NRL expansion being dropped from agenda until at least 2015

[ParraEelsNRL]

NSW conference and non NSW would be awesome.

:lol::lol::lol:

Sounds real fair.

 

[lockyno1]

Which would be a logical argument except the pie is now massive, it is not being split 16 ways and the extra money for expansion will not be going to the existing clubs. Lets say the grant ends up being $6mill and it costs another $1mill for 2 new teams additional competition running costs. That $13mill a year is not going to be split 16 ways for the next 5 years, it is just as likely to be eaten up in marketing, admin, grass roots or some other budget line item. The NRL grant for 16 clubs won't be $6.7mill due to no expansion as opposed to $6mill if there was expansion.

We should be deciding what is best for the growth of the game, not relying on TV execs to be makign that decision. The game has enough money to expand now if it really wanted to, the fact it doesn't is a sad state of our mentality that has kept the prof game limited to its heartlands for over 100 years.

So bottom line waaa waaa Perth isn't in. If you cannot see the positives with consolidation then you are more blind than I thought. I am not against expansion. I am against expansion for the sake of it. We need our primary markets in tact before expansion. That is what the AFL did, ensured Victoria was in tact before they expanded. It is the most acceptable and efficient model. Do we want to go down the A League route and lose 2-3 franchises through poor expansion.

As I said, get the best 6 bids, eliminate 4, and 2 come in at the same time in 2016 or 2018. That is a fair way off but it a realistic timeframe. No more than 2 bids.

 

[lockyno1]

Two 10 team conferences will be the eventual outcome imo, if some of the existing teams can stay alive long enough that is. There is compelling cases for at least 3 of the bids and arguably 4. That's before you look at Wellington, PNG, Adelaide etc in decades to come.

I would hate conferences, lets not Americanise the game too much, we have already done way too much Americanisation. No need for conferences just to please the expansionsits like you. The current model is fine, 18 teams in the future, and that is where it ends. PNG, Wellington, and Adelaide are rubbish bids.

 

[BunniesMan]

:lol::lol::lol:

Sounds real fair.

If non NSW f**kwits whinge I'd even be willing to give them extra in the NRL grant to cover their extra travelling bill. It would be worth it to see more rivalry games.

 

[CQ Italia]

Ipswich Jets are with Titans. Strangely I think their junior system has a link with the Roosters?

Souths Logan Magpies dont have a feeder club, but Canberra have strong links to junior clubs and schools there. Noticed Marsden SHS (Logan) have Canberra Raiders logos on their shirts when the CQ tour was there.

So in SE QLD: Easts Tigers with Storm, Souths Logan would still be Raiders (junior system links with Raiders still). the split in Ipswich, Keebra Park (GC) still have a link with Tigers, etc.

 

[newman]

From SMH.CEO hunt on backburner as ARLC tackles tasks

"We have framed this year as a year of getting smarter" ... ARL Commission chairman John Grant. Photo: Tamara Dean
BRAD WALTER

ARL Commission chairman John Grant has indicated that the appointment of a new chief executive may not be far away but, five months after David Gallop's resignation, it is no longer the most pressing issue in the game.

As Grant and interim chief executive Shane Mattiske revealed a strategic plan for the next five years and a new logo at League Central yesterday, it was evident how many other issues in the game remain unresolved.

What is happening with the radio rights, Mattiske was asked.

What about negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement with the players?

How much will the salary cap be over the next five seasons?

Or the annual grant to NRL clubs?


Who will be the naming rights sponsor for the NRL premiership?

And then there is the internet rights, mobile rights and New Zealand television rights.

Throw into the mix the outcomes of reviews into the shoulder charge, second-tier competitions and refereeing, which also does not have anyone in charge after the sacking of Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper last Friday.

Fortunately, the answer to most questions was that an announcement was ''close'', with Grant and Mattiske even giving a commitment that clubs would know the size of their funding grant for next season before November 1.

The salary cap has already been set at $5 million for next season but that has to be agreed to by the players and a meeting today will give an indication of what else they will want from the new $1.025 billion television deal.

