NRL club merger's

[juro]

Why wouldn't it work? Because everyone is a bloody nimby! They don't care as long as you don't start mentioning their club!

 

[sputneek]

Instead of merging clubs they should decrease stadium sizes, so that every club reaches capacity.

 

[docbrown]

No I meant wouldn't it work if Penrith and Parramatta were one and Souths/Eastern Suburbs were one..why not.

I'd only suggest that merging traditional rivals will only lead to heartbreak, which was probably at the core of the Northern Eagles fiasco.

 

[jonno_knights]

Im a little confused as how you can play 10 games in NZ, then 10 in Sydney and only 3 be away games? 17 home games in a 25 round comp?

 

[Yosemite Sam]

No I meant wouldn't it work if Penrith and Parramatta were one and Souths/Eastern Suburbs were one..why not.

You can't merge teams that have such a fierce rivalry with eachother. You do realise the supporters of these clubs have hated eachother for 100 years, do you really expect them to cheer side by side for the same team?

Never gonna happen.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I agree with TT, doc.

I'm a fan of yours but the Roosters are here to stay for a long time. They're important.

Their crowds struggle and have a small junior base.....thats it. Financially they're great. They have no problems attracting sponsors. No problems attracting star players. Have a magnificent stadium.

Juniors can easily be fixed, but they really are improving over the last few years.

Crowds will be addressed for all clubs over the next few years.

I want to see a Wellington team in the comp too, but not by compromising any of the current teams.

 

[docbrown]

Im a little confused as how you can play 10 games in NZ, then 10 in Sydney and only 3 be away games? 17 home games in a 25 round comp?

Fair enough. I'll explain.

The comp would be played from the first week of March till September - a 28 week period period. The finals would still run over 4 weeks and end on the first week of October on the NSW holiday as current.

So over that 28 week period teams would get 3 byes and play 25 matches. 12 home games and 13 away games.

In a 20 team league by extending the comp by 1 week you create 10 new games. 5 could be played at SFS. 5 at Cronulla.

Using the Roosters just an example they'd play -
10 games in Wellington (2 left over)
5 new games at SFS plus take their other 2 home games to SFS = 7 games at SFS total

Then they could work out an arrangement for away ticket membership packages for ANZAC Day and Heritage Round etc at the SFS so they can sell a 10 game SFS membership package.

So in effect they'd play
10 home games in Wellington
7 games at SFS - which if they're based in NZ, for the team is a travelling away game
3 away games at SFS
8 away games elsewhere

Cronulla could have -
7 home games at Cronulla - which if they're based in NZ, for the team is a travelling away game
10 games at Christchurch
1 away game at Kogarah
7 away games elsewhere

All other sides would have -
12 home games (except obviously for games they relocate elsewhere as current)
13 away games

250 games per home and away season (i.e. 25 x 10 but played over 28 weeks)

 

[wibble]

Why?

What is wrong with the teams as they are? I think the NRL is right now as good a rugby league competition as has ever existed.

Sure, some are "struggling" financially, but have done for decades.

The NRL needs to pay the clubs the amount of the salary cap and clubs can run on modest budgets. Then the competition doesn't lose fans, and can expand and make more fans.

The sydney rivalries keep many people interested- I'm not a Bears fan, but the competition was lessened with their demise. I would rather they were back, and the merged teams were unmerged. I would watch all those teams play (Bears, Steelers, Magpies, Dragons and Tigers) and would love it.

Most ESL team crowds are much smaller than any Sydney club's (weather doesn't help...), but they run a successful competition. Most the revenue comes from television, not gate receipts anyway (300 000 will watch a game on TV when only 8000 turn up to it), and a compact area is cheaper for many of the blockbuster home/away games that occur between Sydney teams.

I'm not against out of Sydney teams: they are great for the NRL: but the Raiders, Warriors, Storm, Titans and Knights hardly demolish Sydney teams with crowds or ratings. Why talk about cutting when growth is the way forward?

If a Sydney NRL team becomes a massive financial liability that can not be bailed out by the NRL with justification from its ratings and lost juniors and fan base, then that team might need to merge or die. But I don't see that as even close right now.

And if the Tigers and Dragons weren't unfairly in fear for their lives due to the post Super League era, then they wouldn't have had to merge either. It is somewhat crazy that the St George Dragons, even with a shrinking demographic in their area, "had to" merge when they are one of the biggest sporting brands in Australia. I think the NRL owes its existence to teams like the Magpies and Dragons (and now all the other teams contribute too, Sydney and otherwise) and should allow the merged teams to unmerge, and support them.

No more mergers unless absolutely necessary.

 

[docbrown]

I agree with TT, doc.

