Gold Coast Bears/Nth Sydney/Gosford

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

And if they wont rebuild it and knock down Bruce to try and force us to move then f##k it, take all our games back to Seiffert or on the road until a suitable stadium becomes available.

I really wish that the Raiders would at least look into building our own stadium so that we'd control our own destiny and not be beholden to the whim of others (such as AFL stooges like Barr), but that'll never happen as like all NRL clubs they don't have the vision to talk to developers and see if it's feasible let alone have the will to tighten the belt for an extended period of time to make it possible.
Rant over, sorry.

Yep, jumping ship back to Queanbeyan and leaving the multi-purpose white elephant that the Canberra Giants 1 game a year would light a fire under the Governments ass...

Even without the demolition of Bruce, threatening to take matches out of the ACT would be a good way to bargain for this new stadium.

I reckon the NSW gov and the Queanbeyan council would be keen to help with that...

 

[The Great Dane]

I was surprised how long it took to get to raiders stadium from cbd when I went to a game there last year, it was dark so couldn't see much but it seemed to be in the middle of a commercial or university campus? Didn't seem to be much around it. I was impressed by the food though! Bloody freezing, bought a beanie, they must do a good trade in wooly hats. I like you could stand on that terrace bit, made it feel like a uk ground In the days of winter RL lol.

Sort of, it's in the middle of the AIS so there are residential units there for the athletes that are training there, there's also a CIT wedged in-between the AIS and the Calvary hospital (literally across the road from the stadium) with school building that gives it a feel like a uni campus, and I guess in a way the AIS is a uni of elite sports sort of, but no it's not in a campus.

You probably could have got a beanie for free last year if you were willing to wear a viking helmet shaped one, until this year they'd been giving them and face shields out for free, which was a great initiative as they were exclusive to home games and helped keep you warm (the beanies were worth about $20 on Ebay to fans who couldn't get one in person as well), unfortunately it seems they couldn't get anything organised for this year, apart from free bottles of Raiders Choc Mint for one game, but that doesn't keep you warm.

Honestly the cold doesn't faze me too much (unless there is a wind coming down from the mountains, that'll cut right through you in the bowl or on the terrace of that bloody stadium, and freeze snot to your face, which is a true story actually), but it's a huge turn off for people when the alternative is that they can watch the game in their well heated home, in their comfortable chair, without all the hassle of getting to and from the game, without paying parking, etc.
It also turns off thousands of families with kids.

 

[The Great Dane]

Did say “virtually all teams”

Am aware of the struggle in Canberra.

Surely Barr won’t be around forever though? He probably has federal aspirations.

Yeah I know I was just pissed about this today after a friend told me that he heard that Barr was taking an "official" trip down to the AFL grand final to "represent the ACT government" on the taxpayers dime again this year.

To be fair I don't even know if it's true that he's going down on the taxpayers dime again, but he's done it before so it's totally believable.

You're post just brought it into my mind and I ranted about it.

Has a investment in a stadium ever been considered by the Raiders group? Considering their wealth and assets it would seem a no brained to me. I hate the way stadia are handled in this country, unbelievable that Cronulla are the only ones who own their own ground.

As far as I know the Raiders group has never looked into the feasibility of building it's own stadium, it's not impossible that they have, but knowing their MO I highly doubt it.

Despite their wealth I doubt they'd be able to pull it off on their own, they'd need to mortgage it or maybe get a loan and they'd have to go into business with a developer, but not that long ago the AFL and a developer (whos' name slips my mind) came forward with a plan to redevelop Manuaka oval which only fell over at the last hurdle, so their are developers out there that might be interested.
The Raiders also already own an oval right in the middle of Civic (the CBD) in Braddon, where they plan to build a "centre of excellence" that's fallen through a few times, but it would probably be the best spot for a new stadium you could hope for in Canberra, probably an even better spot then where the ACT gov plan to build theirs at the Civic pool.

