionaire backers, Roosters wouldve been gone a long time ago.

 

[ozjet1]

Stating the obvious, but Sydney's rugby league clubs were born and admitted into the league at times which reflected the growth of within the Sydney metro area itself. in the early years, the NSWRFL was overwhelmingly represented by clubs from areas we'd consider inner-city or within 10km of the CBD. Of the 11 clubs that existed at one point or another in the foundation years - Annandale, Balmain, Cumberland, Eastern Suburbs, Glebe, Newcastle, Newtown, North Sydney, South Sydney, Western Suburbs - only 2 were outside this imaginary peripherique. University were introduced in 1920 and lasted a couple of decades, but the real expansion into the 'burbs began with Saints in '21, then stepped up with Canterbury-Bankstown in the 30s, Manly & Parra in the 40s, and Cronulla & Penrith in the late 60s.

Obviously, the number Sydney-metro based teams is on the high side for a national competition. Little did the grandfathers of the game know that the game was to go national. Successive administrations have sought to rationalise the number of teams but the structure as it is now is far from ideal yet at the same time required to maintain the fabric of the game.

If one was to hypothetically start up a new rugby league competition today based on population centres and the popularity of the sport, there is no doubt that the make up would be significantly different.

Based on an 18-team structre, it would/should consist (IMO) of:
Sydney (east, city, lower north shore & inner west)
Sydney (southern suburbs)
Sydney (northern suburbs)
Sydney (west, north-west)
Sydney (west, south-west)
Brisbane
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Melbourne
Adelaide
Perth
Canberra
North Queensland
Illawarra
Central Coast
Sunshine Coast
Auckland

 

[mongoose]

The geographic location of the sydney teams doesn't matter anymore. All teams are called by their nicknames now anyway, or even worse you hear teams called by their sponsor and nickname i.e Pirtek Eels. It's more about being a brand than representing a location.

There is no point messing with the fabric of the game in sydney just to balance out the locations. All the Sydney teams are strong and recognisable brands that add to the game. Killing one off would weaken the NRL as a whole.

 

[Teddyboy]

Been going on for years hey.

Sydney -

North - Beaches, North shore, Central Coast, extending to Epping / Ryde.
East - Souths, Easts, Sydney heads to the airport and inland to Stanmore / St Peters.
South - Saints, Sharks, Steelers- Brighton to Eden and inland to King Georges road.
West - Everything else. Parra, Wests, Dogs, Penrith

Never ever happen obviously.

Wasn't that the plan back in the 1970's to have 4 Sydney teams,3 NSW teams and then the rest be ACT,Brisbane,Queensland,NZ.
Looking at the Canadian Football League and they have only 8 teams but are so spread.

 

[docbrown]

The geographic location of the sydney teams doesn't matter anymore. All teams are called by their nicknames now anyway,

Exactly. You don't have to live in the West to support the Wests Tigers. And you don't have to live in St George area to support the Dragons.

Every Sydney teams needs to copy their example and set about on marketing their brand both city wide and nationally.

 

[docbrown]

Relocate Manly to the Gold Coast and call them the Scum.

Why would I go all the way to Queensland to call Manly scum when I can already do that from right here? ;-)

 

[WireMan]

Cronulla should relocate to Illawarra.

Call them the Illawarra Sharks but they can wear the red shirt of the Steelers.

St George then go there own way and argue with Rabbits, Roosters and Dogs about who has whose juniors, while Illawarra get everywhere south of Sydney, plus some good real estate in Sutherland to pay for it all.