Manly, Sharks and Titans facing axe from NRL.

[Rich102]

Three clubs are at risk of being axed from the NRL as the Nine Network pushes for a new Brisbane rugby league team.

The Sunday Mail reports the Cronulla Sharks, Manly Sea Eagles and Gold Coast Titans are the teams at risk of being dropped from the competition and a final call could be made as early as December this year.

The Nine Network's director of sport Tom Malone reportedly wants to axe one existing club to make way for a new club in the Queensland capital by 2023.

"That could come from another team being relocated there, or better still another club being discontinued and a new club established in Brisbane," Malone told the Sunday Mail.

"In a perfect world you'd probably have one or two less teams.

"What clubs should go? I'm not going to get into that one. It's a hard decision but probably one that needs to be made in the longer term interests of the game."

Malone said replacing an existing team was a preferable option to expanding the competition, as having 17 teams and a bye each round would increase costs without generating any "incremental revenue".

NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg reportedly met with Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk on Friday to discuss a new Brisbane team, while Foxtel chief executive Patrick Delany supported a second team in Brisbane.

However, Delany did not believe in axing an existing club.

"They love their rugby league in Brisbane and it seems a natural fit," he told the Sunday Mail. "You get that intercity rivalry which enhances tribalism and that's ultimately what we want.


"It's all about generating more fans and bigger TV audiences. I don't know if you'd get that real tribal traction with rugby league in Perth that you'd get in Brisbane."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/league/news/article.cfm?c_id=79&objectid=12263826

 

[Rich102]

This stinks. Greenberg should be ashamed.

 

[Campion]

What's the logic in cutting the Titans (given they are virtually in Brisbane -- isn't it like a 30min drive away?)? The Sharks irk me purely from an OCD perspective, because it 'disrupts' the St George Illawara 'territory' on a map. If having a bye is a problem, then 2 new teams? Perth & Brisbane2. Anyway, I guess if I had to choose, it would be 'goodbye Sharks', ideally from a relocation: "Brisbane Sharks"

 

[Beavers Headgear]

A disgrace that it comes from a TV bloke and gets leverage with the bald headed wanker running the game at the moment

I hate this “too many teams in Sydney” rubbish that is always thrown around, when the comp was established as the NSWRL and was that successful that ultimately teams from outside NSW wanted to join it

Common sense would suggest they wouldn’t be that stupid to alienate more diehards from the game with a decision like this, especially after the Souths debacle, then you look at Greenberg’s record for improving the game and shudder

 

[Penrose Warrior]

It truly stinks that TV suits have any power of sway over the structure of our comp.

It should be here's our teams, it's been this way for hundreds of years, you form a viable business model around that. Not 'this is our viable business model that we can make billions off, you structure your game around us and F your history'.

If a certain network doesn't want our game with our teams, our history, our way of doing them, find someone else who does. Stop bending over to people who have no knowledge or care. I know that's horribly idealistic but honestly it would be nice to find a CEO with the game's best interest at heart. Neither the Sharks or Manly deserve to lose a team, just because Brisbane.

 

[Blair]

I remember being at a GC Chargers v Manly game at Robina in '98 (corporate box, thank you very much) and they were adamant that Brisbane is not their team, nor would any other team in Brisbane be.

There's about half a million people on the GC. It's natural for them to have their own team. Brisbane can have two, that's natural too.

Long may they say 'everyone hates Manly' but that only goes so far. I think the vast majority of fans would be horrified to see them go.

 

[jaseg]

f**k sake, just add 2 teams and play 9 team conferences based on loose geography. Play each team in your conference twice each year (home and away), play each team in the other conference once a year (alternating each year between home and away). Finals can just be top 8, I don't care about making the finals system any more complicated like Super Rugby has done.

It adds a game to the regular season, but it standardizes the draw in a way we currently don't have, allows for a better geographical reach/saturation to satisfy TV, and gives an extra game per week for TV/revenue purposes.

It's not hard. And it's not like there aren't a bunch of guys between the two reserve grade comps that could step up, as well as guys being kept here with 2 extra team options instead of going o/s, or the option of poaching more guys from the Super League. Talent wouldn't be spread out too much. As it is, it's probably a little too concentrated right now, if possible.

Stop all the cutting clubs crap. The only way a club should get cut at this point is if it goes under, financially (looking at you, Sharks), and it's not worth it TV revenue-wise for the game to step in and subsidize.

edit (only adds 1 game, not 2, to the regular season - probably a good thing then, rather than a potential negative)
also rereading that rant.. holy comma batman

 

[Philip_Smith007]

f**k sake, just add 2 teams and play 9 team conferences based on loose geography. Play each team in your conference twice each year (home and away), play each team in the other conference once a year (alternating each year between home and away). Finals can just be top 8, I don't care about making the finals system any more complicated like Super Rugby has done.

It adds a game to the regular season, but it standardizes the draw in a way we currently don't have, allows for a better geographical reach/saturation to satisfy TV, and gives an extra game per week for TV/revenue purposes.

