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

[titoelcolombiano]

the only way a Sydney club (recently demoted, or already in 2nd tier like the Bears or Jets) could come up is in the unlikely scenario where a top-tier NRL Sydney club falls over, in this case ensuring there's always 5 Sydney clubs - no more & no less. A kind of 'zero sum' rule where the number of Sydney clubs in the top tier is capped to a certain number.

Yes I like this

 

[flippikat]

the problem is when a team like manly fall down, and gets replaced by newtown, there isn't any northern sydney teams and too many south eastern teams

Ahh, but a lot depends on how the initial 5 NRL Sydney teams are selected.

The NRL could say "there needs to be a team based in Northern
Sydney (and it has to represent ALL of Northern Sydney, not just the beaches), there needs to be a team based in the centre of Sydney, another team in the west, one for the South, and the 5th to be decided". That covers their bases. Now, if Manly can't (or won't) try to engage with the whole of the north side, demote them and bring the Bears up. I suppose you could do the same with the other 4 NRL first grade Sydney clubs.. if one falls over, open bids for syndicates/clubs from that part of Sydney to take over the license for that area? (I.e. tying each Sydney license to a defined area)

As far as clubs "going under" goes, reducing Sydney down to 5 & having clear boundaries again will solve the over saturation problem that causes the haves & have-notes.

To be honest, in the scenario I suggest, I think it becomes even less likely that a Sydney NRL club will fall over.

 

[MugaB]

Ahh, but a lot depends on how the initial 5 NRL Sydney teams are selected.

The NRL could say "there needs to be a team based in Northern
Sydney (and it has to represent ALL of Northern Sydney, not just the beaches), there needs to be a team based in the centre of Sydney, another team in the west, one for the South, and the 5th to be decided". That covers their bases. Now, if Manly can't (or won't) try to engage with the whole of the north side, demote them and bring the Bears up. I suppose you could do the same with the other 4 NRL first grade Sydney clubs.. if one falls over, open bids for syndicates/clubs from that part of Sydney to take over the license for that area? (I.e. tying each Sydney license to a defined area)

As far as clubs "going under" goes, reducing Sydney down to 5 & having clear boundaries again will solve the investigation problem that causes the haves & have-notes.

To be honest, in the scenario I suggest, I think it becomes even less likely that a Sydney NRL club will fall over.

If im a fan of manly and they go under for another side to slide in and take its place, im deadset dropping RL as a hobby, all these hypotheticals are fun to think about, but if your a supporter of a club that gets demoted on a crap idea that there's too many teams nearby you, im sorry but thats rubbish, the code started out of the NSWRL, might have to accept that sydney started this, so they'll have the most clubs in it, if the QRL league had the coverage that NSWRL had back in the 80s, and players staying in qld, not contracting to nsw teams, then we'd see the same happen but in brisbane, and VFL had its Melbourne teams, AFL still carries them.
I hate the idea that "sydney has too many teams" but 30 years we had way more and no one cared then why do we care so much now

 

[The Great Dane]

If im a fan of manly and they go under for another side to slide in and take its place, im deadset dropping RL as a hobby

And if the NRL had half a brain then their response to reactions like that would be to say 'the Sea Eagles will still be playing in the NSW cup and you can watch them here, but if you wanna go then alright see ya', then invest hundreds of thousands (potentially even millions over an extended period) of dollars into targeted marketing in the NS region to make the name of the new NS club the first thing that every kid in the region thinks of when sport is brought up.

Target Mr/Mrs 'I'll only follow Manly and even then I'll only follow them if they are in the NRL' kid's, make it so that while they are boycotting the sport in protest (which ironically only further hurts Manly and really doesn't impact the NRL that much at all) that their kids have the new clubs poster on their wall and branded footy in their hands, make it that they meet the players and take part in footy clinics at school every year, and that they are regularly given the opportunity to play in local touch and RL teams. Basically create an environment where you convert as many kids as possible into fans, then a lot of the the parents (maybe even most) will follow the kids, and even if the parents don't follow the kids who cares cause in 10 or so years time when the kids are making their own money you'll have a brand new generation of fans that have come though all ready to back the new team.

