NRL expansion review process

[CC_Roosters]

AFL expanded
ARU expands with national 2nd division 2014
Aleague to expand 2017
Super15 to expand 2016


whats the betting the NRL sits on its hands for a few more years?

I would hardly call the expansion in super rugby beneficial the the aru. Less local "derbies" and i predict less interest from the australian public.

The a league can just keep 10 teams competitive and its last venture in regional australia fell on its face. Wellington and the mariners are struggling money wise and at the gate so i just dont see how successful they can be in further expansion

Nrl adding teams is beyond necessary now brisbane needs a second club and perth just has to be in to expand our reach nationally.

 

[The Great Dane]

Really hope Canberra get the nod.

God knows the club would be bloody successful if they did give it the nod!

The club would be the only major male summer sports team in a city with a relatively huge base of soccer supporters. and if the club is branded properly it wouldn't face the problem that the Raiders and Brumbies face of stigma between the two (now three) supporters groups.

So in other words they'ed have the perfect opportunity to create a brand that unites the whole city under one banner which could be huge, especially if the team was instantly successful like the Wanderers.

 

[The Great Dane]

We currently have 5 possible serious bids with maybe 2 others from upto 5cities. Anyone else seriously interested would have come forward by now.

Really a straight forward decision process

1. Can the NRL afford two new teams
2. Which 2 cities are strategically most important

After that they can either a) open up bids from those two cities B) choose 2 of the existing bids c)ignore current bids and develop new clubs themselves in partnership with others

Ideally they will make the decision around middle of next season so the new clubs can be building momentum and signing players for kick off in 2018.

You're seriously simplifying the process that the NRL will go though when they consider the future expansion of the competition, but that's not the reason for my post.

I think that it is most likely that the NRL will take the bold path, of ignoring the bids and creating their own clubs, which raises some interesting questions for fans of the bid teams such as yourself.

So if the NRL decide not to include the Pirates bid but to still expand to Perth, would you support this new Perth based club?

If the NRL decide not to include the Pirates bid but to still expand to Perth by creating a new club but with a classic but currently unused (in the NRL) RL brand that they have secured the rights to use (for example the Bears or Reds brands), would you support this Perth based reincarnation of an old club?

If the NRL decide not to include the Pirates bid but to still expand to Perth through a relocated Sydney license (i.e. not a relocated club, just their license), would you support this new Perth based club?

If the NRL decided not to include the Pirates bid but to still expand to Perth through a relocated Sydney club, would you support this club newly relocated to Perth?

If the NRL decided to buy out the Pirates bid and then expand to Perth using the Pirates branding (effectively removing the control of this new Perth based NRL club from the bid team while still using the bid teams recognized brand), would you support this new Pirates club?

And finally, of the scenarios that I've presented which would you find the most appealing and why?

 

[Perth Red]

Good post! I'd support any perth NRL team tbh though my main issues would be who owns and manages the club. Of all the options you mentioned the most favourable would be the Pirates co owned by warl and a multi millionaire. Why? Mainly as I think the potential for the brand is massive and west Australians would feel it is their team. I also think you need a direct link between the WArL and the NRL club. We have seen in melbourne the failure of a NRL team having no connection to the grass roots (Victoria have slipped to third in the affiliated States despite all the benefits). I want to see RL in WA grow at all levels, a well run NRL club with direct connections to jnr and amateur game can be the driver of that.

In terms of least favourable would be a relocated sydney club. Two main reasons. Firstly the current rl fanbase in perth primarily already supports an NRl club and would struggle to start cheering for a brand they might have despised. Secondly the fear of return back to sydney of the club would always be hovering over us. A few lean years and the board of the original club could sabotage to get them back to,Sydney Like manly did with the northern Eagles. I can see some benefits to a relocated club in terms of jnr link ups and potential pokie funding but the negatives are too great for my liking. Also when you look at the main candidates for relocation would you really want their boards involved in a new club??

 

[BuffaloRules]

AFL expanded
ARU expands with national 2nd division 2014
Aleague to expand 2017
Super15 to expand 2016


whats the betting the NRL sits on its hands for a few more years?

Who gives a f**k what the other codes are doing?

In respect to the reasons for NRL expansion, worrying about what other codes are doing should be at the bottom of the list.