I'm a fan of yours but the Roosters are here to stay for a long time. They're important.

Their crowds struggle and have a small junior base.....thats it. Financially they're great. They have no problems attracting sponsors. No problems attracting star players. Have a magnificent stadium.

Juniors can easily be fixed, but they really are improving over the last few years.

Crowds will be addressed for all clubs over the next few years.

I want to see a Wellington team in the comp too, but not by compromising any of the current teams.

I actually agree with all of that. I just see some parallels with the Roosters and Glebe/Annandale in terms of shifting local demographics.

The main thing though was to provide a juniors nursery and second support base.

Hypothetically - if you could get it to work - there are enough New Zealanders in Sydney to patronise the SFS games as well.

Anyhow that was my theory behind it.

 

[docbrown]

And if the Tigers and Dragons weren't unfairly in fear for their lives due to the post Super League era, then they wouldn't have had to merge either. It is somewhat crazy that the St George Dragons, even with a shrinking demographic in their area, "had to" merge when they are one of the biggest sporting brands in Australia. I think the NRL owes its existence to teams like the Magpies and Dragons (and now all the other teams contribute too, Sydney and otherwise) and should allow the merged teams to unmerge, and support them.

No more mergers unless absolutely necessary.

Even if the Super League War hadn't happened it was the NSWRL/ARL's policy to let Sydney clubs fold, merge or relocate, so it would have happened naturally over time anyhow. They were always planning on having teams in places like Queensland, WA and New Zealand and to do that there was going to have to be some kind of reorganisation of Sydney.

 

[alien]

f**k mergers

 

[adamkungl]

I'm not going to flame the idea...it got the reaction it deserved already... but I have to ask AGAIN, why?

The Roosters don't need or want any of what you're suggesting.

 

[jonno_knights]

Fair enough. I'll explain.

The comp would be played from the first week of March till September - a 28 week period period. The finals would still run over 4 weeks and end on the first week of October on the NSW holiday as current.

So over that 28 week period teams would get 3 byes and play 25 matches. 12 home games and 13 away games.

In a 20 team league by extending the comp by 1 week you create 10 new games. 5 could be played at SFS. 5 at Cronulla.

Using the Roosters just an example they'd play -
10 games in Wellington (2 left over)
5 new games at SFS plus take their other 2 home games to SFS = 7 games at SFS total

Then they could work out an arrangement for away ticket membership packages for ANZAC Day and Heritage Round etc at the SFS so they can sell a 10 game SFS membership package.

So in effect they'd play
10 home games in Wellington
7 games at SFS - which if they're based in NZ, for the team is a travelling away game
3 away games at SFS
8 away games elsewhere

Cronulla could have -
7 home games at Cronulla - which if they're based in NZ, for the team is a travelling away game
10 games at Christchurch
1 away game at Kogarah
7 away games elsewhere

All other sides would have -
12 home games (except obviously for games they relocate elsewhere as current)
13 away games

250 games per home and away season (i.e. 25 x 10 but played over 28 weeks)

I understand now, but isnt the draw made to try and make it as even as possible playing field for all teams? under this system, even though they have to travel for 7 of the games, the roosters and sharks would get the home ground support in a lot more matches then any other side.

Sure you need incentives to try and entice teams to relocate, but this gives a massive advantage to those teams, and its not one that you could turn off after 5 years, cause that would just delay the pain for their original fans.

 

[_snafu_]

I was going to suggest that Souffs be f**ked off. But that would mean no more lol@5(c)uff$.

As a compromise Souffs should be allowed to participate in the NSW Cup.

 

[unforgiven]

Doc I dont have a massive problem with you idea, but please dont sell it like the current supporters of these clubs would not be losing anything. I am a Wests Tigers fan and I know what the process of my side merging felt like. I could only imgine how I would feel if my side had of moved to a different country. Yes they would still play many games in Sydney, but would they really be my team anymore or would they be another countries team that I get to borrow to every second weekend.

This plan has larger implications than just taking away 2 games from them, you are taking their team and moving them to another country, of course that will upset people.

 

[docbrown]

I'm not going to flame the idea...it got the reaction it deserved already... but I have to ask AGAIN, why?

The Roosters don't need or want any of what you're suggesting.

Well you know I was talking about this well before Sunday's attendance so I won't use that as an example.

I would suggest though that it's a more matter of people just wanting to maintain the status quo.

I'll throw out lesser known stat though.

Do you know which club had the most number of sub 10,000 games in 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011?

 

[Loudstrat]

Teddyboy, you are a f*cking genius. May as well merge the whole comp into one super club that would go through the season undefeated.

