NRL Expansion. Ideas and opinions.

[MugaB]

The Rams averaged over 15k crowds in their first season back in 97. Rushed in for Super League, no history of RL, played at an enormous oval unfriendly to spectators and with little support.

The Adelaide I live in now is a different city. Still smaller than the other capitals by comparison but loads of expats like me who’ve moved over.
There’s always gonna be AFL bias here and in the likes of Victoria and WA. Geez, it’s even in Sydney some places you go...

It really is a festival and events city that fill the streets, pubs and parks whenever something is on. I highly doubt they’ll come here next but if they did, as long as they structured it right, and made their games a true event, it wouldn’t be the disaster some others might think.

I'm of the opinion that if we are eventually getting another brisbane team, that Perth, NZ2 and Adelaide aren't too far behind, they all have timeslots that are friendly for the broadcasters, and the enormous upside towards new sponsors, new juniors, new interest, and will finally grow the sport nationally, as its namesake suggests instead of being east coast only sport,
Also 8.5 teams in sydney won't look as bad when there's 11.5 outside of sydney, only issue is how sustainable can these new expansion cities be if we rush them in the next decade, and how attractive will they be for marquee players to sign to, already Gold coast, Canberra and Newcastle, has had past issues attracting players, and also keeping their local talent there, having so many sydney sides doesn't worry me, if they're producing juniors to eventually play 1st grade at Perth, Adelaide and where ever we eventually expand to.
Thats why i don't like the Roosters being in Sydney, when they'd be candidate no.1 for me, to be successful elsewhere that wasn't eating more of the sydney pie, but then again any syd team has its own problems and could be a reason to relocate. V'landy's already has dismissed any movement of clubs, i fear he'll bring back bears, jets and steelers before, any AFL state city gets a look in for expansion.

 

[flippikat]

Sounds good in theory but the risk they run is that the new clubs don't get the traction they thought they'd get and the wasted $52mil (4x $13m grants) each year that they are alive in the comp and not attracting anything new or not making a profit. A move like that could almost certainly kill the entire sport.

I think a measured approach is necessary, but don't belive one team at a time every few years is the way to do it either. Byes are shit. I think it needs to be 2 new teams. Consolidate 1 established market (Brisbane/NZ) whislt introducing a new market (WA, SA). In the first one you know you have fans of the game and are giving them a new product to support (a bit safer), and the other is a brand new market that you can get a large initial raft of supporters (Risk vs Reward). Even if WA/SA started off with 25-30K of support at a stadium and then tapered off to about 10-15K, thats still 15K you didn't previously have and is still on par with most Sydney based attendances.

Plus you're getting an added game of content in each week, a game every week in QLD/NZ and a new market to expose the product to (WA/SA)

Very good points, and I think I was being supremely optimistic thinking about "1995 V2.0"..

Two 2-club phases makes sense as a measured approach, and the "consolidation AND expansion" approach of Brisbane2/Perth, then NZ2/Adelaide is right on target.

That gives us a 20-team comp with a lot of the bases covered.

Sure, there's no Central Coast - but it's ripe for replacing/relocating a Sydney club, and there's no derbies in Melbourne (big population, LONG TERM it could happen) or Perth (2 teams in WA mean a guaranteed late timeslot EVERY WEEK - a long term goal), but we do have teams in Canberra, Nescastle, Townsville & NZ - something AFL don't have, and it's a great start.

 

[MugaB]

Very good points, and I think I was being supremely optimistic thinking about "1995 V2.0"..

Two 2-club phases makes sense as a measured approach, and the "consolidation AND expansion" approach of Brisbane2/Perth, then NZ2/Adelaide is right on target.

That gives us a 20-team comp with a lot of the bases covered.

Sure, there's no Central Coast - but it's ripe for replacing/relocating a Sydney club, and there's no derbies in Melbourne (big population, LONG TERM it could happen) or Perth (2 teams in WA mean a guaranteed late timeslot EVERY WEEK - a long term goal), but we do have teams in Canberra, Nescastle, Townsville & NZ - something AFL don't have, and it's a great start.

AFL don't have a western Sydney team either.... not really western or great. playing in Hombush, might as well call them south sydney Giants

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

AFL don't have a western Sydney team either.... not really western or great. playing in Hombush, might as well call them south sydney Giants

they play in Canberra regularly throughout the season. The heartland of greater western Sydney..

 

[TheRam]

All I have to say to that is that it definitely won't work if we never try, and that people have said the same thing about every expansion team in every sport, and yet more often than not the clubs that definitely wouldn't work end up being great successes so long as sacrifices are made to make them so.