The last time the NRL worried what other codes were doing, they ended up with the Gold Coast Titans.

 

[goodplayer]

ok, perth sharks it is . that will be a good idea , wink

 

[The Great Dane]

Good post! I'd support any perth NRL team tbh though my main issues would be who owns and manages the club. Of all the options you mentioned the most favourable would be the Pirates co owned by warl and a multi millionaire. Why? Mainly as I think the potential for the brand is massive and west Australians would feel it is their team. I also think you need a direct link between the WArL and the NRL club. We have seen in melbourne the failure of a NRL team having no connection to the grass roots (Victoria have slipped to third in the affiliated States despite all the benefits). I want to see RL in WA grow at all levels, a well run NRL club with direct connections to jnr and amateur game can be the driver of that.

I doubt that the NRL or the ARLC would ever allow any state or territory RL governing body to own majority or equal shares in an NRL club, the conflicts of interest are far to great to run that risk.

How long do you think it would be before a WARL board that values the success of the NRL club over the success of the juniors (or vice versa) tries something stupid to further that goal and endangers both entities in the process, (for example sneaky "3rd party" payments from the WARL to sign a player of interest for the NRL club or promises of a spot on the Pirates squad to keep players in WA's state competition in WA).

When it comes to state bodies and NRL clubs they need to be separate entities, sure they need to work closely together and have a good working relationships with each other, but effectively being run by the same group is a recipe for disaster.

Also, Victoria was always going to be a very hard nut to crack on the juniors front, and I highly doubt that if the VRL owned the Storm that the situation would be any different.

In terms of least favourable would be a relocated sydney club. Two main reasons. Firstly the current rl fanbase in perth primarily already supports an NRl club and would struggle to start cheering for a brand they might have despised. Secondly the fear of return back to sydney of the club would always be hovering over us. A few lean years and the board of the original club could sabotage to get them back to,Sydney Like manly did with the northern Eagles. I can see some benefits to a relocated club in terms of jnr link ups and potential pokie funding but the negatives are too great for my liking. Also when you look at the main candidates for relocation would you really want their boards involved in a new club??

Fair enough, but what if just the license was relocated?

For example, lets say that a current clubs NRL license was to be revoked and the NRL gave their license to a new Perth based club (completely independent of the original club that owned the license), I be interested to hear what your opinion on that situation is?

 

[docbrown]

Apparently they are looking at Canberra,Auckland and a Southern Sydney/Wollongong side.

They had a team in Auckland. They let it die.

They had teams on the Gold Coast & in Townsville. They let them die.

The Mariners & the Phoenix crowds are edging towards that culling criteria.

I'd say you're right, they probably will expand - I believe there's an international requirement for 12 teams which is the main driver - but I also don't expect existing teams to survive the process.

 

[DC_fan]

Who gives a f**k what the other codes are doing?

In respect to the reasons for NRL expansion, worrying about what other codes are doing should be at the bottom of the list.

The last time the NRL worried what other codes were doing, they ended up with the Gold Coast Titans.

Maybe because these other sports are looking to the future and what opportunities are there for them.

The problem for Rugby League is the people running the game have always ever been reactive not proactive.

 

[Perth Red]

I doubt that the NRL or the ARLC would ever allow any state or territory RL governing body to own majority or equal shares in an NRL club, the conflicts of interest are far to great to run that risk.

How long do you think it would be before a WARL board that values the success of the NRL club over the success of the juniors (or vice versa) tries something stupid to further that goal and endangers both entities in the process, (for example sneaky "3rd party" payments from the WARL to sign a player of interest for the NRL club or promises of a spot on the Pirates squad to keep players in WA's state competition in WA).

When it comes to state bodies and NRL clubs they need to be separate entities, sure they need to work closely together and have a good working relationships with each other, but effectively being run by the same group is a recipe for disaster.

Also, Victoria was always going to be a very hard nut to crack on the juniors front, and I highly doubt that if the VRL owned the Storm that the situation would be any different.



Fair enough, but what if just the license was relocated?

For example, lets say that a current clubs NRL license was to be revoked and the NRL gave their license to a new Perth based club (completely independent of the original club that owned the license), I be interested to hear what your opinion on that situation is?

On last point it's a mute discussion as wouldn't happen. The sydney club losses everything and gains nothing. No one is that altruistic!