I hate the idea that "sydney has too many teams" but 30 years we had way more and no one cared then why do we care so much now

You can hate the idea all you like but it's demonstrably the case that Sydney has to many clubs.

Whether it's the amount of local competition weakening all the clubs through to much competition for finite resources such as local sponsors, cooperates, and even fans, or if it's that all the weak clubs in Sydney are stunting the growth of the competition nationally, it doesn't really matter which way you look at it you always come to the same conclusion: there're way to many clubs in Sydney.

BTW you come to the same conclusion with the AFL in Melbourne.

 

[flippikat]

If im a fan of manly and they go under for another side to slide in and take its place, im deadset dropping RL as a hobby, all these hypotheticals are fun to think about, but if your a supporter of a club that gets demoted on a crap idea that there's too many teams nearby you,

Ahh.. but given Manly's base north of the harbour bridge - and that there's no other club in that space, I think they'd have a good chance of making the cut.

Basically what I'm thinking is a renewed emphasis on 'zones' or districts in Sydney.

If the city is divided into 5 roughly equal districts, each with approximately 1 million people - and the strongest club from each district is granted a license in the top tier, then could be the way to decide the Sydney representation.

 

[MugaB]

BTW you come to the same conclusion with the AFL in Melbourne.

What Im saying is that there isn't too many teams in sydney, and AFL with its Melbourne clubs are of the same thought process.

I hate the idea that is floated around that folks say "that there is too many teams in sydney" i dont agree with it, and what i meant was 30 years ago no one gave a hoot, you dont need to have a massive amount of funds/sponsorship to have a 1st grade side now when, the bulk of your salary cap is paid by TV rights.

And manly was just an example in my previous post. I suggest stop pushing the 2nd tier agenda, the bulk of fans wont watch them, if 1st grade is on offer elsewhere, and if its permanent move to 2nd tier. good luck getting star players and keeping them to carry on the "manly" or whoever club, without the 1st grade players most clubs wont get bums on seats.

Yes a few teams are destined to get demoted one day, but its not coz we have too many teams in sydney, its coz theyll be in trouble financially or badly run administratively. Any division you do to split up sydney's geographical area, will end up pissing off supporters,
And how do you state whats a better club for that region, IF im a tiger fan, and it was stated from now on this is bulldogs terrority, that wont cut it.

AFL are smart enough not to mess with the heritage clubs, NRL i feel are the same nowadays, add more teams to the comp get it up to 20-24 and 7-8 teams won't look/feel so bad in comparison.

Any team you take out of sydney will loose supporters to either ALeague Union or AFL, there isnt a team that doesn't posses a value in either geographical presence, junior talent/catchment, crowds/memberships
Or ratings on Tv

 

[The Great Dane]

What Im saying is that there isn't too many teams in sydney, and AFL with its Melbourne clubs are of the same thought process.

Again you can keep saying that there aren't to many clubs or that you don't like the idea, however it is demonstrably the case that there are to many teams in Sydney.

I hate the idea that is floated around that folks say "that there is too many teams in sydney" i dont agree with it, and what i meant was 30 years ago no one gave a hoot, you dont need to have a massive amount of funds/sponsorship to have a 1st grade side now when, the bulk of your salary cap is paid by TV rights.

I don't know what you were doing 30 years ago, but 30 years ago the NSWRL was kicking the Newtown Jets and Wests Magpies out of the comp and planning to kick more out in the 90s...

And yeah the TV rights covers the salary cap, however for it to cover the salary cap the NRL had to give the clubs more than their share of the rights and are chronically under funding the grassroots nationally as a result. Also the cap is only a small part of the costs of running a club, especially if you are trying to grow that club instead of it being stagnate.

And manly was just an example in my previous post. I suggest stop pushing the 2nd tier agenda, the bulk of fans wont watch them, if 1st grade is on offer elsewhere, and if its permanent move to 2nd tier. good luck getting star players and keeping them to carry on the "manly" or whoever club, without the 1st grade players most clubs wont get bums on seats.

In literally every other country that has a multi tier system with reasonable coverage it works, whether it's the soccer systems in Europe, the UK, and South America or the collegiate system in North America, so unless you've got a bloody good reason why Australia is completely different to every other market on the planet where it's been attempted I see no reason why it couldn't and wouldn't work here.