However, it is expected the Rugby League Players' Association and the ARLC will do a deal for next season only and negotiate a four-year collective bargaining agreement in 2013.

The problem with that is players coming off contract at the end of next season are free to negotiate with rival clubs from Thursday but they are unable to decide their future without knowing what the salary cap will be between 2014 and 2017.

Additional income from radio rights, online and mobile rights, naming rights and New Zealand television rights may even have a bearing on the size of the salary cap and grant to clubs in future years.

With the new broadcast deal having been finalised on August 21, some within the game argue the ARLC has roughly known for more than two months the amount of money flowing into the game and should have been able to set the grant and cap for five years.

However, Grant made no apologies for the pace at which decisions had been made after the eight commissioners on the ARLC took over the running of the game on February 10.

''We have framed this year as a year of getting smarter,'' Grant said. ''When we came into this, there was not a lot of information with which to make decisions, so this was the year to get all of our information into place.''

After missing out on AFL deputy Gillon McLachlan, who rejected an offer from the ARLC in early September, Grant said no decision on the chief executive would be made unless the right candidate was found.

Among the announcements made yesterday was confirmation expansion was off the agenda until after the 2014 season, when a full review would be conducted, leading to suggestions the AFL had been given the green light to swoop into potentially lucrative regions.

''If you tell the enemy that we're not going to invest in here in a strategic sense for the next four or five years, I think you're saying the AFL can come in and be more aggressive,'' Central Queensland chief executive Denis Keeffe said.

Set of six: the big issues
1. Players

One of the objectives stated is for the game to ''attract and retain the best athletes'' and ARL Commission chairman John Grant declared that Sonny Bill Williams fits into that category. But despite Williams's drawing power being such that Sydney Roosters have been drafted to host South Sydney in the opening game of the season, Grant would not guarantee that the returning superstar's contract will be registered. ''Sonny Bill Williams is a great footballer so we would like to see him in our code but we have a process that that has to happen by and that is a process that applies to everyone, and we are waiting for the Roosters to come and talk to us if that is going to happen,'' he said.

2. Expansion

Bid teams are encouraged to enter teams or develop relationships with existing clubs in lower tiers before a full review in two years into whether additional sides should be admitted to the premiership, and if so when and where. The Central Queensland bid has already announced a merger with the CQ Capras, who play in the Queensland Cup, and the WA Pirates have entered an under-18s team in next year's SG Ball competition. ''We would like to work with them to find a way that they can stay connected to the game whether that is through a state league team or through a junior team or a junior club,'' Grant said.

3. Clubs

The days of every club getting the same annual grant to spend however they see fit are over, with Grant and interim ARLC CEO Shane Mattiske outlining plans for a ''performance-based funding model''. Criteria will be set - requiring Cronulla, for example, to employ a chief executive, and clubs will be able to apply for additional grants from a $200 million growth fund for investment in projects that drive growth. ''We will establish a clear set of goals for the clubs to achieve that will see distributions in 2014 and beyond becoming less fixed and more variable as determined by need and performance,'' Grant said.

4. Development

More than 400 development officers previously employed by ARL Development, the NSWRL, QRL, CRL and NRL clubs will come under the control of a single body on November 1. NRL will become the brand and there are variations of the new logo for the NRL premiership, Toyota Cup, NSWRL, QRL, other state bodies, the CRL and the Warriors, who will have a black and white version on their jersey. ''To see development officers with one logo and then see us running around in first grade with the same logo unites us all,'' NSW skipper Paul Gallen said.

 

[newman]

I get the feeling that the commission have walked into an administrative and organisational mess. No money, no documents, no plan. All this smells very much like them getting the house in order before they start renovating and if this is the case, holding off expansion for a measly 2 years and encouraging bids in the mean time to get involved in lower tier comps is sensible and intelligent business. Can't you see that Perth Red? The current lot of clubs have sailed very close to the wind financially for a long time. Why can't they enjoy some of the fruits of their labours? Why can't they enjoy living in a clean house?

