NRL Expansion Priorities

[bobmar28]

And they still can't fill Suncorp ,being the only NRL team in town.

When the Ipswich Jets start playing Suncorp will soon fill up.
Derbies with Broncos?

 

[Perth Red]

You could support the idea of holding off on expansion until the best possible franchise is formed.

There seems to be this idea that all of the bids right now are the only possible choices and that expansion has to happen soon regardless of the quality of the bids. But why do we have to accept that these bids, that were brave/rich/dumb enough to begin campaigning before bids were called for or another licence was confirm, are the only possible choices.

Why does expansion need to occur in 2017 if it means we must accept a badly placed team or a poorly run organisation.

Id personally like to see the NRL come out at the end of their expansion review and say "we are going to give licences to teams located in x and y. In 2 years time we will call for all applications, anyone can enter a bid".

This would mean that groups in Brisbane for example could put together a bid with the assurance of a bidding phase in 2019 (or whenever). This could bring out francises of old BRL teams (the Valley Diehards), dead first grade teams (the Jets/Bears/Crushers) or brand new teams (the Bombers).

Id rather the ARLC choose from this selection that feel some kind of misplaced loyalty to current bids, just because they have been going for 10 years with no promise of even being considered at the end (Again, you could debate whether this proves them to be rich, brave or just dumb, but i can promise this current process will prove the the best choice).

The NRL strung the bids along from 2008 giving enough of a carrot to keep them motivated and thinking expansion was a possibility. Go back and look at Gallops comments re Bears in Gosford and WA Reds/Pirates, Smith and Grant have stated similiar, especially for Perth. At least this mob have given a date when they are going to look at it, I just hope end of 2014 they don't come up with the same old same old and string us along for another 3-4 years until a decision gets made.

Either NRL needs to do what you suggest and say this is the two locations for 2017/18 and we will look at bids from those areas end of 2015 giving each area one year, which should be more than enough, or take control themselves as they appear to be doing in WA and control the new expansion team development.

Despite the frustration of stalled expansion good things have come out of it; WA developing an elite jnr academy and SG Ball set up and getting govt to move up nib redevelopment, Bombers forcing Broncos to start investing in their turf, Gosford getting regular NRL games, CQ developing its structure, PNG finally bringing the war ing factions together in a united game plan.

 

[taipan]

When the Ipswich Jets start playing Suncorp will soon fill up.
Derbies with Broncos?

As a lover of the game,I hope you are right.In fact I hope we get to fill all suburban stadiums.
ATM it craps me to see 22,000-24,000(half capacity) at times in a city that size,once a fortnight.

 

[docbrown]

The problem with that is that having a team in Gosford isn't realistic at the moment and the Bears refuse to give up on their broken dream until the NRL tells them they've got no chance, but the NRL doesn't have the balls to tell the Bears they've got no chance.

True. After the next expansion review there needs to be definitive answers on both the Bears and the Central Coast.

They also need to talk about every region individual across Australia, New Zealand, PNG and Pacific Islands and say what their plan is (new teams or home and away games or trial matches or rep games etc )

Bringing the Bears back on the CC would almost certainty condemn the Eagles to becoming another Cronulla, surrounded on all sides and with little room to grow, so all we would be doing is adding another club to an over saturated market and condemning another one to the too hard basket when we could be creating a very strong club and making one of the weaker Sydney clubs a strong one.

Not if the Central Coast Bears hand over their North Sydney grassroots to the Sea Eagles, the Sea Eagles re-brand to encompass the entirety of North Sydney (an extra 400-500k outside of the Northern Beaches) and the NRL supports the Sea Eagles in their efforts to expand the club's base.

What we'd have is former Bears fans coming out of the woodwork nationwide and in North Sydney we'd have a genuinely rivalry again where the lines between Bears & Sea Eagles supporters overlap and blur. The Bears fans coming out of the woodwork aren't a loss to the Sea Eagles as they're unlikely to ever have supported the Sea Eagles anyway. It would take us down a similar path to how the Rabbitohs & Roosters have grown their clubs.

This arrangement can be to the benefit of both clubs and the league rather than just having one club sitting in isolation on the Northern Beaches.

As an average punter who is busting for a second brisbane team to exist, the bombers are the most vocal and 'seem' years ahead therefore will get my support.