Yes a few teams are destined to get demoted one day, but its not coz we have too many teams in sydney, its coz theyll be in trouble financially or badly run administratively. Any division you do to split up sydney's geographical area, will end up pissing off supporters,
And how do you state whats a better club for that region, IF im a tiger fan, and it was stated from now on this is bulldogs terrority, that wont cut it.

AFL are smart enough not to mess with the heritage clubs, NRL i feel are the same nowadays, add more teams to the comp get it up to 20-24 and 7-8 teams won't look/feel so bad in comparison.

The AFL have already rationalised Melbourne multiple times and have consistently being trying to further rationalise it since the Lions merged with the Bears in the late 90s... They've been trying to get smaller Melbourne clubs (particularly the Demons, Kangaroos, and Bulldogs) to relocate to everywhere from Tasmania and Canberra to the GC before the Suns were admitted into the competition.

Any team you take out of sydney will loose supporters to either ALeague Union or AFL, there isnt a team that doesn't posses a value in either geographical presence, junior talent/catchment, crowds/memberships
Or ratings on Tv

This idea is one of the best examples of something that has been repeated so many times that it's been accepted as fact despite the complete lack of evidence that it's ever happened.

Nobody has ever been able to prove that there has ever been a defection of fans en-masse from one sport to another that they had no prior interest in after they have lost their club, not one actual shred of evidence ever!

As a former/sort of still am/it's complicated Bears fan I can say for certain that I don't know one former Bears fan who picked up a new sport after the Bears folded, not one! I can think of a quite a few who were already RU, AFL, soccer, and even a netball fan who now only exclusively follow those sports, but I can't think of a single example of somebody who wasn't a fan of a sport suddenly becoming interested in a new sport because the Bears folded, and yeah that may only be a anecdote, but anecdotes are the only evidence that has ever been presented in favour of the idea anyway so my anecdote is just as good as anyone else's...

 

[taipan]

What Im saying is that there isn't too many teams in sydney, and AFL with its Melbourne clubs are of the same thought process.

I hate the idea that is floated around that folks say "that there is too many teams in sydney" i dont agree with it, and what i meant was 30 years ago no one gave a hoot, you dont need to have a massive amount of funds/sponsorship to have a 1st grade side now when, the bulk of your salary cap is paid by TV rights.

And manly was just an example in my previous post. I suggest stop pushing the 2nd tier agenda, the bulk of fans wont watch them, if 1st grade is on offer elsewhere, and if its permanent move to 2nd tier. good luck getting star players and keeping them to carry on the "manly" or whoever club, without the 1st grade players most clubs wont get bums on seats.

Yes a few teams are destined to get demoted one day, but its not coz we have too many teams in sydney, its coz theyll be in trouble financially or badly run administratively. Any division you do to split up sydney's geographical area, will end up pissing off supporters,
And how do you state whats a better club for that region, IF im a tiger fan, and it was stated from now on this is bulldogs terrority, that wont cut it.

AFL are smart enough not to mess with the heritage clubs, NRL i feel are the same nowadays, add more teams to the comp get it up to 20-24 and 7-8 teams won't look/feel so bad in comparison.

Any team you take out of sydney will loose supporters to either ALeague Union or AFL, there isnt a team that doesn't posses a value in either geographical presence, junior talent/catchment, crowds/memberships
Or ratings on Tv

Agree wholeheartedly.Maybe get away with it years ago, not now.The code has had too many dramas, and chopping would send some or many over the edge re support.

 

[mistertaylor]

Rebooted NRL should have 14 teams max to enable a full home and away round robin over 26 rounds, and a top 6 final series with top 2 teams having first week off.

All existing geographical areas should have an initial presence, with the addition of one expansion area (WA or NZ2 perhaps) to create an additional TV timeslot for eastern seaboard.

Number of Sydney teams needs to be rationalised, either through mergers, relocations or relegation to a national Tier 2 comp.

While QLD is deserving of a fourth Tier 1 team, I think for the first iteration of the rebooted comp we should maintain the 3 existing franchises.