 

[t-ba]

One of the things that irks me about Grants announcement was the suggestion that the ARLC don't know enough about the impact on expansion so will commission a report at the end of 2014. Fair enough if they feel they need more time to review the pros and cons (like doh!) but why wait two years to look at it. Why not start looking now, compete the review end of 2013, invite bids or choose areas/bids in 2014 and have them admitted in 2016. I see no logical sense in waiting two years before even starting the process (again). I don't see funds that expansion will require making any difference to the existing 16 teams and lets be honest they have had decades to sort themselves out, does anyone think they will be in a much different state in two years time?

I'd say they'd want as much information as possible to make the best decision they can. It's obvious the old regime simply collected bids and chucked them in a filing cabinet somewhere and as a result the commission probably lacks any kind of information about potential expansion. Two years may be a long way away, but the Commission will hopefully use this time to fully weigh up the impact of expansion on the game and make the best, most informed decision that they can when 2014 rolls around.

Established bids like WA and the Bears aren't going anywhere in that time either, so it may even have the added benefit of ensuring that the pisstakers lose interest and we've only got serious bid teams left. The Commission has clearly inherited an organisation with a chook raffle mentality hiding behind powerpoint presentations and an ex-lawyer in a suit and at least they are trying to be informed about what they do. It sucks (For me, Manly isn't the same without the losers and I want them back asap), but it's pragmatic. You only have to look at things that have been rushed into like the Australian 'Rugby' Championship and the A-league's expansion to realise this.

 

[BunniesMan]

PR, don't get excited. Grant has made it clear that an expansion announcement is far from guaranteed even in 2014. All they've said here is "in 2014 we'll see if we want expansion". They could very easily wake up in 2014 and be like "na, not now, lets put this in the "later" basket...again".

 

[LJC]

I would hate conferences, lets not Americanise the game too much, we have already done way too much Americanisation. No need for conferences just to please the expansionsits like you. The current model is fine, 18 teams in the future, and that is where it ends. PNG, Wellington, and Adelaide are rubbish bids.

Agree with you on the PNG bid. And Adelaide needs further work!
Their is merit in Wellington Orcas, Sunshine Coast/Brisbane Dolphins, WA Pirates & Central Coast Bears.

Your sticking to 18 clubs is very limiting!

I can assure you the AFL are looking to 20 clubs very soon and they have no issues with clubs not being able to play eachother twice.

A well worked draw amongst the clubs would ensure the major games like derbies get two matches each season. Fans will not mind that. They can look to next season to see the less preffered club if thats the way the draw will be done.

As long as their clubs have their place in the sun that is what really matters and the same would go for any supporter of a football club.

 

[GAZF]

I can assure you the AFL are looking to 20 clubs very soon and they have no issues with clubs not being able to play eachother twice.

And watch as their rapidly diminishing talent pool causes more blowouts and disinterested fans. Happened to RL in the mid 90's. Agree that expansion should at least be addressed now but I do support their cautious approach in bringing extra teams in, especially so with less disposable income compared to the past.

 

[lockyno1]

Agree with you on the PNG bid. And Adelaide needs further work!
Their is merit in Wellington Orcas, Sunshine Coast/Brisbane Dolphins, WA Pirates & Central Coast Bears.

Your sticking to 18 clubs is very limiting!

I can assure you the AFL are looking to 20 clubs very soon and they have no issues with clubs not being able to play eachother twice.

A well worked draw amongst the clubs would ensure the major games like derbies get two matches each season. Fans will not mind that. They can look to next season to see the less preffered club if thats the way the draw will be done.

As long as their clubs have their place in the sun that is what really matters and the same would go for any supporter of a football club.

Lets just say the AFL are fine with their expansion, in fact they won't be expanding soon, they already have said NO to Tasmania and a team in Darwin. 18 is the number and that is the one we should aim for. Conferences are stupid, we are not as big as America, we don't need 20 teams! Pick the two best bids, and be done with it.