It's not hard. And it's not like there aren't a bunch of guys between the two reserve grade comps that could step up, as well as guys being kept here with 2 extra team options instead of going o/s, or the option of poaching more guys from the Super League. Talent wouldn't be spread out too much. As it is, it's probably a little too concentrated right now, if possible.

Stop all the cutting clubs crap. The only way a club should get cut at this point is if it goes under, financially (looking at you, Sharks), and it's not worth it TV revenue-wise for the game to step in and subsidize.

edit (only adds 1 game, not 2, to the regular season - probably a good thing then, rather than a potential negative)
also rereading that rant.. holy comma batman

Top 4 from each conference squaring off, or total point or Top 2 superbowl style.

Bit off topic but, I am starting to like the idea of a draft as well, mainly because the salary cap is bias towards successful clubs eg player will take less to play at Storm and Roosters vs Titans and Warriors.
Seems a fairer way to spread the talent.
Works in a lot of other sports.
Creates a post season spectacular, rather than mid season disruption.
Would it mean less player management influence???

 

[Mr Angry]

We own our ground

Shark Park > Renters.

We have to rent for two years.

Will be back.

huff and puff away.

 

[LeagueNut]

Nah f**k it, let's do this properly.

Goodbye to Manly, Cronulla & Gold Coast - they can all go.
Also goodbye to Canterbury (aren't they in the middle of the two Wests Tigers territories?), Penrith (too close to Parramatta), Canberra (move them to ESL), Souths (because they're used to it) and Melbourne (because f**k Melbourne).

Then we'll make the Top 8 every year!

 

[flippikat]

f**k sake, just add 2 teams and play 9 team conferences based on loose geography. Play each team in your conference twice each year (home and away), play each team in the other conference once a year (alternating each year between home and away). Finals can just be top 8, I don't care about making the finals system any more complicated like Super Rugby has done.

It adds a game to the regular season, but it standardizes the draw in a way we currently don't have, allows for a better geographical reach/saturation to satisfy TV, and gives an extra game per week for TV/revenue purposes.

It's not hard. And it's not like there aren't a bunch of guys between the two reserve grade comps that could step up, as well as guys being kept here with 2 extra team options instead of going o/s, or the option of poaching more guys from the Super League. Talent wouldn't be spread out too much. As it is, it's probably a little too concentrated right now, if possible.

Stop all the cutting clubs crap. The only way a club should get cut at this point is if it goes under, financially (looking at you, Sharks), and it's not worth it TV revenue-wise for the game to step in and subsidize.

edit (only adds 1 game, not 2, to the regular season - probably a good thing then, rather than a potential negative)
also rereading that rant.. holy comma batman

I think you're on the right track.

I'm thinking the NRL should add 4 teams.. 20 club competition, 19 rounds with a month's break for origin/Pacific tests in June. Hell, with a shorter season we could even add a pre-season knockout cup.

This may put pressure on Sydney suburban clubs. Not necessarily a bad thing, because the smartest will find ways to improve their KPIs.

If a Sydney club goes broke, then the NRL can step in with options re: relocation, merging or demotion to NSW cup (and potentially replacing them with a new non-Sydney club).

The key point of my idea is that the market (and the clubs own decisions) determine the winners and losers, not some arbitrary NRL criteria. We've been there, it just doesn't work because everyone debates the weighting of the criteria.

Basically, repeat the 1990s plan as the ARL was hoping it would pan-out (expansion, then natural attrition to sort out any oversaturation problems).. this time with no chance of a breakaway league to interfere with the plan.

I'd add the following 4 teams.
Perth
Brisbane 2 (call for bids, choose the best business case)
Adelaide
NZ2 (same as Brisbane 2. Call for bids, choose the best case)

Keep the Central Coast vacant as a relocation option if any Sydney club hits the wall.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Basically, repeat the 1990s plan as the ARL was hoping it would pan-out (expansion, then natural attrition to sort out any oversaturation problems).. this time with no chance of a breakaway league to interfere with the plan.
.

It’s amazing how far Arthurson and Quayle were ahead of the game compared to these current jokers running it

Cheers to the Broncos Super League concept for completely screwing that

 

[flippikat]

It’s amazing how far Arthurson and Quayle were ahead of the game compared to these current jokers running it

Cheers to the Broncos Super League concept for completely screwing that

I recall them saying the next step after the 1995 'grand expansion' was Melbourne, and I think they had Balmain informally earmarked for relocation there. It probably would have happened about 2000, or shortly thereafter IMO.

Without Superleague, it's an even money bet whether Melbourne would have been a relocation (Sydney Swans in reverse) or a new team replacing a broke Sydney club (I doubt the appetite was there for 21 clubs).

Goodness knows what would have been next priority after that, as Adelaide, Brisbane 3 and NZ 2 would have had good cases.. (keeping in mind under that scenario, Norths could have had the support to make the Gosford move work, as ARL & Bears resources wouldn't be diverted to the war effort)

What could've been, huh?