Depends, doesn't have to be a lump sum, a 40 year mortgage might be feasible. Stadiums can turn a profit if well utilised. Raiders group have the assets to get a capital investment loan I'd have thought. Just a shame a fricking simple stadium in this country costs triple anywhere else in the world!

If they did it right they'd own the best stadium in Canberra, so they'd be able to attract the Brumbies as full time tenants and draw as many events as possible away from Bruce.

They'd effectively have their main competitors in Canberra paying them to play, thus helping them pay off their stadium and maybe even making a profit off them eventually.

Yep, jumping ship back to Queanbeyan and leaving the multi-purpose white elephant that the Canberra Giants 1 game a year would light a fire under the Governments ass...

The problem with Seiffert is that there's no way that it can support more then 5k fans at any one time, there's literally only one block of toilets that flood if there's to much traffic (or at least they used to the last time I was their with a large crowd a year or so ago), one canteen, the lighting isn't adequate for night games, there's next to no parking, no public transport to the ground, etc, it's in way worse shape then Brookvale for example, so it's not really suitable to host any NRL games, and anytime spent there would be a massive hit to the Raiders back pocket.

There are other options in Canberra but all of them except one are run by the ACT government or the Australian Sports Institute in conjunction with the ACT gov, which would defeat the purpose of taking games away from the new stadium, and the other one is run by the Tuggeranong Vikings RU club (who effectively fund the Brumbies and RU existence in the ACT to a large degree), who just so happen to be the Raiders biggest competitors in the leagues club business and quite anti-RL, so it's doubtful that a deal could be made useless it's massively in the Vikings favour.
However Viking park has way better facilities, parking, and a slightly larger capacity then Seiffert.

Either way half or more of our games for those years would have to be sold to the highest bidder to make it feasible, so we'd effectively become a Gypsy club for that time anyway.

Even without the demolition of Bruce, threatening to take matches out of the ACT would be a good way to bargain for this new stadium.

Keep in mind that for a boycott to have any serious effects we'd have to convince the Brumbies to follow suit and take their games away from the new stadium as well, which may or may not be hard, I'm not really sure how they'd react to such an idea, though it would be easier on them as they'd have Viking park waiting to take them with open arms.

I reckon the NSW gov and the Queanbeyan council would be keen to help with that...

The Queanbeyan council would be keen for sure, the NSW gov on the other hand I'm not so sure about.

 

[Stallion]

He’s talking promotion/relegation for Sydney in a 20 team comp.

If there’s already 20 teams there isn’t many places for the Sydney teams to relocate to.

Yes I am advocating 20 teams. And the sooner this destructionist theme for Sydney clubs goes and talk of genuine additional club expansion discussed then this dicourse will be so much less tedious. Here's hoping!

 

[The Great Dane]

Yes I am advocating 20 teams. And the sooner this destructionist theme for Sydney clubs goes and talk of genuine additional club expansion discussed then this dicourse will be so much less tedious. Here's hoping!

So who misses out?

Lets say that we've got our 20 teams and they're the current teams plus Brisbane 2, Perth, NZ 2, and Adelaide, we've got our 20 teams and we've hit our peak capacity for the competition without major changes to the competition structure (which on average the Sydney clubs and their supporters oppose, unless they are massively tilted in their favour like a Sydney conference), that leaves potentially billions of dollars on the table with places like NZ3, PNG, CC, CQ, London, Melbourne 2, Hawaii, Singapore, insert other cities that could potentially support and NRL club in the future, unable to fit in the competition.

You're basically advocating for the cease of the growth of the competition and to a large degree the sport it's self, so that we can maintain 9 clubs in Sydney all of whom are under preforming because of the pressures of over saturation in the market where they reside based on tradition and an assertion that the world would end if anything changed!

