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

[Goddo]

Manly and Cronulla make no sense - since they're both just peninsulas when we have areas like Perth, 2nd Brisbane and 2nd NZ ie millions of people that aren't represented. Though the difference with Manly is that it doesn't have one of the largest clubs completely strangling its borders, actually rather the opposite, with the nearest clubs located a fair distance away in city terms.

Just an observation - what would Manly think if the NRL introduces a North Sydney - Central Coast side? They risk becoming the northern Cronulla for the reasons you listed. Not a point against the Central Coast, more can North Sydney/Nth beaches/CC sustain 2 clubs, just as can St George/the Shire/the Gong sustain 2 clubs?

 

[Goddo]

Why doesn't the NRL follow the AFL and play all sydney home games out of 2 central stadiums, then it doesn't matter what suburb they are from. The AFL is nowhere near as territorial as the NRL. Correct me if im wrong but isn't every Melbourne AFL team geographically located in inner Melbourne anyway but they obviously get support from way further out.

Play all sydney games out of ANZ stadium and SFS with a couple of exceptions. Dragons can split games between the SFS and Win Stadium and Tigers can split games between Campbelltown and ANZ. WOuld this be viable?

Because Sydney isn't Melbourne.

The AFL playing out of 2 stadiums works because all the teams are inner city suburbs, and Melbourne is flat suburbia, where all roads lead to the city.

Sydney is not. It is a group of geographically distinct regions with their own identities, which aren't easy to get to and from. Teams near major stadiums, like Parra, Canterbury, Souths, Wests and Sydney should and do use ANZ/SFS (unless games draw better at suburban grounds), but everyone else - St George, Penrith, Manly, Cronulla (Wests in Campbelltown and Norths/CC if they get back in) - should not.

I wish Victorians wouldn't pipe up with this "2 stadium" idea every time this sort of thread pops up.

 

[juanfarkall]

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

I have never thought of Homebush being close to Bondi.

 

[Eels Dude]

Because Sydney isn't Melbourne.

The AFL playing out of 2 stadiums works because all the teams are inner city suburbs, and Melbourne is flat suburbia, where all roads lead to the city.

Sydney is not. It is a group of geographically distinct regions with their own identities, which aren't easy to get to and from. Teams near major stadiums, like Parra, Canterbury, Souths, Wests and Sydney should and do use ANZ/SFS (unless games draw better at suburban grounds), but everyone else - St George, Penrith, Manly, Cronulla (Wests in Campbelltown and Norths/CC if they get back in) - should not.

I wish Victorians wouldn't pipe up with this "2 stadium" idea every time this sort of thread pops up.

Completely agree. When you compare the layouts of both Sydney and Melbourne they're vastly different. Playing AFL out of two stadiums works in Melbourne due to the layout of the city and the closeness in proximity between clubs but it doesn't suit Sydney's size and layout.

 

[oval]

Just an observation - what would Manly think if the NRL introduces a North Sydney - Central Coast side? They risk becoming the northern Cronulla for the reasons you listed. Not a point against the Central Coast, more can North Sydney/Nth beaches/CC sustain 2 clubs, just as can St George/the Shire/the Gong sustain 2 clubs?

Good point, although I think the North Sydney area is not as crazy about League as the St George area, so there won't be as much pressure on Manly. Initially anyway. 20 years down the track when the Nth Shore/CC team gets bigger and more popular the squeeze may be tighter.

And I might be wrong but I reckon the Manly/Warringah/Pittwater area has a larger population than Cronulla-Sutherland...

Creating a team called the Northern Eagles seems the obvious solution.

 

[flamin]

The Northern Beaches have a slightly larger population than the Shire. They're both a lot smaller than Wollongong or the Central Coast though.

 

[Teddyboy]

So you're saying in about 2015 we'll see a demerge?

Suprised f**king brutus has jumped on you for having the word merge in there.

 

[bobmar28]

So you're saying in about 2015 we'll see a demerge?

Maybe 2020.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Good point, although I think the North Sydney area is not as crazy about League as the St George area, so there won't be as much pressure on Manly. Initially anyway. 20 years down the track when the Nth Shore/CC team gets bigger and more popular the squeeze may be tighter.

The level of hatred between Manly and Norths is the other factor there, people from the peninsular won;t support a Norths team, and the Bears mob would put their wedding tackle in a jar of box jellyfish before they supported Manly.

 

[firechild]

The North Shore has always been rugby union territory and therefore will never have as much impact on Manly as the St George/Kogarah area, which is very much a rugby league region, does on Cronulla.

 

[siv]

Only solution is for 1 teams to relocate and for Auckland to go back address rebuilding the NZ national comp

Cronulla to playa 75% of their games at Adelaide (from 2012)

Then add Perth, Brisbane West, Brisbane North and Central Coast and Central Qld (where teams would play in NSw Cup or Qld Cup before their date for admission - 1 team every 2 years starting in 2014)

all playing FG, RG and U23's

Then you need to make a 14 team NSW-Bundy Cup comp with NSW regional teams (and no NRL clubs) eg Western Div, Riverina, Monaro, New England, Coffs, South Coast. Playing FG

Same 14 team comp goes for Qld Cup with Darwin and Toowoomba added

And a 14 team NZ based comp with 3 teams from Auckland and the counties and 3 island teams (eg Fiji / Tonga / Samoa)

ALL NSW Cup and NRL teams in NSW / VIC / SA / TAS play in teh NSWRL juniors U21, U19, U17, U15 9 round comps

All QLD Cup and NRL teams in QLD, WA, NT play in the QLD juniors U21, U19, U17, U15 9 round comp

All NSW Cup / Qld Cup/ NZ Cup and PNG Cup teams join a mid week challenge cup style knockout comp with the NRL clubs

 

[joshreading]

There was a proposal for a Super Team (with up to 4 in the merger) called 'Sydney Foundation' - representing some of the original clubs.