Reminds me of the old dog turd salesman story where when he whispers about his shit and no one cared but when he yelled about his shit he was told that it was shit and told to be quiet.

The moral was a turd is a turd is a turd.

You could support the idea of holding off on expansion until the best possible franchise is formed.

There seems to be this idea that all of the bids right now are the only possible choices and that expansion has to happen soon regardless of the quality of the bids. But why do we have to accept that these bids, that were brave/rich/dumb enough to begin campaigning before bids were called for or another licence was confirm, are the only possible choices.

Exactly.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The NRL strung the bids along from 2008 giving enough of a carrot to keep them motivated and thinking expansion was a possibility. Go back and look at Gallops comments re Bears in Gosford and WA Reds/Pirates, Smith and Grant have stated similiar, especially for Perth. At least this mob have given a date when they are going to look at it, I just hope end of 2014 they don't come up with the same old same old and string us along for another 3-4 years until a decision gets made.

Either NRL needs to do what you suggest and say this is the two locations for 2017/18 and we will look at bids from those areas end of 2015 giving each area one year, which should be more than enough, or take control themselves as they appear to be doing in WA and control the new expansion team development.

Despite the frustration of stalled expansion good things have come out of it; WA developing an elite jnr academy and SG Ball set up and getting govt to move up nib redevelopment, Bombers forcing Broncos to start investing in their turf, Gosford getting regular NRL games, CQ developing its structure, PNG finally bringing the war ing factions together in a united game plan.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying that its bad that these bids have been going for so long, even with Gallop screwing them around.

Im just saying that, being a bid that could survive through that doesnt prove they are the best possible bid.

There is only 2 groups bidding in Perth ATM. One backed by WARL, a governing body run by volenteers NOT professionals, and another created by some idiot millionaire looking to split the costs of his soccer team.

Do you honestly think there are no other possible groups out there that could create a better team with just a bit more to go on than they have now (an assured bidding process with a 2 years run up).

 

[The Great Dane]

Not if the Central Coast Bears hand over their North Sydney grassroots to the Sea Eagles, the Sea Eagles re-brand to encompass the entirety of North Sydney (an extra 400-500k outside of the Northern Beaches) and the NRL supports the Sea Eagles in their efforts to expand the club's base.

What we'd have is former Bears fans coming out of the woodwork nationwide and in North Sydney we'd have a genuinely rivalry again where the lines between Bears & Sea Eagles supporters overlap and blur. The Bears fans coming out of the woodwork aren't a loss to the Sea Eagles as they're unlikely to ever have supported the Sea Eagles anyway. It would take us down a similar path to how the Rabbitohs & Roosters have grown their clubs.

This arrangement can be to the benefit of both clubs and the league rather than just having one club sitting in isolation on the Northern Beaches.

The Eagles should absolutely be helped to expand into Northern Sydney and absolutely should re-brand to encompass all of North Sydney (basically what I was suggesting in the piece you quoted), but to add the Bears into the equation where they are less then 2 hours away up the coast would severely threaten any hopes we might have of making Manly sustainable and strong for the future as it would open up the opportunity for the Bears to push themselves as a legitimate option as a (or the) team that represents North Sydney and start to push themselves south back down to North Sydney when the opportunity presents it's self.
That could be disastrous for two reasons, firstly it would be adding another team into an already overcrowded market thus creating more competition between the clubs in Sydney for sponsorship, the corporate dollar, etc etc and potentially destabilising many of them because of the added competition, so not just the North Shore would be affected by this but most of the NRL clubs in Sydney and it's likely that affect would be negative as a whole, and secondly as mentioned above, it would definitely make any hopes we have of Manly becoming sustainable much, much harder to achieve without causing harm to other clubs something that must be avoided at all costs.

We would still get all the benefits that you suggest whether or not the Bears are based on the CC or in another state, but if they a based in another state far away from Sydney we take away that incentive for them to try and relive the good old days again, and don't tell me that they are completely committed to the CC and would never try to gain a foothold in North Sydney again because you and I both know that isn't true, if the opportunity presented it's self then they would jump at it with both hands stretched out (especially if Greg Florimo was in charge when that opportunity did eventually present it's self).