Might I add that the NSWRL successfully rationalised Sydney three times to allow for growth (they removed Annandale, Gelbe, and Newtown) which made space for the growth regions of St. Gorge, Canterbury, Manly, Canberra, etc, to join the competition, the world didn't end then, in fact after a few generations barely anybody remembers who the Dirty Reds and the Dales were and the Jets are going the same way, and it allowed for a growth spurt of the sport in this country.
It'd be no different now then it was then, if it's handled properly.

 

[Stallion]

So who misses out?

Lets say that we've got our 20 teams and they're the current teams plus Brisbane 2, Perth, NZ 2, and Adelaide, we've got our 20 teams and we've hit our peak capacity for the competition without major changes to the competition structure (which on average the Sydney clubs and their supporters oppose, unless they are massively tilted in their favour like a Sydney conference), that leaves potentially billions of dollars on the table with places like NZ3, PNG, CC, CQ, London, Melbourne 2, Hawaii, Singapore, insert other cities that could potentially support and NRL club in the future, unable to fit in the competition.

You're basically advocating for the cease of the growth of the competition and to a large degree the sport it's self, so that we can maintain 9 clubs in Sydney all of whom are under preforming because of the pressures of over saturation in the market where they reside based on tradition and an assertion that the world would end if anything changed!

Might I add that the NSWRL successfully rationalised Sydney three times to allow for growth (they removed Annandale, Gelbe, and Newtown) which made space for the growth regions of St. Gorge, Canterbury, Manly, Canberra, etc, to join the competition, the world didn't end then, in fact after a few generations barely anybody remembers who the Dirty Reds and the Dales were and the Jets are going the same way, and it allowed for a growth spurt of the sport in this country.
It'd be no different now then it was then, if it's handled properly.

Its very different. The advent of tv has given credibility to established clubs. When u destroy the familiarity of fans that grew to love the game in the late 60s, 70s 80s etc you create a significant loss of longstanding market share . This market recognition doesnt come off the back of a truck. Go figure. Establishing a strong base with the core of the gane still in tact is wise. Ideas for further ambitious expansion will follow suit. You do not take away the core for the sake of something that sounds good but has no substance. In time further expansion with additional clubs and areas will occur. I warn that rugby league has competing codes that will pounce if u leave the game vulnerable at its core. RL DOESN'T HAVE THE ESTABLISHMENT FRIENDS OTHER CODES HAVE! What Perez is doing in Canada is pioneering development which is great and appropriate. In Australia we have a well established dominant code (for now) and adding to it is fine but plundering its core is basically suicidal for the game.

 

[The Great Dane]

Its very different. The advent of tv has given credibility to established clubs. When u destroy the familiarity of fans that grew to love the game in the late 60s, 70s 80s etc you create a significant loss of longstanding market share . This market recognition doesnt come off the back of a truck. Go figure. Establishing a strong base with the core of the gane still in tact is wise. Ideas for further ambitious expansion will follow suit. You do not take away the core for the sake of something that sounds good but has no substance. In time further expansion with additional clubs and areas will occur. I warn that rugby league has competing codes that will pounce if u leave the game vulnerable at its core. RL DOESN'T HAVE THE ESTABLISHMENT FRIENDS OTHER CODES HAVE! What Perez is doing in Canada is pioneering development which is great and appropriate. In Australia we have a well established dominant code (for now) and adding to it is fine but plundering its core is basically suicidal for the game.

And what you think that the familiarity that fans who grew up with the Dales and Dirty Reds had no effect because their was no TV around back when they were around!

How does that explain the Jets and the fact that no massive changes to the base or market share were felt by the sport after they were dropped with a good plan to more then cover their loss with the additions of Canberra and Illawarra?

How does that explain the hundreds of times that other competitions have successfully rationalized their comps all over the world with only net positive effects for their sport over time (take you're pick of examples, NFL, NBA, MLB, soccer, RU, Gallic football, etc, etc, etc, there's examples in all of them)?