On first point I disagree, having WArL reps on the board would ensure strong link ups at all levels. The WArL is effectively now being run by the NRL so it gives the NRL direct influence on the club which I suspect dave smith likes the idea of, hence the pssing off of the old board so they resigned and the NRL could take over. You need to remember the WArL is the equivalent of the Panthers league group or wests group here in terms of jnr and grass roots rl. Would you suggest a NRL panthers club would be better having no direct connection or control by the panthers league club?

 

[Ourimbah Magpies]

Everybody is saying less NSW sides yet over the past two seasons the NRL finals series has been dominated by NSW sides. And as for sides being to close to each other you can't get any closer than the Sydney Roosters (2013 premiers) and the South Sydney Rabbitohs (2014 premiers).

 

[CC_Roosters]

Everybody is saying less NSW sides yet over the past two seasons the NRL finals series has been dominated by NSW sides. And as for sides being to close to each other you can't get any closer than the Sydney Roosters (2013 premiers) and the South Sydney Rabbitohs (2014 premiers).

Very good point sydney sides have dominated the top 8 spots in recent years. Add to that that 50k and 60k crowds are popping up every season and i think the sydney league scene is healthier than many particularly the media of other football codes would lead people to believe. Canberra, townsvillr and newcastle are hardly blazing ahead off the field and it could be said with the solid base of revenue now to to cover the salary cap that sydney sides are locked in unless they self distruct or move from their own initititive. I do think less games not less teams is the answer to increasig attendance generally in Sydney, start by going to a 22 game season and encouraging gate sharing at moore park and homebush

 

[The Great Dane]

On last point it's a mute discussion as wouldn't happen. The sydney club losses everything and gains nothing. No one is that altruistic!

Revoking and rezoning licenses is common practice in sports competitions all over the world, in fact it's happened multiple times in the NSWRL/ARL/NRLs history.

Annandale and Glebe both had their licenses rezoned to make way for St George and Canterbury respectively. And the Newcastle Rebels and the Gold Coast Gladiators both had their licenses revoked.

Sydney Uni may have had theirs revoked or rezoned as well but I'm not certain about that.

So why do you assume It won't happen again?

Rezoning a license is the quickest way to take a licenses away from a club (unless they are willing to move their operations to the new zone), and revoking licenses from clubs that have been misbehaving or incompetent is easy for governing bodies to a achieve without having to be worried about large court battles.

On first point I disagree, having WArL reps on the board would ensure strong link ups at all levels. The WArL is effectively now being run by the NRL so it gives the NRL direct influence on the club which I suspect dave smith likes the idea of, hence the pssing off of the old board so they resigned and the NRL could take over. You need to remember the WArL is the equivalent of the Panthers league group or wests group here in terms of jnr and grass roots rl. Would you suggest a NRL panthers club would be better having no direct connection or control by the panthers league club?

They may be equivalent in the size of their footballing operations, but the Panthers, Wests, Raiders, etc, etc groups are not in control of the whole codes operations in a state like the WARL is. That's the difference and that's where the problems lie!

Imagine if the QRL, NSWRL and CRL owned shares in the clubs in their respective states or districts. The constant scandals and sabotage would make the NRLs job of running the competition almost impossible.

 

[elbusto]

Well whatever model you adopt, don't adopt the one down here in Tassie where there is no board, and nobody in any official capacity at all with any knowledge of the game involved.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Maybe because these other sports are looking to the future and what opportunities are there for them.

The problem for Rugby League is the people running the game have always ever been reactive not proactive.

Like I said in the post you quoted, expand because it makes sense for the NRL to do so, not because other codes are doing it

I actually think that the Super 15 Expansion is quite stupid, as is the ARC.

The GWS Giants are a black hole.

NRL Titans not much better.

Expansion needs to be better thought out... Not just doing it because " a keeping up with the Jonses" mentality like Yawnion and AFL wanting to sink millions into basket cases.

 

[The Great Dane]

Everybody is saying less NSW sides yet over the past two seasons the NRL finals series has been dominated by NSW sides. And as for sides being to close to each other you can't get any closer than the Sydney Roosters (2013 premiers) and the South Sydney Rabbitohs (2014 premiers).