There's just one more problem with what you've said and that's that the Bears will never ever willingly give up their juniors in North Sydney or whatever hold they still have in grassroots of North Sydney, and forcing them to do so would be easier said then done.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Not if the Central Coast Bears hand over their North Sydney grassroots to the Sea Eagles, the Sea Eagles re-brand to encompass the entirety of North Sydney (an extra 400-500k outside of the Northern Beaches) and the NRL supports the Sea Eagles in their efforts to expand the club's base.

What we'd have is former Bears fans coming out of the woodwork nationwide and in North Sydney we'd have a genuinely rivalry again where the lines between Bears & Sea Eagles supporters overlap and blur. The Bears fans coming out of the woodwork aren't a loss to the Sea Eagles as they're unlikely to ever have supported the Sea Eagles anyway. It would take us down a similar path to how the Rabbitohs & Roosters have grown their clubs.

This arrangement can be to the benefit of both clubs and the league rather than just having one club sitting in isolation on the Northern Beaches.

The problem with this is that half of the Bears bid is that they will connect to North Sydney. If they were to give that up to Manly, then THEY would become this "new Sharks".

The Central Coast by itself will not sustain a team. It is smaller than the Illawarra area and the Steelers side of the merge seems pretty dependant on the Saints side ATM.

The point is that the only really chance of the Central Coast getting an NRL team is if it is base in Sydney half they time. Northern Eagles was their chance but thats gone and if the Bears came back now that effectively kills Manly. That leaves the situation of current teams using it as a second home (which is what teams are trying now, but the locals seem to think they are entitled to accept a second hand team).

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The Eagles should absolutely be helped to expand into Northern Sydney and absolutely should re-brand to encompass all of North Sydney (basically what I was suggesting in the piece you quoted)

I entirely disagree. They should absolutely invest more into juniors and supporters...

BUT!!!!!!!! they should NOT rebrand.

Look at the Melbourne AFL teams. Collingwood is a suburb of 6,000 people but they have 90,000 members. Im not suggesting that is they soul reason they are popular, but they are respecting their history and their fans respect that too. How do you think theyd react if they rebranded and the Melbourne Magpies??? they would become the generic club that everybody hates.

Now consider how well rebranding has worked in the NRL. SYDNEY bulldogs have actually gone back to their suburban name because it has history, culture and tradition attached to it. Its not just some generic marketing tool.

 

[The Great Dane]

I entirely disagree. They should absolutely invest more into juniors and supporters...

BUT!!!!!!!! they should NOT rebrand.

Look at the Melbourne AFL teams. Collingwood is a suburb of 6,000 people but they have 90,000 members. Im not suggesting that is they soul reason they are popular, but they are respecting their history and their fans respect that too. How do you think theyd react if they rebranded and the Melbourne Magpies??? they would become the generic club that everybody hates.

Now consider how well rebranding has worked in the NRL. SYDNEY bulldogs have actually gone back to their suburban name because it has history, culture and tradition attached to it. Its not just some generic marketing tool.

Your argument is a valid one and I don't disagree with it, but I think that there are other factors involved that make the situation a little different.

The RL fanbase in North Sydney has been reluctant to jump on board with Manly as the club largely doesn't represent them in anyway, particularly the history of their club and what it stands for (and it's relation to the Bears) are sticking points. Though changing the name from Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles to North Sydney/Shore Sea Eagles would not completely fix that problem it would go a long way to fixing that problem.

IMO While the club carries the name Manly People in Northern Sydney will be unwilling to support it because of the history between the two areas (particularly when it comes to RL) and to say that Manly represents North Sydney as a whole is untrue but to say that the North Sydney/Shore represents Manly would be a fact.

Engaging the whole of the North Sydney market is more important then keeping the fans in Manly-Warringah happy I'm afraid.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Your argument is a valid one and I don't disagree with it, but I think that there are other factors involved that make the situation a little different.

The RL fanbase in North Sydney has been reluctant to jump on board with Manly as the club largely doesn't represent them in anyway, particularly the history of their club and what it stands for (and it's relation to the Bears) are sticking points. Though changing the name from Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles to North Sydney/Shore Sea Eagles would not completely fix that problem it would go a long way to fixing that problem.

IMO While the club carries the name Manly People in Northern Sydney will be unwilling to support it because of the history between the two areas (particularly when it comes to RL) and to say that Manly represents North Sydney as a whole is untrue but to say that the North Sydney/Shore represents Manly would be a fact.

The thing is, that history is the best selling point they have. Sure, it will push some away from the Eagles, but i would argue that it will also draw more fans than it loses them once they begin to push into the territory.