Why didn't the AFL or FFA fall into nothing after their rationalisation plans?

I could go on and on, but whats the point, you've got nothing but fear mongering and appeals to tradition (but only to the traditions that you like)!
You can't back anything up with facts or examples (at best you've got a handful of anecdotes, which in of themselves are useless) so you'll just throw out gibberish and the Superleague (of course ignoring all the other factors during the SL, and the fact that more teams outside of Sydney were lost during the war then in)!

You've got nothing of substance.

 

[Vee]

And what you think that the familiarity that fans who grew up with the Dales and Dirty Reds had no effect because their was no TV around back when they were around!

How does that explain the Jets and the fact that no massive changes to the base or market share were felt by the sport after they were dropped with a good plan to more then cover their loss with the additions of Canberra and Illawarra?

How does that explain the hundreds of times that other competitions have successfully rationalized their comps all over the world with only net positive effects for their sport over time (take you're pick of examples, NFL, NBA, MLB, soccer, RU, Gallic football, etc, etc, etc, there's examples in all of them)?

Why didn't the AFL or FFA fall into nothing after their rationalisation plans?

I could go on and on, but whats the point, you've got nothing but fear mongering and appeals to tradition (but only to the traditions that you like)!
You can't back anything up with facts or examples (at best you've got a handful of anecdotes, which in of themselves are useless) so you'll just throw out gibberish and the Superleague (of course ignoring all the other factors during the SL, and the fact that more teams outside of Sydney were lost during the war then in)!

You've got nothing of substance.

But if I keep repeating it until others give up arguing with me, it becomes true.

 

[Stallion]

And what you think that the familiarity that fans who grew up with the Dales and Dirty Reds had no effect because their was no TV around back when they were around!

How does that explain the Jets and the fact that no massive changes to the base or market share were felt by the sport after they were dropped with a good plan to more then cover their loss with the additions of Canberra and Illawarra?

How does that explain the hundreds of times that other competitions have successfully rationalized their comps all over the world with only net positive effects for their sport over time (take you're pick of examples, NFL, NBA, MLB, soccer, RU, Gallic football, etc, etc, etc, there's examples in all of them)?

Why didn't the AFL or FFA fall into nothing after their rationalisation plans?

I could go on and on, but whats the point, you've got nothing but fear mongering and appeals to tradition (but only to the traditions that you like)!
You can't back anything up with facts or examples (at best you've got a handful of anecdotes, which in of themselves are useless) so you'll just throw out gibberish and the Superleague (of course ignoring all the other factors during the SL, and the fact that more teams outside of Sydney were lost during the war then in)!

You've got nothing of substance.

By your poorly based rant Id say what Ive said makes alot of sense. Your the one getting flustered. Your the one advocating the imploding of the game when its not necessary. Additional clubs is genuine expansion !You dont cut off an arm to gain another leg? TV had little impact on those earlier clubs. However it has had a significant impact , which rugby league took advantage of particularly in the 70s and 80s. I propose a promotion and relegation conference for the Sydney metropolitan area which may give light to such clubs like Newtown, North Sydney etc if they wish, to aspire to the NRL again at sometime. This is more of an inclusive strategy for the evergrowing population of Sydney along with additional clubs from elsewhere welcomed to the top.flight without heartache and dismantling established markets and the aspirations of junior footballers everywhere. Exponential growth is the aim not destruction and see what happens.

 

[Perth Red]

By your poorly based rant Id say what Ive said makes alot of sense. Your the one getting flustered. Your the one advocating the imploding of the game when its not necessary. Additional clubs is genuine expansion !You dont cut off an arm to gain another leg? TV had little impact on those earlier clubs. However it has had a significant impact , which rugby league took advantage of particularly in the 70s and 80s. I propose a promotion and relegation conference for the Sydney metropolitan area which may give light to such clubs like Newtown, North Sydney etc if they wish, to aspire to the NRL again at sometime. This is more of an inclusive strategy for the evergrowing population of Sydney along with additional clubs from elsewhere welcomed to the top.flight without heartache and dismantling established markets and the aspirations of junior footballers everywhere. Exponential growth is the aim not destruction and see what happens.

