Kill the inter-change & then expand the NRL

[RL1908]

Why is it always a question of culling/merging/relocating Sydney clubs to fund & stock new clubs?

Are there alternatives?

Comes back to the old chest-nut - who says 14 or 16 teams is the magic number? Why not 18 or 20? Can't the current $ be made better use of?

Depends how you see it - are you a glass half-full man, or a glass half-empty man?

Would having more NRL clubs help prevent players going to UK Super League?

Who made it sacrosanct that modern RL teams need 17 players each week instead of 13?

Cut teams back to 13 players & reduce inter-changes down to 6 (have up to six Under 20s players on the bench - just make sure they've played at least half a game earlier in the day).

Wouldn't that save current clubs $$? Wouldn't that help clubs afford to offer better $ deals for top players?

Every weekend there are 64 first graders sitting on the inter-change bench (16 x 4). Heck, I can nearly make 5 teams of 13-a-side out of that lot.

Extra teams means extra matches - doesn't that mean extra $ from the tv contracts? Extra merchandise sales? Clubs in new areas? Old clubs kept?

Would you rather we killed off a few more Sydney clubs, or is it a better option to kill off the 4 extra places needed to fill the inter-change?

So what if RL is just a little slower, or if the 10m rule has to become 8m to compensate for less inter-changes.

I'd rather kill of the inter-change and welcome back Norths (Gosford) and Perth Reds, and add two more new clubs.

Or am I being too simplistic?

 

[joondalup_giant]

still living in 1908?

 

[dallymessenger]

Why is it always a question of culling/merging/relocating Sydney clubs to fund & stock new clubs?

Are there alternatives?

Comes back to the old chest-nut - who says 14 or 16 teams is the magic number? Why not 18 or 20? Can't the current $ be made better use of?

Depends how you see it - are you a glass half-full man, or a glass half-empty man?

Would having more NRL clubs help prevent players going to UK Super League?

Who made it sacrosanct that modern RL teams need 17 players each week instead of 13?

Cut teams back to 13 players & reduce inter-changes down to 6 (have up to six Under 20s players on the bench - just make sure they've played at least half a game earlier in the day).

Wouldn't that save current clubs $$? Wouldn't that help clubs afford to offer better $ deals for top players?

Every weekend there are 64 first graders sitting on the inter-change bench (16 x 4). Heck, I can nearly make 5 teams of 13-a-side out of that lot.

Extra teams means extra matches - doesn't that mean extra $ from the tv contracts? Extra merchandise sales? Clubs in new areas? Old clubs kept?

Would you rather we killed off a few more Sydney clubs, or is it a better option to kill off the 4 extra places needed to fill the inter-change?

So what if RL is just a little slower, or if the 10m rule has to become 8m to compensate for less inter-changes.

I'd rather kill of the inter-change and welcome back Norths (Gosford) and Perth Reds, and add two more new clubs.

Or am I being too simplistic?

spot on mate.

i think its a great idea.

 

[RL1908]

still living in 1908?

Wot? Too hard for you to do the maths? Its got nothing to do with 1908.

Find 16 clubs who can fund 25-man NRL squad, OR find 18 or 20 clubs who can fund 21-man NRL squad.

 

[dallymessenger]

still living in 1908?

mate when having a go at someone it helps to know who they are :

http://www.rl1908.com/

 

[dannyboy]

still living in 1908?

Guess your humour was TOOOOOO subtle for some here. ;-)

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Wot? Too hard for you to do the maths? Its got nothing to do with 1908.

Find 16 clubs who can fund 25-man NRL squad, OR find 18 clubs who can fund 21-man NRL squad.

I think it's a great idea!

Moving to a relaxed 10m would also make the game a little more expansive, set moves etc, rather than boring one up and dummy half runs. Watching the forwards tire and the backs start to run rampant is something we don't see anymore.

It's so simple it's brilliant!

 

[The Engineers Room]

Not a bad idea.

Maybe reduce the bench to have to fresh reserves and four interchanges from Under 20's. Once the reserve goes on the replaced player can't return but you can interchange the Under 20's players and the NRL players up to 6 times.

The Under 20's players can have 6 fresh reserves. And the bench players for NRL must play the entire Under 20's game.

Add to that team have a top 20 not top 25 salary cap and the salary cap remains as the present level.

