Ideal team/city representation if comp was starting from scratch first few year

[T-Boon]

In my opinion it would he as follows:
4 x Sydney teams (too hard to get around for any more than this plus population false indicator of how many teams)
3 x Brisbane teams (1 def not enough, 2 not enough, 3 enough)
2 x Melbourne teams (big sports town has had to suffer through VFL for too long)
2 x Auckland (big population, growing interest in league, rivalry between teams would be great)

I know it is controversial to leave other big cities (and Canberra, Newcastle) out but they are welcome in an expansion. I am mainly trying to get the key cities for TV with the right amount of teams from each city to begin with so that we don't have to expand in future areas that already have a team.

 

[Vee]

Gotta have Perth for the national footprint. Adelaide would be good too but not ready yet

I think the large regionals are important to keep the heartland pure.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

You can’t exclude outer region teams like Newcastle or Canberra. They are the heart and soul of the game and have a large catchment area as well. Your proposal also has an odd number of teams which means a bye every week.

My proposal is:
5x Sydney metro teams (Sydney, Souths, central coast, Penrith/West Sydney, Wollongong/South Coast)
4x QLD teams (3 in SE QLD [Bris, West Bris/Ipswich, GC] + Cowboys)
1x Perth/WA
2x Melb (Storm & Sth West Melb) or 1x Melb and 1x Adelaide
2x NZ teams (Auckland & Christchurch being preferred)
Canberra
Newcastle

Still 16 teams meaning 8 games a week with room for expansion. Juniors from all states are not aligned to any one club, with juniors selected to represent their states/regions at a talent combine at the end of the year where they can be scouted. The combine is based on the NFL draft combine/NRL national talent weekend where junior reps are out through skill based tests and all state junior reps play a tournament the following week to show game skill.

 

[Timmah]

14 teams, top 6 finals

7 NSW - Sydney, South Sydney, CB/Inner West, Parramatta, Western Sydney, St George/Illawarra, Newcastle
1 ACT - Canberra
3 QLD - Brisbane, Brisbane II, North Qld
1 VIC - Melbourne
1 NZ - Auckland
1 WA - Perth

If it has to be 16 teams, throw in Adelaide and a second Victorian team.

 

[madunit]

16 teams, cover the entire nation, be a truly National game.

Northern Sydney
Central Sydney
Western Sydney
Southern Sydney/Illawarra
Newcastle
ACT
North Brisbane
South Brisbane/Gold Coast
North Qld
Darwin
Perth
Adelaide
Melbourne
Hobart
Auckland
Dubbo/Central NSW

 

[The Great Dane]

Sydney x2.
Brisbane x2.
Melbourne x2.
Perth.
Adelaide.
Newcastle.
GC.
Canberra.
Auckland.
Christchurch.
Wellington.

GC and Wellington are expendable, and if we were really starting fresh then there isn't really any reason in particular why Sydney would need more clubs then anybody else except that we've come to expect them to have more clubs.

 

[Timmah]

Sydney x2.
Brisbane x2.
Melbourne x2.
Perth.
Adelaide.
Newcastle.
GC.
Canberra.
Auckland.
Christchurch.
Wellington.

GC and Wellington are expendable, and if we were really starting fresh then there isn't really any reason in particular why Sydney would need more clubs then anybody else except that we've come to expect them to have more clubs.

I think the starting fresh still assumes Sydney/NSW is the game's biggest market. To have only four teams in the competition's most popular state would be ridiculous.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think the starting fresh still assumes Sydney/NSW is the game's biggest market. To have only four teams in the competition's most popular state would be ridiculous.

Firstly, three clubs in NSW.

Secondly, what's better two enormous clubs in Sydney splitting the fan base or four smaller ones?
Sure Sydney could definitely support more then two clubs, but just cause they can doesn't necessarily mean that they should or that they need to!

I mean Manchester could definitely support more then two clubs in the EPL as well, and nobody in their right mind would suggest that Manchester needs more EPL clubs...

It seems to me that the differences that I have with your average supporter of the Sydney clubs on this subject can be boiled down two points, I value quality over quantity and/or they can't imagine a world where multiple clubs aren't within a lazy Sunday drives distance.

 

[Timmah]

Firstly, three clubs in NSW.