Tier 1 - NRL Premiership
Townsville
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Gosford
Sydney 1
Sydney 2
Sydney 3
Sydney 4
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Auckland
Wellington

Tier 2 - NRL Championship
Sydney x5
South East Qld x3
Qld Regional
NSW Regional
Adelaide
NZ
PNG
Fiji

Promotion/relegation would apply but not for the first 3 years to allow time for the competition structure to settle.

Over time, you will end up with some areas not having representation in Tier 1, but that can't be avoided.

 

[MugaB]

Again you can keep saying that there aren't to many clubs or that you don't like the idea, however it is demonstrably the case that there are to many teams in Sydney.

I don't know what you were doing 30 years ago, but 30 years ago the NSWRL was kicking the Newtown Jets and Wests Magpies out of the comp and planning to kick more out in the 90s...

And yeah the TV rights covers the salary cap, however for it to cover the salary cap the NRL had to give the clubs more than their share of the rights and are chronically under funding the grassroots nationally as a result. Also the cap is only a small part of the costs of running a club, especially if you are trying to grow that club instead of it being stagnate.

In literally every other country that has a multi tier system with reasonable coverage it works, whether it's the soccer systems in Europe, the UK, and South America or the collegiate system in North America, so unless you've got a bloody good reason why Australia is completely different to every other market on the planet where it's been attempted I see no reason why it couldn't and wouldn't work here.

The AFL have already rationalised Melbourne multiple times and have consistently being trying to further rationalise it since the Lions merged with the Bears in the late 90s... They've been trying to get smaller Melbourne clubs (particularly the Demons, Kangaroos, and Bulldogs) to relocate to everywhere from Tasmania and Canberra to the GC before the Suns were admitted into the competition.

This idea is one of the best examples of something that has been repeated so many times that it's been accepted as fact despite the complete lack of evidence that it's ever happened.

Nobody has ever been able to prove that there has ever been a defection of fans en-masse from one sport to another that they had no prior interest in after they have lost their club, not one actual shred of evidence ever!

As a former/sort of still am/it's complicated Bears fan I can say for certain that I don't know one former Bears fan who picked up a new sport after the Bears folded, not one! I can think of a quite a few who were already RU, AFL, soccer, and even a netball fan who now only exclusively follow those sports, but I can't think of a single example of somebody who wasn't a fan of a sport suddenly becoming interested in a new sport because the Bears folded, and yeah that may only be a anecdote, but anecdotes are the only evidence that has ever been presented in favour of the idea anyway so my anecdote is just as good as anyone else's...

please quote me brother, ive said my thoughts on all this, but its becoming a broken record, when you post.
And im not needing a breakdown on every sentence ive wtitten, and a rebuttal for it. Im sure all the re"quotes" are so you can show all your internet buddies, what you mean when you spread your adgenda here.
i too was a bears fan as a kid, but in my teens followed penrith, and have stuck with them for 30 years plus, and i wont be following other team, i dont need to read some explanation on what might/should happen if the NRL wants to reduce the clubs in sydney, and how there's evidence or lack of it saying i'd not follow another club, or switch codes etc. I know what i would do.
I have a few work mates who are gutted by the bears being gone, and started following the swans, NRL just pisses them off now and i got other mates who hated the wests merger, (until they won it in 2005) now they just hate the wests board, but have stuck with their team coz theyre called "tigers". fans will do whatever they want and most sports fans have multiple clubs they support in multiple codes.
Just coz you've never met all these bears fans doesn't mean they dont exist, and if its all about what percent are these fans are in the whole sum? I dont know and couldn't tell you, but saying flat out that they dont exist or matter, or you dont know them, mate just dress me up in a barcode and chant for the sydney roosters then, why dont we all just make the roosters the only team in sydney, that'll make the league more slim-line, and non-confusing, we should just cull all the teams and create state clubs like the rugby union did.
This thread's getting tiresome now,
It ends up the same on every thread, here in the expansion section. folks arguing on what they know is best for the NRL, the bears/manly rivaly, then blowharding over quotes and show ups to facts and figures, then its who goes and which clubs stay and how many sydney clubs, whats a good number, its fun till it gets to the serious "what evidence do you have" part....or its demonstrably the case, like theres a judge to hand out a verdict, and the laywer talk,... f'all that, keep it simple, and stop being blowhards, all you'll do is drive people away from the threads when you attack them with rebuttals

 

[The Great Dane]

please quote me brother, ive said my thoughts on all this, but its becoming a broken record, when you post.