 

[joshreading]

I have thought about similar but reduce to two interchange players with say 4 changes HOWEVER split the game into quarters for the NRL. THis would also give more time for ads thus more money potential.

 

[Shorty]

Yeah this idea has some merit and it'd definitely pave way for more exciting football and perhaps less conservative.

 

[RL1908]

I have thought about similar but reduce to two interchange players with say 4 changes HOWEVER split the game into quarters for the NRL. THis would also give more time for ads thus more money potential.

I think to make it worthwhile $ wise, it really needs to be no fresh reserves - a reduction in NRL squads from 25 to 23 won't make much of a difference to the bottom line $ of a NRL club (how much does player #24 and #25 get now?).

I think it would be good to see 10 or 12 Under 20s players sitting on the bench, none of them (or us) knowing who will actually get a run - it will come down to injuries, positions, strategy and fatigue. In that sense, it is a throwback to the 1970s, and will help to build club spirit now that in effect there are two NRL grades.

 

[Eels Dude]

Far too simplistic mate but nice thinking.

Firstly, having 20 sides wouldnt make a difference, every side would be that little bit weaker and the UK clubs Rugby Union would still be able to poach any players they wanted.

Secondly, I would like to see you describe your idea of 13 man and only un U20's bench in more detail, it could work. However you've described it as an argument in the financial sense and it won't save clubs money. Clubs still need to keep a base level of players due to the amount of injuries that occur. You could ideally spend your salary cap on 13 players but if 7 of them get injured then you'd be playing half the U'20s side as a replacement.

 

[RL1908]

Far too simplistic mate but nice thinking.

Firstly, having 20 sides wouldnt make a difference, every side would be that little bit weaker and the UK clubs Rugby Union would still be able to poach any players they wanted.

Secondly, I would like to see you describe your idea of 13 man and only un U20's bench in more detail, it could work. However you've described it as an argument in the financial sense and it won't save clubs money. Clubs still need to keep a base level of players due to the amount of injuries that occur. You could ideally spend your salary cap on 13 players but if 7 of them get injured then you'd be playing half the U'20s side as a replacement.

As I said, I suspect it may be too simplistic.

But to answer your questions...

More clubs - means more opportunities to keep top players from Super League & RU - for example, say each NRL club currently spends $2,000,000 of its cap on the top 5 players - that equals $32 million on the NRL's top 80 players, and, as we know, those players that miss out either cop less money, swap NRL clubs, or go to England. Add 2 new clubs, and then we have another $4,000,000 for 10 more players to join the well-paid ranks...so the number goes from 80 players earning good $ to 90 players.

As for "every side would be that little bit weaker" if we got rid of fresh inter-change players - I'm not sure of that - I would have thought the larger number of players in a team, the greater the gap between the talent in the top team and the bottom team.

To me, going from 17 players to 13 players will make teams closer to each other in standard, particularly if those current inter-change players in the Top 8 clubs are forced to go to the lower ranked clubs, or they go to a new NRL club. Do the Titans fans feel less joy at having a team that is mid-table rather than Top 2? Would Norths fans be happy if a team mixing it in 2008 at the level of the Warriors and Canberra, or would they rather still be without a team completely?

The issue of whether NRL clubs can get by on a 21-man squad rather than 25 (whether there is fresh inter-change or not) is debatable. Clearly, the 4 current inter-change players won't be getting injured if they no longer exist. You might be right, or maybe not - needs to be looked at.

Clearly, there is no easy answer - but telling fans that Sydney clubs are not sustainable is not something I agree with - there are options other than giving up and saying it is all too hard. As many have said, few of the Norths fans have taken up supporting Manly or another NRL club.

Re having the Under 20s on the bench - I would envisage the sight of seeing 10 or 12 players sitting there, ready to play. Say the maximum inter-change is 6. I would allow the coach to call upon a maximum of six of those Under 20s on the bench during the game, depending upon his need, injuries, fatigue, strategy. No doubt, on most weekends the Under 20s backs won't get a run - but if in the first minute of Rd 16 Brisbane lose Hunt, he can send on the Under 20s fullback. If the team is winning by 40 points & has two inter-changes left, they can send on someone for the experience. It's not revolutionary - just an extension of the old replacement rule.