Secondly, what's better two enormous clubs in Sydney splitting the fan base or four smaller ones?
Sure Sydney could definitely support more then two clubs, but just cause they can doesn't necessarily mean that they should or that they need to!

I mean Manchester could definitely support more then two clubs in the EPL as well, and nobody in their right mind would suggest that Manchester needs more EPL clubs...

It seems to me that the differences that I have with your average supporter of the Sydney clubs on this subject can be boiled down two points, I value quality over quantity and/or they can't imagine a world where multiple clubs aren't within a lazy Sunday drives distance.

Not sure the Manchester reference is helpful, the city is literally within an hours drive of a dozen other Premier League or Championship teams. Not to mention how much smaller England is overall.

I'm not advocating for the current level of teams, but two for Sydney and one for Newcastle is just silly unders - IMO.

 

[The Great Dane]

Not sure the Manchester reference is helpful, the city is literally within an hours drive of a dozen other Premier League or Championship teams. Not to mention how much smaller England is overall.

So you reckon that if England had the same population density as Australia that Manchester would need more clubs to be successful... Why?

With modern technology you don't need to attend every game to be able to fanatically follow a team, in fact you don't even need to attend any games to fanatically follow a team, all the Manchester Utd/city fans all over the world are a testament to that.

If it was the case that you need lots of teams in big markets for clubs and competitions to be sustainable in countries with relatively low population densities then half the NRL teams would have been screwed since the beginning, and there'd be much bigger and more prestigious sports clubs all over the world that'd be just as screwed considering their population density compared to the number of teams in geographical regions comparable to that of the North of England (basically all of the North American clubs for example).

 

[Timmah]

So you reckon that if England had the same population density as Australia that Manchester would need more clubs to be successful... Why?

No, I'm pointing out your Manchester comparison is flawed because of the differences in proximity and population density.

If you think the game's strongest market in Australia only needs 2 teams then that's your call, I disagree.

 

[T-Boon]

Secondly, what's better two enormous clubs in Sydney splitting the fan base or four smaller ones?
Sure Sydney could definitely support more then two clubs, but just cause they can doesn't necessarily mean that they should or that they need to!

I mean Manchester could definitely support more then two clubs in the EPL as well, and nobody in their right mind would suggest that Manchester needs more EPL clubs...

It seems to me that the differences that I have with your average supporter of the Sydney clubs on this subject can be boiled down two points, I value quality over quantity and/or they can't imagine a world where multiple clubs aren't within a lazy Sunday drives distance.

I think the question is would a 3rd (and 4th) Sydney team still mean that the 3 (4) Sydney teams are bigger and more supported than the 1 Canberra team. You want to have as many teams as possible for the purpose of TV deals. I think a 3rd Sydney team is more valuable than a Canberra or Newcastle team.

I think if you had 2 teams in Sydney and they both played in from of 30k each weekend with huge TV we would quickly be back to asking whether there should be a 3rd and 4th team (as they do with the A-League). You want to avoid that. Get the big cities right at the start then expand to the regionals.
I think you need at least 2 western sydney teams because I consider WS to be a seperate city (area) to sydney.
The same with Brisbane, I think a third Brisbane team is more valuable than a North Q team.

 

[Perth Red]

If various barriers didn't exist:

5 Sydney teams
Newcastle
2 Brisbane teams
NQ
Melbourne
Auckland
Wellington
Port Moresby
Adelaide
Canberra
Perth

 

[The Great Dane]

No, I'm pointing out your Manchester comparison is flawed because of the differences in proximity and population density.

If you think the game's strongest market in Australia only needs 2 teams then that's your call, I disagree.

But you haven't said why the differences in the population density between Australia and the of North England disproves (for lack of a better term) my point of view, you've just asserted that it does.

If you don't like the Manchester example then take any number of American teams, for example.

 

[Timmah]

Different sport for a start... It should be plainly evident that the comparison is totally flawed

 

[Perth Red]

Different sport for a start... It should be plainly evident that the comparison is totally flawed

Not really, what we have here is very unique to Australia and largely due to the national competitions of the two main footy codes growing out of city based competitions. That hasn't happened anywhere else in the world that I am aware of. Geography and sporting idiosyncrasy has a lot to do with that but also that the national comps were not set up at the time with a clean slate but rather clubs from other places were bolted on to a state based comp. There is no other cities in the world that has the number of professionals sports teams per population that Melbourne and Sydney have.
The problem the development model left us with is this over proliferation in one city (along with a war that killed the visionaries) has meant we have other population centres with zero or under represented exposure, something else other sports around the world haven't got generally. If you were starting the NRL from scratch you wouldn't dream of starting it with that many clubs in Sydney, and if it had been started from scratch with just two clubs maybe they would be the size of the major clubs of the world? 5million people shared between 2 clubs is a lot of potential supporters for a number one sport in Sydney.