I did quote you...

And I wouldn't sound like a "broken record" if the same handful of BS ideas and arguments weren't brought up all the time...

And im not needing a breakdown on every sentence ive wtitten, and a rebuttal for it. Im sure all the re"quotes" are so you can show all your internet buddies, what you mean when you spread your adgenda here.

If people didn't Gish Gallop then I wouldn't have to breakdown their posts to respond to every argument, but they do and there's no point in just responding one argument in a post and ignoring the other twenty.

Just coz you've never met all these bears fans doesn't mean they dont exist, and if its all about what percent are these fans are in the whole sum? I dont know and couldn't tell you, but saying flat out that they dont exist or matter, or you dont know them, mate just dress me up in a barcode and chant for the sydney roosters then, why dont we all just make the roosters the only team in sydney, that'll make the league more slim-line, and non-confusing, we should just cull all the teams and create state clubs like the rugby union did.

See now you're straw manning, I never said "these fans" don't exist, I'm sure you could find examples of e.g. Bears fans who randomly decided to pickup another sport after the Bears died, however that doesn't mean that the Bears fans defected to the AFL and/or RU en-masse or even that it's a typical response to losing a team, and if it did happen the 15-20k Bears all swapped to another sport simultaneously there would be evidence of it happening such as polling data or even simply activity on social media regarding this response, and if that data existed the AFL and/or RU would be crowing about it in the media constantly.

This thread's getting tiresome now,
Its the ends up the same on every thread, here in the expansion section. folks arguing on what they know is best for the NRL, the bears/manly rivaly, then blowharding over quotes and show ups, then who goes and which clubs stay and how many sydney clubs, whats a good number,

It didn't used to be all the same... We used to talk about bids, their merits, how they could be made better, etc, then people like e.g. Stallion came along and every single thread would get twisted into the same handful of subjects...

its fun till it gets to the serious "what evidence do you have" part....or its demonstrably the case, like theres a judge to hand out a verdict,... f'all that

Oh yeah it's all great fun until somebody comes along and asks you to back up your statements and calls BS on some things that you said...

 

[Perth Red]

If im a fan of manly and they go under for another side to slide in and take its place, im deadset dropping RL as a hobby, all these hypotheticals are fun to think about, but if your a supporter of a club that gets demoted on a crap idea that there's too many teams nearby you, im sorry but thats rubbish, the code started out of the NSWRL, might have to accept that sydney started this, so they'll have the most clubs in it, if the QRL league had the coverage that NSWRL had back in the 80s, and players staying in qld, not contracting to nsw teams, then we'd see the same happen but in brisbane, and VFL had its Melbourne teams, AFL still carries them.
I hate the idea that "sydney has too many teams" but 30 years we had way more and no one cared then why do we care so much now

Because now we are in a very different world and the games grpath pwth is being stunted. Let’s be honest th only reason it has grown out of the nswrl is pokie machines and the revenue it gave Club’s. It wasn’t due to anything else and even today some Nsw clubs only continue to survive due to pokie machines, not their success as a football club.

Player Salary payments are roughly around 25-35% of club expenditure so the notion the nrl grant means every club will be sustainable is unlikely, even given the massive payments the clubs got above player costs. Look at Cronulla and how they have had to sack ten back room staff to stay afloat. That’s fan engagement, game day experience, membership recruitment etc that is diminished because sharks can’t pay the bills. That leads to stagnation of lack of growth of a club.

 

[Stallion]

Because now we are in a very different world and the games grpath pwth is being stunted. Let’s be honest th only reason it has grown out of the nswrl is pokie machines and the revenue it gave Club’s. It wasn’t due to anything else and even today some Nsw clubs only continue to survive due to pokie machines, not their success as a football club.

Player Salary payments are roughly around 25-35% of club expenditure so the notion the nrl grant means every club will be sustainable is unlikely, even given the massive payments the clubs got above player costs. Look at Cronulla and how they have had to sack ten back room staff to stay afloat. That’s fan engagement, game day experience, membership recruitment etc that is diminished because sharks can’t pay the bills. That leads to stagnation of lack of growth of a club.