Reducing Sydney clubs down to 6 to bring in brisbane2, Perth and Adelaide will not implode the game, it will strengthen it in the long term. NRL is not the nswrl and the sooner it matures and moves on from that paradigm the quicker this great game will grow and once again challenge afl for number one football code in Australia.

Longer term nz2 and png to go to 18 teams and strengthen the nrl into a more international competition. Still leaves 2 potential future spots for any u expected opportunities. That should be the games 40 year plan.

 

[Vee]

PNG is not a first world country, people suggesting they join the NRL are kidding themselves. PIs likewise.

So many stupid suggestions in this thread,

The only realistic options atm are Q4/B3 (CQ have to be doubtful to me), Perth and NZ2. I would love to see the Bears at the CC but can't see it happening because it should only happen after these other three.

It's not pins on a map people, any new teams have to be sustainable.

Regardless, I don't see expansion happening even in 2023 as the current clubs have sucked up the money and will use that as proof. that new teams are unaffordable.

Our only chance of cutting teams in Sydney is not supporting them when they go broke through mismanagement so I suppose there is hope after all.

 

[Stallion]

Reducing Sydney clubs down to 6 to bring in brisbane2, Perth and Adelaide will not implode the game, it will strengthen it in the long term. NRL is not the nswrl and the sooner it matures and moves on from that paradigm the quicker this great game will grow and once again challenge afl for number one football code in Australia.

Longer term nz2 and png to go to 18 teams and strengthen the nrl into a more international competition. Still leaves 2 potential future spots for any u expected opportunities. That should be the games 40 year plan.

Perth Red. This is where we dissagree . The effect of superleague has already proven that reducing the established rugby league top-flight presence in Sydney sends a negative message in so many ways. Other codes will just jump to the areas abandoned and rugby league reduces its footprint. Expansion by additional clubs is the way to go. Not tear up the fabric that laid the foundation of this great competition. What I call the 'bad guys' superleague were purely in it to dismantle public confidence in the game and they are slowly but surely getting their way. Many of the people associated with superleague were seeking short term financial gain however the backers of superleague, News ltd, were more intent on weakening the code of rugby league in Australia. (The most popular domestic rugby competition in the world to this day) . Surely the inadequate tv fox tv coverage we are now witnessing reflects this insincere motive?

 

[The Great Dane]

But if I keep repeating it until others give up arguing with me, it becomes true.

That seems to be his tactic...

 

[The Great Dane]

By your poorly based rant Id say what Ive said makes alot of sense.

I don't know what you mean by poorly based, but if you're suggesting that my argument is poorly based in facts then you need to have a go look at your own.

My argument is backed up be repeated successes and tried and true methods from all over the world, it's observable and repeatable (we've done it successfully ourselves multiple times).

Your arguments, well they aren't arguments they're assertions with nothing to back them up, they're baseless desperate appeals to tradition and fear mongering, that's all you've shown.

Your the one getting flustered.

Sir you give yourself way to much credit.

Your the one advocating the imploding of the game when its not necessary. Additional clubs is genuine expansion !You dont cut off an arm to gain another leg?

You're right you don't "cut off an arm to gain another leg", however you do prune a bush of all it's dead branches to help it grow as big as possible!

TV had little impact on those earlier clubs. However it has had a significant impact , which rugby league took advantage of particularly in the 70s and 80s.

Yeah well no shit!
Of course TV had little impact on the Dales and Glebe, however radio was still a thing, paid attendance to games was still a thing, merchandise was still a thing, sponsorship was still a thing, etc, etc, etc.