 

[adamkungl]

You're a visionless spastic locky.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

You're a visionless spastic locky.

:thumn

 

[flippikat]

Lets just say the AFL are fine with their expansion, in fact they won't be expanding soon, they already have said NO to Tasmania and a team in Darwin. 18 is the number and that is the one we should aim for. Conferences are stupid, we are not as big as America, we don't need 20 teams! Pick the two best bids, and be done with it.

Mind you, there's always the chance of a 3rd WA team in the AFL. I've heard that talked about as one of the next expansion candidates, and it's got a compelling argument - particularly up against NT (and to a lesser degree Tasmania).

You could argue that we don't have the depth for 18 or 20 competitive teams, and you may have a point - we certainly didn't have the depth the last time the competition was that big.

HOWEVER, I think the NRL Commission is doing it's best to get 16 competitive teams set-up in the competition before expanding.. and having an increased salary cap will help with the expansion of the competition because it will help the clubs ability to retain talent.

As for the imbalance of the competition (possibly having too many Sydney teams), I think the Commission is trying to give the teams a saturated market the best possible chance to thrive - some hand-outs, but also some robust standards & goals to be met. The interesting decision point will come in a few years time if any clubs fail to meet the targets.

 

[Perth Red]

So bottom line waaa waaa Perth isn't in. If you cannot see the positives with consolidation then you are more blind than I thought. I am not against expansion. I am against expansion for the sake of it. We need our primary markets in tact before expansion. That is what the AFL did, ensured Victoria was in tact before they expanded. It is the most acceptable and efficient model. Do we want to go down the A League route and lose 2-3 franchises through poor expansion.

As I said, get the best 6 bids, eliminate 4, and 2 come in at the same time in 2016 or 2018. That is a fair way off but it a realistic timeframe. No more than 2 bids.

no bottom line is we get to sit around frustrated for another two years not knowing if or when.
AFL did no such thing, they still have a number of heartland clubs that lose money every year and would not be sustainable without centralised funding. What they did was make hay while the sun shined and grew their game into areas they felt the need to do so. You really think the under capitalised teams in over represented areas are going to magically become sustainable in 2-3 years because the NRL throws an extra $700k a year at them? the increase in salary cap will take all of that. If we wait for clubs to be sustainable until we expand then my grandkids will be old and grey before we see a Perth team!

 

[Expansion]

AFL expansion is not growing the game into any of their latest two "expansion" areas. Junior numbers have gone backwards in ydney since the introduction of GWS.

 

[Perth Red]

I've seen how much media covg AFL gets in Sydney, you think that has no relation to the investment they have spent there? You think their sponsorships deals and corporate support is not bigger than ours because they have a truly national (capital city) footprint? You think their billion$ deal wasn't in part due to their expansion? You think they aren'tncreasingly hanging off the "Australia's game" brand by having a national audience with teams playing in every major city?

I have no problems with the ARLC taking its time to get the information it needs to make decisions, I do have a problem with them saying they are going to take 2 years before they even start that task. They could easily do it now, announce in 6 months which 2 geographical locations they will strategically target for expansion when the time is right and put everyone else out of their misery. Instead they are stringing us along, you think there won't be ramifications in Gosford or Perth if they anounce those places as being snubbed? Good luck selling tickets to planned games in those areas if they did, good luck in growing jnr participation or getting the game on TV. The cynic might suggest they are dragging it out so as not to lose customers for planned activities over the next few years.

I am 100% certain the ARLC know where they would ideally have the next two teams, they just need to get the process done and let everyone else know.

 

[Expansion]

I've seen how much media covg AFL gets in Sydney, you think that has no relation to the investment they have spent there? You think their sponsorships deals and corporate support is not bigger than ours because they have a truly national (capital city) footprint? You think their billion$ deal wasn't in part due to their expansion? You think they aren'tncreasingly hanging off the "Australia's game" brand by having a national audience with teams playing in every major city?

Spoken as a true AFL fan only looking at the positives. That is all I will say about this topic.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Haha, like your new sig PR