And even having rugby league fans that hate them for there history is still a net positive for the league. No team will be universally popular and no team should want to be. Its better to be a team like the Roosters or Rabbits that people actively hate than a team like the Titans that are entirely benign. Fans will always rather go to their teams game againt these hated teams because there is emotion around it.

Think of it this way; you could add one team to the comp and you have a choice between two kinds of clubs.

You can have a team like South Sydney that lots of people love with a passion and lots of people hate with a passion that just makes their supporters love them more.

OR you could bring in the GWS giants, a perfectly generic, plastic team that isnt offensive to anyone and no one particularly gives a sh*t about.

Most people would go for the first.

Engaging the whole of the North Sydney market is more important then keeping the fans in Manly-Warringah happy I'm afraid.

Its not just about keeping current fans happy, its about showing potential fans that your club isnt a whore that will change its name just for some more fans. Integrity's always a positive.

 

[Perth Red]

Dont get me wrong, im not saying that its bad that these bids have been going for so long, even with Gallop screwing them around.

Im just saying that, being a bid that could survive through that doesnt prove they are the best possible bid.

There is only 2 groups bidding in Perth ATM. One backed by WARL, a governing body run by volenteers NOT professionals, and another created by some idiot millionaire looking to split the costs of his soccer team.

Do you honestly think there are no other possible groups out there that could create a better team with just a bit more to go on than they have now (an assured bidding process with a 2 years run up).

The pirates bid is being put together by a number of Perth businessmen backed by the warl, funded by a major company and cheer led by an NRL employee in warl CEO John sackson. No I don't think there will be a better bid put together in Perth. I do agree with your summary of sage though!

 

[Perth Red]

Think of it this way; you could add one team to the comp and you have a choice between two kinds of clubs.

You can have a team like South Sydney that lots of people love with a passion and lots of people hate with a passion that just makes their supporters love them more.

OR you could bring in the GWS giants, a perfectly generic, plastic team that isnt offensive to anyone and no one particularly gives a sh*t about.

Most people would go for the first.

Bit unfair, hatred comes from years of history, many games against each other etc. comparing a 100 plus year old club to clubs a few years old is hardly like for like when it comes to rivalries.

 

[The Great Dane]

The thing is, that history is the best selling point they have. Sure, it will push some away from the Eagles, but i would argue that it will also draw more fans than it loses them once they begin to push into the territory.

And even having rugby league fans that hate them for there history is still a net positive for the league. No team will be universally popular and no team should want to be. Its better to be a team like the Roosters or Rabbits that people actively hate than a team like the Titans that are entirely benign. Fans will always rather go to their teams game againt these hated teams because there is emotion around it.

Think of it this way; you could add one team to the comp and you have a choice between two kinds of clubs.

You can have a team like South Sydney that lots of people love with a passion and lots of people hate with a passion that just makes their supporters love them more.

OR you could bring in the GWS giants, a perfectly generic, plastic team that isnt offensive to anyone and no one particularly gives a sh*t about.

Most people would go for the first.



Its not just about keeping current fans happy, its about showing potential fans that your club isnt a whore that will change its name just for some more fans. Integrity's always a positive.

Once again I don't disagree but I think the situation is a little different and requires a different response.

The examples and situations that you are describing all involve a club changing their brand to incorporate as large an area as possible even if their name envelops other already existing brands purely for the chance at a big payday (except the GWS example), that's not what would be happening if the Sea Eagles were to change their name to incorporate more of Northern Sydney, they'd be changing their name to more correctly represent the area and people that they now represent and to help heal old wounds that are still festering since the Bear went under.

The situation is more akin (though by no means exactly the same) to the Roosters changing their name from Eastern Suburbs to (eventually) Sydney as the name Sydney more correctly represented their fan base and other similar markets that they wanted to tap into.

The problem with the current situation is that in the Grand scheme of things the Bears carcass is still largely warm and the Bears brand is still present in the community, at the moment the Bears brand is still the one that most identify with RL in Northern Sydney and as long as that is the case the hatred and emotions wont be working in our favor no matter what we do (except for reintroducing the Bears), but it's likely that a relatively minor name change to include a larger part of the market that they already represent (not are trying to muscle into, that's the key point) would help to alleviate some of those problems particularly in the younger generations that had little to no contact with the Bear when they were still around in the top league.