 

[Eels Dude]

I agree with your first principle, either way if more clubs are in the competition there's more chance of our elite players staying in the game.

However I believe reducing the interchange and relying on soley a starting 13 could do considerable damage. Parramatta, for example have used 24 - 25 players in first grade this season, and we've had hardly any injuries. Clubs like the Cowboys and Bulldogs would have used 32 - 35 probably. So to suggest cutting down to a 20 man squad is unrealistic.

All this would mean that any club that lost a handful of their top squad to injury would be resigned to the fact their season would be a write off as they won't have the depth to cover these losses. A lot of the U20's players aren't up to NRL level on a week to week basis, both physically and mentally. To expect to have a minimum of 6 on a bench, and even more in the starting side if injuries occur, is throwing them in the deep end too soon.

 

[RL1908]

However I believe reducing the interchange and relying on soley a starting 13 could do considerable damage. Parramatta, for example have used 24 - 25 players in first grade this season, and we've had hardly any injuries. Clubs like the Cowboys and Bulldogs would have used 32 - 35 probably. So to suggest cutting down to a 20 man squad is unrealistic.

My suspicion is that the 17-man inter-change game coupled with the 10m rule is the cause of many injuries.

You see, it seems to me that everyone is saying the game can't afford this, and can't afford that, and that clubs have to be cut/merged etc etc.

However, all of that is based upon the cost of funding RL the way it is currently played ie 17 players, inter-change, 10m rule. Why do NRL clubs need $12 million to put a $4 million football team in the field?

Would that $ cost be greatly reduced if we took the heat out of the on-field game just a little bit? I'd rather change the way the game is played if it is the difference between keeping top players and expanding the game.

RL under 17 players, inter-change, 10m rule - has the international game got more competitive under this game? Has bush footy numbers picked up?

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

I agree with your first principle, either way if more clubs are in the competition there's more chance of our elite players staying in the game.

However I believe reducing the interchange and relying on soley a starting 13 could do considerable damage. Parramatta, for example have used 24 - 25 players in first grade this season, and we've had hardly any injuries. Clubs like the Cowboys and Bulldogs would have used 32 - 35 probably. So to suggest cutting down to a 20 man squad is unrealistic.

All this would mean that any club that lost a handful of their top squad to injury would be resigned to the fact their season would be a write off as they won't have the depth to cover these losses. A lot of the U20's players aren't up to NRL level on a week to week basis, both physically and mentally. To expect to have a minimum of 6 on a bench, and even more in the starting side if injuries occur, is throwing them in the deep end too soon.

They're all good points.

Though, I really like the idea of almost eliminating the interchange, and possibly relax the 10m (often teams are held back 11-12m as it is), thus promoting more creative football.

 

[RL1908]

RU provides proof that you don't need to offer the best on-field sport to be a financial success. It's no good for RL to sit about smugly saying it has the better form of rugby/football, while meanwhile we are financially uncompetitive with other codes. Saying we have the superior game won't be enough - and there are plenty in RL today who don't think the current form of RL is its optimum shape.

 

[russ13]

RU provides proof that you don't need to offer the best on-field sport to be a financial success.

True but where is union a major football code?


No football code anywhere has risen to prominence without the support of the working class.



Sean

The problem with a 18 or 20 team competition in Australia is where would the extra fixtures be played. At present we have 2 on Friday night, 3 Saturday (5.30 PM & 7.30 PM) 2 on Sunday & 1 on Monday night.

Saturday arvo is a dead time (it would clash ith Queensland Cup games on TV).

I can se the logic of having a game played in NZ every week on Sunday at 3 PM NZ time which is midday or 1 PM here. BTW the early games on Sunday don't rate well.


Where would you fit in the extra two games?

 

[Parra]

The main problem is that you would need coaches who know what they are doing.

What we see now is a game where the coaches set the rules and tend to get whatever they want (like 17 man squads and heaps of interchanges).

We have generic coaches, generic teams, generic grounds, generic jersies, generic players.

 

[dimitri]

I don't think you need to cut the players in a team down from 17 - I think you could get the same result by cutting First Grade Squads.
Currently First Grade Squads consist of about 25 players. Cut this down to 22 and you free up 48 players. Clubs pay less $$$ more players for more teams. If a Club cops injuries they go to their Toyota Cup sides and blood youngsters