.........Tigers, Rabbitohs & Dragons have played games at Moore Park. Set up a 3 match away game membership arrangement and that's 10 games a season the Roosters still get out of their traditional Eastern Sydney base. As all the players etc would be based in New Zealand it would only feel like a "home game" to the fans as everyone else is travelling........

Let me get this straight. You reocate Easts to Wellington because their crowds at Moore park are sh*t. Yet you want 3 clubs to give up a home game at ANZ/Kogarah/WIN/Leichhardt/Campbelltown to play at a venue that attracted crowds so bad that the home club had to relocate?

Why give the Chooks 3 extra home games, and their three biggest and longest rivals one extra home game to accommodate them?

Even if the Super League War hadn't happened it was the NSWRL/ARL's policy to let Sydney clubs fold, merge or relocate, so it would have happened naturally over time anyhow. They were always planning on having teams in places like Queensland, WA and New Zealand and to do that there was going to have to be some kind of reorganisation of Sydney.

I doubt if any Sydney club would have folded apart from Wests Magpies. Anyway - moot point. The only time anyone even thought about mergers were when they were faced with expulsion under the criteria years.

 

[docbrown]

I understand now, but isnt the draw made to try and make it as even as possible playing field for all teams? under this system, even though they have to travel for 7 of the games, the roosters and sharks would get the home ground support in a lot more matches then any other side.

Sure you need incentives to try and entice teams to relocate, but this gives a massive advantage to those teams, and its not one that you could turn off after 5 years, cause that would just delay the pain for their original fans.

This true and when I first posted the idea a few weeks ago I made mention of it. The other clubs would have to be will to play that extra round. That said those clubs are only playing 10 games in New Zealand so if you did consider it an advantage then it's only 5 extra games that they're getting it at.

But I suppose look at it this way. When a Sydney club plays each year it might get 12 home games and then another 5 or 6 games elsewhere in Sydney where they have decent away support - think Dragons vs Bulldogs last Saturday. Compare this to a club like the Cowboys that doesn't have that away support base in Sydney. Naturally you could argue that all Sydney teams already have an instinctive advantage against all non-Sydney teams (less travel, more away support).

If you wanted to make it fairer, say have the Sharks play those other 7 away games outside of Sydney (i.e. Qld, ACT, Newcastle, Vic, WA) - so they only get 7 Sydney games a year, they'd then be on par with the rest of the non-Sydney clubs.

 

[docbrown]

Doc I dont have a massive problem with you idea, but please dont sell it like the current supporters of these clubs would not be losing anything. I am a Wests Tigers fan and I know what the process of my side merging felt like. I could only imgine how I would feel if my side had of moved to a different country. Yes they would still play many games in Sydney, but would they really be my team anymore or would they be another countries team that I get to borrow to every second weekend.

This plan has larger implications than just taking away 2 games from them, you are taking their team and moving them to another country, of course that will upset people.

Sorry, I do get what you mean. I am though trying to see past the emotion and just look at it logically. In the end, as you said, you are a Wests Tigers supporter after all that.

People talking about relocating the Sharks to Perth, Queensland or Gosford are assuming that Sharks fans will still want to travel to place like Brookvale etc. At least under this scenario they'd get 7 games in Cronulla still - that's the point of it - as a better alternative to merger or full relocation.

Let me get this straight. You reocate Easts to Wellington because their crowds at Moore park are sh*t. Yet you want 3 clubs to give up a home game at ANZ/Kogarah/WIN/Leichhardt/Campbelltown to play at a venue that attracted crowds so bad that the home club had to relocate?

Why give the Chooks 3 extra home games, and their three biggest and longest rivals one extra home game to accommodate them?

They already do this on ANZAC Day and usually for Heritage Round.

I doubt if any Sydney club would have folded apart from Wests Magpies. Anyway - moot point. The only time anyone even thought about mergers were when they were faced with expulsion under the criteria years.

I'm just repeating John Quayle. People agonise over the folding and mergers caused by Super League but people would have likely had to go through that even if it had never happened.

 

[Eels Dude]

If you're going to make a statement like that I'd at least appreciate some sort of evidence or precedent as an example. There's nothing wrong with a civil conversation.

Would have thought it'd be pretty obvious really but I'll answer anyway. I can't speak for Roosters supporters but when I was a kid I became an Eels supporter because of the stuff the club did in the local area, like when the players came to my school etc. Stuff like that builds and maintains a supporter base. You take that away by basing a side in another area, especially in a different country. And I know you said in a response to somebody else the club can still do that when they play 'away' games, but please, think about that practically and logically. That's just one point, I could point out many other problems with this but I think most of those points have been covered by other people. It's an out there idea, so I'll give you credit for that, but you've not thought it through at all.