If the NRL is ever going to meet it's full potential then it needs a presence in Adelaide, and the only way it's ever going to get a presence in Adelaide is if it bites the bullet and puts a team there, and then bankrolls it until it's successful.

It's no different than the Storm or the Swans in the AFL, it has to happen and the only way it's going to happen is if the NRL forces it to happen.

Added to this is that it will only work if there is a Parra Style stadium built in the most strategic place. By that I mean in the city precinct somewhere. Somewhere so convenient that the locals that aren't that interested in RL can't help but think to give it a try. Office workers that want to have a night out and a few drinks, tourist looking to partake in the local sport, the young who come into the city looking for fun, etc.

It needs to be in their face. Stick the stadium outside of the city precinct and it will take years if ever to get traction on a regular basis. Location, location, location. The ARLC needs to do their homework and lobby, lobby, lobby the SA Gov, till it finally gets what it wants, before we go down the SA and Perth or any other city new team path.

Stadiums and their location make or break RL team. We need to be very smart about this or the odds will favour failure way more then success.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Sure, there's no Central Coast - but it's ripe for replacing/relocating a Sydney club, and there's no derbies in Melbourne (big population, LONG TERM it could happen) or Perth (2 teams in WA mean a guaranteed late timeslot EVERY WEEK - a long term goal), but we do have teams in Canberra, Nescastle, Townsville & NZ - something AFL don't have, and it's a great start.

Yeah, I think 20 teams is optimal for the code. I know the derby thing is a "nice to have" if we can get it but like you said, a long term goal.

There's absolutely no reason why a Sydney team can't relocate to CC or wherever in the distant future as part of a micro-expansion to open up Sydney/NSW a bit more, but again it's a long way off.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Added to this is that it will only work if there is a Parra Style stadium built in the most strategic place. By that I mean in the city precinct somewhere. Somewhere so convenient that the locals that aren't that interested in RL can't help but think to give it a try. Office workers that want to have a night out and a few drinks, tourist looking to partake in the local sport, the young who come into the city looking for fun, etc.

It needs to be in their face. Stick the stadium outside of the city precinct and it will take years if ever to get traction on a regular basis. Location, location, location. The ARLC needs to do their homework and lobby, lobby, lobby the SA Gov, till it finally gets what it wants, before we go down the SA and Perth or any other city new team path.

Stadiums and their location make or break RL team. We need to be very smart about this or the odds will favour failure way more then success.

Coopers Stadium is the blatant choice if a league team came to Adelaide. Rectangular, Holds 16,500, close to CBD (you could walk it) and public transport. And it’s a stadium that all the stands are close to the playing field which would be vital to attract new fans.

And if you look at the website, it hosts Rugby League!

https://www.coopersstadium.com.au/

 

[TheRam]

Coopers Stadium is the blatant choice if a league team came to Adelaide. Rectangular, Holds 16,500, close to CBD (you could walk it) and public transport. And it’s a stadium that all the stands are close to the playing field which would be vital to attract new fans.

And if you look at the website, it hosts Rugby League!

https://www.coopersstadium.com.au/

I don't know much about Adelaide, but just comparing it to Adelaide Oval's location for example, it seems like a crappy location. I was suggesting we find a great location not one that is outside the city.

It needs to be in your face convenient not just ok convenient.

 

[flippikat]

Yeah, I think 20 teams is optimal for the code. I know the derby thing is a "nice to have" if we can get it but like you said, a long term goal.

There's absolutely no reason why a Sydney team can't relocate to CC or wherever in the distant future as part of a micro-expansion to open up Sydney/NSW a bit more, but again it's a long way off.

Yeah, I think people overlook the key difference between VFL/AFL & NSWRL/ARL expansion in the 1980s-mid 90s.

Aussie Rules focused on the big fish - Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide. By 1995 they had teams in all the big 5 state capitals, and a derby in Perth with Freemantle joining in 1994.

Contrast with the NSWRL/NRL - the Steelers, Knights & Cowboys meant that at every stage of expansion there was a regional centre added - something that the AFL just didn't do.

Makes for an interesting "what if". What if the Newtown Jets were moved to Melbourne instead of being booted out of the top tier after the 1983 season, in a NSWRL version of the Sydney Swans?

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I don't know much about Adelaide, but just comparing it to Adelaide Oval's location for example, it seems like a crappy location. I was suggesting we find a great location not one that is outside the city.

It needs to be in your face convenient not just ok convenient.

A few things..