Many people say that the Eagles should change their name to North Sydney Sea Eagles, I personally think that would just provoke to many emotions and cause more problems then it fixes and think that North Shore Sea Eagles or something similar would be a better way to go.

 

[reanimate]

Your argument is a valid one and I don't disagree with it, but I think that there are other factors involved that make the situation a little different.

The RL fanbase in North Sydney has been reluctant to jump on board with Manly as the club largely doesn't represent them in anyway, particularly the history of their club and what it stands for (and it's relation to the Bears) are sticking points. Though changing the name from Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles to North Sydney/Shore Sea Eagles would not completely fix that problem it would go a long way to fixing that problem.

IMO While the club carries the name Manly People in Northern Sydney will be unwilling to support it because of the history between the two areas (particularly when it comes to RL) and to say that Manly represents North Sydney as a whole is untrue but to say that the North Sydney/Shore represents Manly would be a fact.

Engaging the whole of the North Sydney market is more important then keeping the fans in Manly-Warringah happy I'm afraid.

The thing is, that history is the best selling point they have. Sure, it will push some away from the Eagles, but i would argue that it will also draw more fans than it loses them once they begin to push into the territory.

And even having rugby league fans that hate them for there history is still a net positive for the league. No team will be universally popular and no team should want to be. Its better to be a team like the Roosters or Rabbits that people actively hate than a team like the Titans that are entirely benign. Fans will always rather go to their teams game againt these hated teams because there is emotion around it.

Think of it this way; you could add one team to the comp and you have a choice between two kinds of clubs.

You can have a team like South Sydney that lots of people love with a passion and lots of people hate with a passion that just makes their supporters love them more.

OR you could bring in the GWS giants, a perfectly generic, plastic team that isnt offensive to anyone and no one particularly gives a sh*t about.

Most people would go for the first.



Its not just about keeping current fans happy, its about showing potential fans that your club isnt a whore that will change its name just for some more fans. Integrity's always a positive.

As a Manly fan who wants this to happen, I can say that from a Manly fan's perspective, cutting Manly from the club's name again in favour of another generic Northern/North name will infuriate the club's fanbase. I definitely agree with the Doctor here, Manly's a famous brand and is loved and hated by that name- it's worth saving for that alone. I would much, much prefer incorporating the North Shore into the club's current naming and colour scheme- e.g. something along the lines of Manly-North Shore would be far, far better than another all-incorporating name. People from the Northern Beaches don't view themselves as being part of the North Shore, as they're two separate regions, and while it's true that Manly is a part of Northern Sydney, North Sydney doesn't work as a name either as it's a suburb of the North Shore and was used as the name of the Bears. Dropping Warringah from the club's name in favour of North Shore wouldn't anger many, if any, Manly fans, and having equal representation for the NS and NB in the club's name while maintaining the 'Manly' brand would be the ideal solution. Now is the perfect time for this to happen, Manly support has begun to grow on the North Shore amongst younger people and the North Shore clubs already play with Northern Beaches clubs in lower leagues.

If the two regions were finally brought under the one roof again permanently, the Sea Eagles could do a big rebranding and change the club's logo to something that would show off the two regions together better, I.e. maybe something like the 60 year logo but with Manly and North Shore replacing the two dates on that logo:

 

[taipan]

Bit unfair, hatred comes from years of history, many games against each other etc. comparing a 100 plus year old club to clubs a few years old is hardly like for like when it comes to rivalries.

And one of the very reasons the sharks must stay where they are.The hatred /passion and crowds between St George and Sharks' local derbies,is almost as old as time itself.Lose that and that is one hole out of the season's derby calendar.You would not get that with relocation.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Bit unfair, hatred comes from years of history, many games against each other etc. comparing a 100 plus year old club to clubs a few years old is hardly like for like when it comes to rivalries.

You are entirely missing my point, we are talking about the Sea Eagles. But the argument is whether they should keep their current name or rebrand and begin again with the image.

THAT makes this Souths/GWS comparison valid (im not suggesting GWS could have done it another way, but when the NRL has the option of not following that path, i would entirely support not copyng them).

The Eagles have a very divisive brand and they can either keep that or go with a generic clean slate.

History says that the clean slate is always the sh*tty option.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Once again I don't disagree but I think the situation is a little different and requires a different response.