All hypothetical as we didn't and couldn't have started the comp from scratch in the 80's.

 

[Timmah]

Not really, what we have here is very unique to Australia and largely due to the national competitions of the two main footy codes growing out of city based competitions. That hasn't happened anywhere else in the world that I am aware of. Geography and sporting idiosyncrasy has a lot to do with that but also that the national comps were not set up at the time with a clean slate but rather clubs from other places were bolted on to a state based comp. There is no other cities in the world that has the number of professionals sports teams per population that Melbourne and Sydney have, the problem we have is this over proliferation in one city (along with a war that killed the visionaries) has meant we have other population centres with zero or under represented exposure, something else other sports around the world haven't got generally. If you were starting the NRL from scratch you wouldn't dream of starting it with that many clubs in Sydney, and if it had been started from scratch with just two clubs maybe they would be the size of the major clubs of the world? 5million people shared between 2 clubs is a lot of potential supporters for a number one sport in Sydney.

All hypothetical as we didn't and couldn't have started the comp from scratch in the 80's.

Perhaps if you read my previous posts you'll see I'm not advocating for the current number of Sydney clubs, I'm merely disputing that 2 clubs for Sydney is well under what should be considered.

It's Great Dane's opinion and I disagree with it. It's as simple as that.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think the question is would a 3rd (and 4th) Sydney team still mean that the 3 (4) Sydney teams are bigger and more supported than the 1 Canberra team. You want to have as many teams as possible for the purpose of TV deals. I think a 3rd Sydney team is more valuable than a Canberra or Newcastle team.

I think if you had 2 teams in Sydney and they both played in from of 30k each weekend with huge TV we would quickly be back to asking whether there should be a 3rd and 4th team (as they do with the A-League). You want to avoid that. Get the big cities right at the start then expand to the regionals.
I think you need at least 2 western sydney teams because I consider WS to be a seperate city (area) to sydney.
The same with Brisbane, I think a third Brisbane team is more valuable than a North Q team.

Whether or not another Sydney team is more valuable then a regional team is a fair argument, but it really depends on how you are measuring the value of those specific teams and you're purpose behind adding each club. For example a third team in Sydney may very well be more financially valuable then a Canberra or Newcastle team, but you wouldn't necessarily be adding a teams in either Canberra or Newcastle cause they are the most financially beneficial options.

Also theoretically you don't need more then one club in each market to penetrate that market from advertisers point of view, though more teams may mean better coverage of the market that may or may not be more valuable to them (it really depends on their product and their target market)... And though you are right that if we had two Sydney clubs drawing 30k (though personally I think they'd be drawing more then 30k when we consider the average draw of the current Sydney clubs) that there would be people wondering if we need a third just like the A-league have, they'd also achieve exactly what the A-league have achieved if they got their way, they'd simply split the fan-base...

 

[The Great Dane]

Different sport for a start... It should be plainly evident that the comparison is totally flawed

The fanatical behavioural response will act radically different based on the sport... That's extremely unlikely...

When you cut to humanity's core we're all really different, and yet all exactly the same. Though the behaviour may manifest differently at it's core it's the same behaviour.

 

[Perth Red]

Perhaps if you read my previous posts you'll see I'm not advocating for the current number of Sydney clubs, I'm merely disputing that 2 clubs for Sydney is well under what should be considered.

It's Great Dane's opinion and I disagree with it. It's as simple as that.

Yes I got that, just saying in this world of hypotheticals if you only had originally two NRL clubs in Sydney would they be the size of the massive sports clubs of the world? Could you be getting 60k crowds for those two clubs, or would the small number of clubs mean that NRL in Sydney wasnt that strong as it was too geographically distant with just two centralised clubs? Swans with relatively minor sporting interest have drawn 35k plus as they were the only team in town for that code.