Very good point sydney sides have dominated the top 8 spots in recent years. Add to that that 50k and 60k crowds are popping up every season and i think the sydney league scene is healthier than many particularly the media of other football codes would lead people to believe.

Firstly on field success has little to nothing to do with the sustainability of a club, a club could win the premiership for 10 years in a row be still make a loss in those year and go broke and fold.

So in other words the success of a clubs football team doesn't majorly effect the success of the whole club, and it certainly doesn't effect the amount of available sponsorship money which is one of Sydney's main problems not enough sponsorship money to support all the clubs in the city.

Canberra, townsvillr and newcastle are hardly blazing ahead off the field and it could be said with the solid base of revenue now to to cover the salary cap that sydney sides are locked in unless they self distruct or move from their own initititive. I do think less games not less teams is the answer to increasig attendance generally in Sydney, start by going to a 22 game season and encouraging gate sharing at moore park and homebush

Secondly clubs outside of the major cities are at a major disadvantage in many ways in the current setup of the NRL, so bagging their lack of success is a bit like bagging a blindfolded man for losing a boxing match.

 

[Perth Red]

They may be equivalent in the size of their footballing operations, but the Panthers, Wests, Raiders, etc, etc groups are not in control of the whole codes operations in a state like the WARL is. That's the difference and that's where the problems lie!

Imagine if the QRL, NSWRL and CRL owned shares in the clubs in their respective states or districts. The constant scandals and sabotage would make the NRLs job of running the competition almost impossible.

That's only because there are multiple clubs in those jurisdictions. If sydney only had one club then I see no conflict with the nswrl being on the board of that club. In WA every professional sports club is either owned or closely linked to the sports governing body.
Rugby WA own Force
Wa basketball on board of wildcats
WAFL own the two afl licenses

Only sport that doesn't is soccer and surprise surprise the glory are the worse club in perth and provide zero support to grass roots soccer in perth.

 

[mj9]

That's only because there are multiple clubs in those jurisdictions. If sydney only had one club then I see no conflict with the nswrl being on the board of that club. In WA every professional sports club is either owned or closely linked to the sports governing body.
Rugby WA own Force
Wa basketball on board of wildcats
WAFL own the two afl licenses

Only sport that doesn't is soccer and surprise surprise the glory are the worse club in perth and provide zero support to grass roots soccer in perth.

Well said.

 

[Perth Red]

Dane you also have to appreciate that the NRL has taken over control of the warl so it gives them some level of input and decision making in a new expansion club without directly looking like they are which would lead to the rl dinosaurs of the world complaining of favouritism and conflict of interest.

 

[The Great Dane]

That's only because there are multiple clubs in those jurisdictions. If sydney only had one club then I see no conflict with the nswrl being on the board of that club. In WA every professional sports club is either owned or closely linked to the sports governing body.
Rugby WA own Force
Wa basketball on board of wildcats
WAFL own the two afl licenses

Only sport that doesn't is soccer and surprise surprise the glory are the worse club in perth and provide zero support to grass roots soccer in perth.

I understand where you are coming from, but you fail to see that the WARL being allowed to own shares in the Pirates would create a precedents that the NRL in it's current structure can not afford to allow.

As soon as the WARL is allowed to own shares in the Pirates it opens up the opportunity for the NSWRL, QRL and CRL to buy shares in clubs, without the NRL being able to do anything about it.

And I'm sure that we both agree that situation would be an unmitigated disaster.

Unless the number of Sydney based clubs is reduced to about 4 (give or take), and the QRL, NSWRL and CRL were all forced to have an equal amount of shares in all the clubs in their districts, such a scenario is just a very bad idea.

And even if we did get to that point do we really want all the clubs to be forced to give up any amount of control over to a governing body that may not have their (and their regions) best interests at heart!

I know for a fact that if the CRL was to gain control of the Raiders it would most likely be a disaster for RL in and around the ACT as they would undoubtedly cut the CRRL and most of, if not all of the funding that the Raiders group provides to junior RL in the ACT (and not to mention the funding they provide to parts of Queensland, NZ and other parts of NSW as well!). So what may be best for WA could be a disaster for other areas!

As I said in a previous post a strong working relationship (hopefully even partnerships) undoubtedly should be encouraged (if not enforced), but one owning the other is another whole can of worms that Australian RL simply isn't ready to handle yet.