And you still haven't explained why there wasn't an implosion of the game in Sydney after the Jets were booted (and the Magpies were supposed to be booted too) in the 80s?
As you yourself state, TV had a significant impact in the 70s and 80s.

I propose a promotion and relegation conference for the Sydney metropolitan area which may give light to such clubs like Newtown, North Sydney etc if they wish, to aspire to the NRL again at sometime.

I've heard what you propose, it's bloody stupid!

Your proposal actually does have the potential to crash the game in Sydney in the way that you claim rationalisation would, as adding more clubs to an already over saturated market that's already under extreme pressure would almost certainly cause the market to collapse eventually!

It's also inherently and overtly unfair, which would almost certainly turn plenty of fans away because of it's unfairness.

This is more of an inclusive strategy for the evergrowing population of Sydney along with additional clubs from elsewhere welcomed to the top.flight without heartache and dismantling established markets and the aspirations of junior footballers everywhere. Exponential growth is the aim not destruction and see what happens.

We're back where we started now!

So who misses out?

There're only a finite amount of resources available to the NRL and only a certain amount of spaces (roughly 20-24) in the competition without undertaking a massive restructure of the competition, so who misses out so Sydney can maintain it's 9 clubs that it can't actually support anyway?

And what about the ever growing populations and markets outside of Sydney that have no representation, do we just forget about them?

 

[Stallion]

Reducing Sydney clubs down to 6 to bring in brisbane2, Perth and Adelaide will not implode the game, it will strengthen it in the long term. NRL is not the nswrl and the sooner it matures and moves on from that paradigm the quicker this great game will grow and once again challenge afl for number one football code in Australia.

Longer term nz2 and png to go to 18 teams and strengthen the nrl into a more international competition. Still leaves 2 potential future spots for any u expected opportunities. That should be the games 40 year plan.

The word maturing should not be used for code as self destruction. Getting rid of existing fans and markets is shear stupidity. Just playing into the hands of other codes. If thats your version of maturity then age on your own. The oversaturated market call is wrong. The market has been neglected and poorly developed. The disrespect for these well established Sydney clubs astounds me!
Furthermore a high density populated area such as Sydney should be encouraged to maintain existing teams as these clubs have already earnt a market presence through longevity . I would suggest though a criteria that included improved junior development numbers be fundamental to invitations for Sydney clubs to exist in the top.flight under the promotion and relegation conference Ive suggested for the metropolitan clubs.

 

[Perth Red]

The word maturing should not be used for code as self destruction. Getting rid of existing fans and markets is shear stupidity. Just playing into the hands of other codes. If thats your version of maturity then age on your own. The oversaturated market call is wrong. The market has been neglected and poorly developed. The disrespect for these well established Sydney clubs astounds me!
Furthermore a high density populated area such as Sydney should be encouraged to maintain existing teams as these clubs have already earnt a market presence through longevity . I would suggest though a criteria that included improved junior development numbers be fundamental to invitations for Sydney clubs to exist in the top.flight under the promotion and relegation conference Ive suggested for the metropolitan clubs.

The market has been there in Sydney for over 100 years, it is not poorly developed and certainly not neglected, it is over saturated. Your Sydney population growth in any of the NRL catchment areas isn't going to be bigger than the population of Perth which currently has no team at all to support or Brisbane which has one. And for all the population growth in Sydney over the last 20 years club support has hardly grown, suggesting new people moving there are not very interested in following an NRL club.

As someone who has watched his club yoyo up and down, nearly go bust twice and unable to invest long term because of lack of tenure I can assure you P&R is not the answer!

Sydney needs 6 super clubs the size of the Broncos, a strong second tier of grass roots jnr development clubs and to let the game grow nationally. This selfishness and entitlement that Sydney must have nine clubs, Sydney must have the GF, why should Sydney give up an origin game, Sydney should have RLWC big games etc is pretty distasteful tbh.