No! The Sydney rugby-league clubs have prospered and grown courtesy of becoming household names due to the free to air tv coverage of the 70 , 80s & 90s. Failing to grasp /understand this is a consistent flaw in your comments PR! These foundation NRL clubs are the reason why this competition has had a demand to grow. If these clubs were not deemed as well known and popular, do you honestly believe clubs like Canberra, Newcastle, Brisbane, Illawarra, North Queensland, Gold Coast , Auckland & Melbourne would want to join the league? These clubs are the foundation of the attraction of this much envied league.

 

[Perth Red]

No! The Sydney rugby-league clubs have prospered and grown courtesy of becoming household names due to the free to air tv coverage of the 70 , 80s & 90s. Failing to grasp /understand this is a consistent flaw in your comments PR! These foundation NRL clubs are the reason why this competition has had a demand to grow. If these clubs were not deemed as well known and popular, do you honestly believe clubs like Canberra, Newcastle, Brisbane, Illawarra, North Queensland, Gold Coast , Auckland & Melbourne would want to join the league? These clubs are the foundation of the attraction of this much envied league.

I’d say your partly correctt. They served a purpose but time and tide waits for no man. Their pokie money was useful when we needed to get the Comp beyond a state leag but now it’s holding the game back.

 

[Stallion]

I’d say your partly correctt. They served a purpose but time and tide waits for no man. Their pokie money was useful when we needed to get the Comp beyond a state leag but now it’s holding the game back.

No,no,no , no! These clubs are very much well known and reveared. They are the glue that sticks this competition together. The nucleus! Think you are still not understanding things like historical and generational support. It's massive and very relevant on Australia.

 

[Perth Red]

You might be right, but I don’t think so.

 

[MugaB]

I did quote you...

And I wouldn't sound like a "broken record" if the same handful of BS ideas and arguments weren't brought up all the time...

If people didn't Gish Gallop then I wouldn't have to breakdown their posts to respond to every argument, but they do and there's no point in just responding one argument in a post and ignoring the other twenty.

See now you're straw manning, I never said "these fans" don't exist, I'm sure you could find examples of e.g. Bears fans who randomly decided to pickup another sport after the Bears died, however that doesn't mean that the Bears fans defected to the AFL and/or RU en-masse or even that it's a typical response to losing a team, and if it did happen the 15-20k Bears all swapped to another sport simultaneously there would be evidence of it happening such as polling data or even simply activity on social media regarding this response, and if that data existed the AFL and/or RU would be crowing about it in the media constantly.

It didn't used to be all the same... We used to talk about bids, their merits, how they could be made better, etc, then people like e.g. Stallion came along and every single thread would get twisted into the same handful of subjects...

Oh yeah it's all great fun until somebody comes along and asks you to back up your statements and calls BS on some things that you said...

Again quote for quote pushing your mindless arguments, brother your just trolling, it matters nil to you, if i say i know a few people who have in fact jumped codes when the club dropped from 1st grade, all you want is factual evidence that "en masse" it had not happened, im not going to argue about "en masse", im saying i know some that had, The only BS here is The Great Dane needing to point out every detail in someone elses opinions, and rebuttal it till the cows come home.
Fact Ghosts don't exist, Great Dane = quotes "nah ah" give me a break.

In my opinion there are NOT too many teams in Sydney, there isn't enough teams around Australia & pacific islands added to the comp yet.
This great game we follow started from the NSWRL comp, and in 1982= canberra and illawarra joined, no one cried that we had too many teams in sydney then.
1988 =Newcastle, Brisbane and Gold Coast-tweed came in again, no one cried then.
1995 = Auckland, North Qld, Sth Qld, and Perth, again no one cried about to many teams, its only the past few years that anyone on these forums are pushing for less teams in sydney, why?

I dont see the difference between then and now, other than were have a better chance to go to greater distances for less money than before (e.g perth).

I suggest we get more teams added to the comp and 8 sydney teams wont look so congested as everyone makes out to be.