I think it was to include atleast Easts, Balmain and Souths (and maybe Norths). All monikers would have been retained as such on a new crest (thus we still would see a Tiger/Rabbitoh and Roosters mascot at games)

I wonder in hindsight if something like this Super Team might have worked. Anyway, such is history.

 

[carcharias]

Only solution is for 1 teams to relocate and for Auckland to go back address rebuilding the NZ national comp

Cronulla to playa 75% of their games at Adelaide (from 2012)

Then add Perth, Brisbane West, Brisbane North and Central Coast and Central Qld (where teams would play in NSw Cup or Qld Cup before their date for admission - 1 team every 2 years starting in 2014)

all playing FG, RG and U23's

Then you need to make a 14 team NSW-Bundy Cup comp with NSW regional teams (and no NRL clubs) eg Western Div, Riverina, Monaro, New England, Coffs, South Coast. Playing FG

Same 14 team comp goes for Qld Cup with Darwin and Toowoomba added

And a 14 team NZ based comp with 3 teams from Auckland and the counties and 3 island teams (eg Fiji / Tonga / Samoa)

ALL NSW Cup and NRL teams in NSW / VIC / SA / TAS play in teh NSWRL juniors U21, U19, U17, U15 9 round comps

All QLD Cup and NRL teams in QLD, WA, NT play in the QLD juniors U21, U19, U17, U15 9 round comp

All NSW Cup / Qld Cup/ NZ Cup and PNG Cup teams join a mid week challenge cup style knockout comp with the NRL clubs

you must be mistaking rugby league for free heroin.

WA and SA don't give a flying f**k about rugby league.

go there, see for yourself. .

 

[bobmar28]

If you were starting a new national competition from scratch by sticking pins in dots the map would you stick 9 of those pins in the one dot?

 

[Paullyboy]

you must be mistaking rugby league for free heroin.

WA and SA don't give a flying f**k about rugby league.

go there, see for yourself. .

I'll give you SA in that argument, they are just mini Victoria and blindly follow whatever their bigger brother does. WA on the other hand is an area that would support all sports because there are so many east coasters that now live there. The only reason the AFL looked popular on TV in Brisbane for so long was all the ex-victorians who migrated north. Eventually locals jumped on the bandwagon (a little bit) and the team is ingrained there now - Perth and rugby league would be exactly the same

 

[BunniesMan]

If you were starting a new national competition from scratch by sticking pins in dots the map would you stick 9 of those pins in the one dot?

Anyone starting a national competition from scratch by sticking pins in a map would be a f**kwit of colossal proportions. Comps don't grow like that. They grow organically. And this comp growing organically has 9 teams in Sydney and it will ALWAYS have 9 teams in Sydney. Get used to it. The big tv deal is around the corner and teams like Cronulla will be saved by it.

 

[Paullyboy]

What's the point in saving them though if they are representing such a tiny group of people? For the good of the game they shouldn't be saved by a TV deal.

 

[BunniesMan]

What's the point in saving them though if they are representing such a tiny group of people? For the good of the game they shouldn't be saved by a TV deal.

I'm not saying that strategically it is the best case scenario. But if we were as ruthless as the AFL and actually had a longterm plan we probably would force the Sharks to go to Adelaide, bring in Perth/Brisbane2/CC and any team in a foreign state would get a blank check to make sure it builds a solid foundation. The way the Sydney Swans got, the way the Suns are getting, the way GWS will get.

But that's not how we do things in the NRL. There is no "for the greater good" mentality in our league that there is in the AFL. Let's not forget that every AFL club voted unanimously to give massive salary cap and draft cap concessions to the 2 new clubs because they were of the opinion that some short term pain in terms of getting smashed by these two teams in a few years is worth it for the long term gain all clubs will get out of a giant tv rights deal.

Meanwhile, our clubs have made their opinions clear by almost unanimously being against expansion because they want their piece of the pie in the next tv deal right now before they even think about expansion.

My earlier post wasn't necessarily saying what I wanted to happen, but nonetheless what WILL happen.

 

[RedVee]

I'm not saying that strategically it is the best case scenario. But if we were as ruthless as the AFL and actually had a longterm plan we probably would force the Sharks to go to Adelaide, bring in Perth/Brisbane2/CC and any team in a foreign state would get a blank check to make sure it builds a solid foundation. The way the Sydney Swans got, the way the Suns are getting, the way GWS will get.

But that's not how we do things in the NRL. There is no "for the greater good" mentality in our league that there is in the AFL. Let's not forget that every AFL club voted unanimously to give massive salary cap and draft cap concessions to the 2 new clubs because they were of the opinion that some short term pain in terms of getting smashed by these two teams in a few years is worth it for the long term gain all clubs will get out of a giant tv rights deal.

Meanwhile, our clubs have made their opinions clear by almost unanimously being against expansion because they want their piece of the pie in the next tv deal right now before they even think about expansion.

My earlier post wasn't necessarily saying what I wanted to happen, but nonetheless what WILL happen.

Perhaps better to move them to one of the currently bidding locations, SEQ perhaps, & bring the other two entities in. 3 expansion areas covered instead of 2?

 

[BunniesMan]

Perhaps better to move them to one of the currently bidding locations, SEQ perhaps, & bring the other two entities in. 3 expansion areas covered instead of 2?

That would be a good idea. If the NRL knew what it was doing it would offer millions to the Sharks to move...anywhere really. But it won't happen.