 

[Stallion]

The market has been there in Sydney for over 100 years, it is not poorly developed and certainly not neglected, it is over saturated. Your Sydney population growth in any of the NRL catchment areas isn't going to be bigger than the population of Perth which currently has no team at all to support or Brisbane which has one. And for all the population growth in Sydney over the last 20 years club support has hardly grown, suggesting new people moving there are not very interested in following an NRL club.

As someone who has watched his club yoyo up and down, nearly go bust twice and unable to invest long term because of lack of tenure I can assure you P&R is not the answer!

Sydney needs 6 super clubs the size of the Broncos, a strong second tier of grass roots jnr development clubs and to let the game grow nationally. This selfishness and entitlement that Sydney must have nine clubs, Sydney must have the GF, why should Sydney give up an origin game, Sydney should have RLWC big games etc is pretty distasteful tbh.

Still not registering is it? The game has been neglected for many years with poor development targeting and poor club decisions. That isnt cause to carve up the code in Sydney. Responsible RL administrators would remedy the poor development work and learn from the poor club decisions. We differ Red! Simple as that. My option is still enabling expansion however without losing Sydney! And believe me you get rid of a club you get rid of many fans forever . Dont think the game can assume that luxury.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Our only chance of cutting teams in Sydney is not supporting them when they go broke through mismanagement so I suppose there is hope after all.

Its a shame it was the Titans and Knights that the NRL took over...

Had they been Sydney clubs, the NRL would have had their opportunity to relocate/replace the Sydney clubs.

 

[Stallion]

Its a shame it was the Titans and Knights that the NRL took over...

Had they been Sydney clubs, the NRL would have had their opportunity to relocate/replace the Sydney clubs.

Penny still hasn't dropped has it? Your reckless regard for the Sydney clubs reflects a poor understanding of longevity and generational market share. Taking any club away weakens the code in Sydney. I think its pretty simple . Expand the game exponentially with additional clubs. This creates both a solid foundation and more opportunity for players and a resultant allround increased interest in the game. It is then seen as a sport on the rise instead of inflicting damage to itself. Your tact is disastrous but sadly you know that.

 

[taipan]

The word maturing should not be used for code as self destruction. Getting rid of existing fans and markets is shear stupidity. Just playing into the hands of other codes. If thats your version of maturity then age on your own. The oversaturated market call is wrong. The market has been neglected and poorly developed. The disrespect for these well established Sydney clubs astounds me!
Furthermore a high density populated area such as Sydney should be encouraged to maintain existing teams as these clubs have already earnt a market presence through longevity . I would suggest though a criteria that included improved junior development numbers be fundamental to invitations for Sydney clubs to exist in the top.flight under the promotion and relegation conference Ive suggested for the metropolitan clubs.

I agree.Bears lost fans , sure some followed other clubs but a lot didn't .Joint ventures p*ssed off quite a few Wests/Tigers/Dragons/Illawarra supporters some lost to the game ,and sure some remained loyal.
The point is who benefited the most, certainly not rugby league.They had less teams, the AFL benefitted from the SL war dividing fans and clubs being rissoles.The Union mob to a lesser extent/.Others I have no doubt just gave up siupporting attending the NRL.
The effect of tossing the Reds was obvious less juniors ATT and then union came in.

Is our NRL admin also to take some of the blame?I have no doubt they are clueless at marketing.I also know bending over to Rupert and ch9 and their control of scheduling rogered the ability to attract crowds.

Sydney has close to 5m people,and the NRL has 8 1/2 teams(the half being Dragons) repping this city.That's about 1 club for every 500,000. GC population about that figure.Townsville less,Canberra less.

If the NRL had any marketing ability, decent stadiums and aggressive promotions,they should be able to average minimum 18,-20,000 for each club.Making all clubs viable.

TBH I can't see P&R working in city like Sydney.Not when you have 4 codes competing for th fans' dollars.UK his different soccer first daylight second, and much bigger populations.