Maybe we can all have our BS opinions, and factually not have to back up my opinion, or need to re-read your "demonstrably proven theory that there is too many teams in sydney"

 

[Stallion]

Again quote for quote pushing your mindless arguments, brother your just trolling, it matters nil to you, if i say i know a few people who have in fact jumped codes when the club dropped from 1st grade, all you want is factual evidence that "en masse" it had not happened, im not going to argue about "en masse", im saying i know some that had, The only BS here is The Great Dane needing to point out every detail in someone elses opinions, and rebuttal it till the cows come home.
Fact Ghosts don't exist, Great Dane = quotes "nah ah" give me a break.

In my opinion there are NOT too many teams in Sydney, there isn't enough teams around Australia & pacific islands added to the comp yet.
This great game we follow started from the NSWRL comp, and in 1982= canberra and illawarra joined, no one cried that we had too many teams in sydney then.
1988 =Newcastle, Brisbane and Gold Coast-tweed came in again, no one cried then.
1995 = Auckland, North Qld, Sth Qld, and Perth, again no one cried about to many teams, its only the past few years that anyone on these forums are pushing for less teams in sydney, why?

I dont see the difference between then and now, other than were have a better chance to go to greater distances for less money than before (e.g perth).

I suggest we get more teams added to the comp and 8 sydney teams wont look so congested as everyone makes out to be.

Maybe we can all have our BS opinions, and factually not have to back up my opinion, or need to re-read your "demonstrably proven theory that there is too many teams in sydney"

Well expressed! And there is an even more compelling case for a club like the Central Coast Bears to be introduced. This addition, filling in a void left in northern Sydney and Gosford, as its not acceptable one club, Manly Warringah, cater for 1.6million people. So many advantages to be gained with a virtually dormant modern stadium located on a railway line , a leagues club adjacent to the Gosford ground and many Bears fans willing to support such a team. Additional clubs are the way forward. Any other path reeks of divisiveness and ruin!

 

[taipan]

Because now we are in a very different world and the games grpath pwth is being stunted. Let’s be honest th only reason it has grown out of the nswrl is pokie machines and the revenue it gave Club’s. It wasn’t due to anything else and even today some Nsw clubs only continue to survive due to pokie machines, not their success as a football club.

Player Salary payments are roughly around 25-35% of club expenditure so the notion the nrl grant means every club will be sustainable is unlikely, even given the massive payments the clubs got above player costs. Look at Cronulla and how they have had to sack ten back room staff to stay afloat. That’s fan engagement, game day experience, membership recruitment etc that is diminished because sharks can’t pay the bills. That leads to stagnation of lack of growth of a club.

The Sharks worked on far smaller budgets than the likes of the Storm/Brisbane/Roosters,yet won in 2016.And membership has grown since then ,and is this year well up ,to date.They also have had costs incurred due to incompetence resulting in at times big fines.

So the stagnation re lack of growth based on this, is nonsense.The only reason crowds stagnated of late was due to very poor scheduling.
Game day experience will not change either, still have the Mermaids,still have other dancers and acrobats, still have junior teams playing at half time.Still have a junior pathway helped set up by John Wilson the new coach.Still have big involvement in the community.But hey,what would I know ,I don't live in Perth.

Where is the big growth in membership for Brisbane,Titans,Roosters,Dogs,Dragons etc?.It depends on performances, playing roster.You can have huge backroom personnel, and be duds or not make the semis.

Some other clubs (which you affirmed)rely on poker machine revenue to underpin their financial situation.The Sharks are not in the position to do so, hence the development. as to their long term security.
In fact the Storm, are divesting themselves of their hotel with poker machines.Something you rarely brought up, the use of poker machines.
Funny the Storm owners admitted they needed poker machine revenue ,to keep them going at one stage.

Their(Shark's) stage 4 DA ($233.6m development) is currently being lodged covering the proposed work covering the retail/hotel/club refurbishment .The stage 4 apartments, they (developers)propose to launch sales in March of this year.These proposed apartments were not part of the original plan.
And yes this is still being done, despite the property downturn in Sydney, worst affected western, inner city areas BTW.And would no doubt be taken into account by the developers

The reason it(rugby league) grew out of NSW was due to 1) Qld home grown players were being seduced to play in the NSWRL ,and Qld teams were affected accordingly. 2) An acknowledgement there was interest in the major rl comp, from Queenslanders and having a team of their own would be ideal.From a crowd and commercial perspective.And Queensland/Brisbane was a rl heartland.
And Canberra was calling out for a teams there was demand for one.