The examples and situations that you are describing all involve a club changing their brand to incorporate as large an area as possible even if their name envelops other already existing brands purely for the chance at a big payday (except the GWS example), that's not what would be happening if the Sea Eagles were to change their name to incorporate more of Northern Sydney, they'd be changing their name to more correctly represent the area and people that they now represent and to help heal old wounds that are still festering since the Bear went under.

A side note to my main argument (dont let this distract), but i dont imagine moving back towards the "Northern Eagles" would heal wounds.

If the Bears are officially killed off, pretending that they never existed is probably the best course the Eagles could take.

(Its worked pretty well for the nrl on super league; just dont talk about it, people forget)

The situation is more akin (though by no means exactly the same) to the Roosters changing their name from Eastern Suburbs to (eventually) Sydney as the name Sydney more correctly represented their fan base and other similar markets that they wanted to tap into.

I would argue though that, if that change havent directly hurt the Roosters, it at least has done nothing to help.

Do you really imagine that being called "Easts" made City dwellers reject them?? Was it really their name that was holding them back from becoming the powerhouse club (with 7000 members) they are today??

Or is it actually about proactive fan engagement, on a junior and spectator level??

The problem with the current situation is that in the Grand scheme of things the Bears carcass is still largely warm and the Bears brand is still present in the community, at the moment the Bears brand is still the one that most identify with RL in Northern Sydney and as long as that is the case the hatred and emotions wont be working in our favor no matter what we do (except for reintroducing the Bears), but it's likely that a relatively minor name change to include a larger part of the market that they already represent (not are trying to muscle into, that's the key point) would help to alleviate some of those problems particularly in the younger generations that had little to no contact with the Bear when they were still around in the top league.

The Bears died 15 years ago!!!! The only reason the "body is still warm" is because a small group of diehards still have a dream of bringing them back and they wont let the rest of us forget about them.

No one cries for Newtown anymore, no one cries for the Magpies or the Steelers. This is because we just moved on. The future is bright and the past is in the rear view, getting harder and harder to see.

These scars of the past are massively overstated.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

As a Manly fan who wants this to happen, I can say that from a Manly fan's perspective, cutting Manly from the club's name again in favour of another generic Northern/North name will infuriate the club's fanbase. I definitely agree with the Doctor here, Manly's a famous brand and is loved and hated by that name- it's worth saving for that alone. I would much, much prefer incorporating the North Shore into the club's current naming and colour scheme- e.g. something along the lines of Manly-North Shore would be far, far better than another all-incorporating name. People from the Northern Beaches don't view themselves as being part of the North Shore, as they're two separate regions, and while it's true that Manly is a part of Northern Sydney, North Sydney doesn't work as a name either as it's a suburb of the North Shore and was used as the name of the Bears. Dropping Warringah from the club's name in favour of North Shore wouldn't anger many, if any, Manly fans, and having equal representation for the NS and NB in the club's name while maintaining the 'Manly' brand would be the ideal solution. Now is the perfect time for this to happen, Manly support has begun to grow on the North Shore amongst younger people and the North Shore clubs already play with Northern Beaches clubs in lower leagues.

If the two regions were finally brought under the one roof again permanently, the Sea Eagles could do a big rebranding and change the club's logo to something that would show off the two regions together better, I.e. maybe something like the 60 year logo but with Manly and North Shore replacing the two dates on that logo:

This is something i could actually get on board with.

MANLY Sea Eagles is far to valuable a name to lose, but no one ever called the Warringah. It is, of course, a nice little reference to the history i guess. But its not central to their image and it could be removed pretty easily.

But i stand by what i said earlier, that Manly cannot be removed from their name.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

And one of the very reasons the sharks must stay where they are.The hatred /passion and crowds between St George and Sharks' local derbies,is almost as old as time itself.Lose that and that is one hole out of the season's derby calendar.You would not get that with relocation.

but is it worth having a sh*tty and unloved team hang around just for that one game a year??

 

[bobmar28]

This is something i could actually get on board with.

MANLY Sea Eagles is far to valuable a name to lose, but no one ever called the Warringah. It is, of course, a nice little reference to the history i guess. But its not central to their image and it could be removed pretty easily.

But i stand by what i said earlier, that Manly cannot be removed from their name.

Northern Eagles still had part of the name. Isn't that enough?