1 - They will never construct a purpose-built rectangular stadium of in / next to the cbd for a new team. And it wouldn’t make economic sense to build. Better spending far less on upgrading the existing facility if anything.

2 - Coopers Stadium is indeed convenient to get to. This isn’t Sydney with its coronary traffic and lack of parking / rail transport to the doorstep of Moore Park. It’s easy to drive to, and convenient to public transport (mind you most people drive here).

You can be anywhere within 30 minutes of each other... the city, the sea, the hills, there’s even vineyards less than 20 minutes from the CBD at Magill (Penfolds Wines!) It’s ridiculously easy to get around by comparison.

3 - It’s next to North Adelaide with loads of pubs bars and restaurants. So no buzzkill like Homebush or a trudge from the SCG if you want to have drink or meal after/before a game.

All that said, and aside from the basics of business structure, marketing, competitive team etc... I believe the real key to success - and an advantage of Coopers Stadium - is getting new / passive fans as close to the action as possible. They don’t get that with gargantuan AFL grounds. Adelaide oval is just across the river from the CBD and an awesome stadium but won’t get the fans up close, and realistically more than half the seats would be empty...

Get the crowd up close and personal to the play, the hits, the speed etc.. that can win people over.

 

[T-Boon]

Adelaide is an obvious good relocation option for a Sydney team. It seems like a city that needs some collision sport options.

 

[MugaB]

Adelaide is an obvious good relocation option for a Sydney team. It seems like a city that needs some collision sport options.

Adelaide RoosterRams
Same Colors too

 

[tri_colours]

Adelaide RoosterRams

How about, Adelaide Panthers!

 

[T-Boon]

Adelaide RoosterRams

The Ramsters

 

[jim_57]

The more I think about it only going to 17 for now is probably a good thing if Brisbane 2 is the favourite. If we went to 18 with this clown V'landys in charge the 18th team would definitely be Central Coast Bears. With his love of suburbia he'd probably let them relocate fully back to North Sydney Oval within 3 years.

 

[MugaB]

How about, Adelaide Panthers!

It was meant to be Perth Panthers, before the Gus/Packer team up saved them

 

[MugaB]

The more I think about it only going to 17 for now is probably a good thing if Brisbane 2 is the favourite. If we went to 18 with this clown V'landys in charge the 18th team would definitely be Central Coast Bears. With his love of suburbia he'd probably let them relocate fully back to North Sydney Oval within 3 years.

I don't see an issue with that, but only if future expansion happens in WA/SA and QLD down the track

 

[juro]

Oh, absolutely! The content needs to be quality as well. In a digital age most things are based on content and getting the best bang for buck. Fans aren’t going to come along or stream the games if the content isn’t of a good quality. This is where adding 4 teams straight up might also compromise the quality of the competition.

Let’s say though that they go with 17 teams, that’s approximately 7-15k people not at a game each week that you could have attending if you have an extra game. Why would anyone want that support sitting at home for the week?

Then there’s the length of the competition. If it stays as it is then that means a few teams are going to get a couple of byes in the year and some only have one. This could advantage some teams if they’re getting comp points for doing nothing.... which in recent years can mean the difference between making finals or not. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t feel a little cheated if your team was on the fringe of the 8 and were bumped out by a team that had a bye for the last round.

There is no way that some teams would get more byes than others. You would just have a few weeks where more than 1 team gets the bye (eg around SOO). Look back to when we had 15 teams (eg 2004) - 26 rounds but everyone got 2 byes. 24 rounds with 1 bye plus 2 rounds with 3 byes = 30 byes, 2 per team. It's not rocket science!

 

[tri_colours]

Yeah, I think people overlook the key difference between VFL/AFL & NSWRL/ARL expansion in the 1980s-mid 90s.

Aussie Rules focused on the big fish - Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide. By 1995 they had teams in all the big 5 state capitals, and a derby in Perth with Freemantle joining in 1994.

Contrast with the NSWRL/NRL - the Steelers, Knights & Cowboys meant that at every stage of expansion there was a regional centre added - something that the AFL just didn't do.

Makes for an interesting "what if". What if the Newtown Jets were moved to Melbourne instead of being booted out of the top tier after the 1983 season, in a NSWRL version of the Sydney Swans?

Different times.TV money wasn't an issue in those times like it is today.

The NRL were more interested in entertaining all rugby league supporters not just the ones that lived in the Metro areas. hind sights a wonderful thing.

 

[tri_colours]

It was meant to be Perth Panthers, before the Gus/Packer team up saved them

At least we didn't go ,cap in hand, to Murdoch .