And despite the up and downs ,growth and "stagnation" the NRL still matches the AFL re TV contracts, still has retained consistency and strength in TV ratings, and merchandise sales, and continues membership growth.Any sane person wants growth.
I am for expansion and I also want expansion teams to be ones of growth and not stagnation.

And relating to the thread, if this happened way back , for a setting up of a major rl comp,I,'m sure most people would have little problem with a South.West,North,and East franchise.Just as I'm sure the AFL fans would be of the same opinion.

The fact this is just a hypothetical now, and teams have established a many years' tradition ,community and Oz identity.
Fans generally would not be accommodating losing or having their club being relocated.I know too many people who have left rl, gone to other codes or who have little interest as a result of losing a club or having it merged.And other clubs have not benefitted, judging by crowd figures.
Yes its just my experience in the last 20 + years ,thus a small sample.Sometimes small samples are the overall reality.But it is not a sample I have formulated in Perth.

 

[The Great Dane]

Again quote for quote pushing your mindless arguments, brother your just trolling, it matters nil to you, if i say i know a few people who have in fact jumped codes when the club dropped from 1st grade, all you want is factual evidence that "en masse" it had not happened, im not going to argue about "en masse", im saying i know some that had, The only BS here is The Great Dane needing to point out every detail in someone elses opinions, and rebuttal it till the cows come home.
Fact Ghosts don't exist, Great Dane = quotes "nah ah" give me a break.

In my opinion there are NOT too many teams in Sydney, there isn't enough teams around Australia & pacific islands added to the comp yet.
This great game we follow started from the NSWRL comp, and in 1982= canberra and illawarra joined, no one cried that we had too many teams in sydney then.
1988 =Newcastle, Brisbane and Gold Coast-tweed came in again, no one cried then.
1995 = Auckland, North Qld, Sth Qld, and Perth, again no one cried about to many teams, its only the past few years that anyone on these forums are pushing for less teams in sydney, why?

I dont see the difference between then and now, other than were have a better chance to go to greater distances for less money than before (e.g perth).

I suggest we get more teams added to the comp and 8 sydney teams wont look so congested as everyone makes out to be.

Maybe we can all have our BS opinions, and factually not have to back up my opinion, or need to re-read your "demonstrably proven theory that there is too many teams in sydney"

Since for some reason it offends you that I like to split posts up so it's easier to know exactly what I'm referring to and when I'm referring to it I won't split this one up...

You keep saying that it's your 'opinion that there aren't to many teams in Sydney', and stuff along the line of 'let me just have my opinion and you have yours', but this isn't a subjective issue like what your favourite colour is, you can't just ignore reality then hide behind it being your "opinion".

It's a fact that apart from the biggest clubs (Canterbury, Parra, etc) Sydney clubs struggle to find meaningful sponsorship despite being in the biggest market in the country, it's a fact that apart from the biggest clubs most of the Sydney clubs corporate support is comparable to regional clubs corporate support despite them being in a huge metropolitan market, it's a fact that as independent business's almost all of them have been stagnate since the late 90's, it's a fact that almost all of them go nowhere near breaking even, etc, etc, etc.
You can't say "it's my opinion that there aren't to many Sydney clubs" and then refuse to explain why either none of the above is a problem or why the above actually isn't happening how we think it's happening.

You also keep saying that it's "my demonstrably proven theory", it's not 'my theory' it's what's observably happening, you can go look at the annual reports from over the years for yourself, you can go look at the clubs struggles and why they are struggling for yourself, you can compare them to other comparable businesses from around the world for yourself, etc.

And again you have asserted that "no one cried that we had too many teams in Sydney" back in the day when that is abjectly false!

The NSWRL started looking at rationalising Sydney (again) in the late 70s, they actually kicked both the Jets and Magpies out of the comp as part of a rationalisation program in the 80's (the Magpies got back in through the courts), and they planned to do more rationalising in the 90's but SL knocked that plan off course. So yeah without even going back to the really old days when Glebe and Annandale were getting the boot, there's been almost constant calls and plans for Sydney to be rationalised since the 70's, and the main proponents of it were the NSWRL/ARL themselves until after SL.