NRL expansion review process

[Nerd]

Please note: Tigers, Bears and Sharks fans this post will p1ss you off. I get that.

The solution is pretty obvious if you want a 16 team comp and yet expansion. Forget PNG, forget Adelaide, forget a 2nd NZ team. I would argue Sydney has 8.5 teams not 9 teams and that it could sustain 6 teams comfortable into the future.

If you want an expanded 16 team comp, it should look this way:
Sydney Teams
Parramatta (representing the city of Parramatta)
Penrith (representing the city of Penrith & mountains)
Rabbits (Central)
Bulldogs (Belmore, Liverpool & Western corridor)
Roosters (Easts)
0.5 Manly (North)
0.5 Dragons (South)


Regional NSW
Canberra
Newcastle
0.5 Manly (Central Coast)
0.5 Dragons (Illawarra)

National Teams
West Tigers (Perth)
Cowboys
Broncos
Sharks (Brisbane)
Titans
Warriors
Storm

You give huge incentive to relocate. $10 million plus over 5 years salary increase grants and cap exceptions, 150% 1st year, 140% 2nd year, etc... to ensure immediate success of relocated teams. You allow these teams to front load contracts, whatever it takes to ensure their success.

Sydney teams give up their home game to Sharks and Tigers to play in their heartlands until deemed unnecessary.

You have a 16 team comp with a new team in Perth and Brisbane which really should have happened by now.

Relocating the Sharks to Brisbane would be a dismal failure. If they can't stay in the NRL because of financial problems just let them drop back to being a NSW cup team. If you want a second team to work in Brisbane it would need to be home grown.

 

[docbrown]

There was a lot of lessons to be learned from the Super League fiasco but an important one keeps getting forgotten.

If you kill the clubs that rugby league fans follow, then you kill support for rugby league.

They don't all go - "Oh well, the Sharks are in NSW Cup now, we'll go follow that" or "Oh well, our enemy the Dragons are still around, we'll go follow them".

A significant percentage just give up. Do people genuinely believe that our game is in such a strong position that we can afford to take such losses?

If the sporting scene were a bubble where only rugby league existed, then yeah you could get away with alienating your fan base secure in the knowledge that you remain the only code.

But we're not the only code and alienating our fan base is BAD BUSINESS. The NRL have done too much to piss people off already.

But even then, have a look at where the A-League are likely to place there new teams, there was another report this morning. They're looking at either the Camden-Campbelltown or St-George Sutherland corridors, those are some big growth areas, essentially they want to divide Sydney into three big pieces. And those areas just happen to be the places people keep wanting to remove NRL teams from.

Great idea. Sounds tip top. I'm sure all these Super League Mark II proposals will be as brilliant as the first edition.

 

[bobmar28]

That's all very well but the problem is nine NRL teams in Sydney where there should be about 4 or 5 at the most.

If the A League had nine teams in Sydney what would their crowds be like?

 

[Flapper]

Okay bobmar so how many Rugby League fans should we lose to satisfy your vision?

 

[BuffaloRules]

How so? I've been following this expansion saga closely since 2007. When smith continually talks about the need for all the current clubs to be strong and grant in Perth recently talks about the warl being led up the path it is hard to not feel you are being softened up for yet another blow.

I would consider it short sighted and weak to think you can turn an over saturated market with a number of struggling clubs into a situation where all are vibrant and sustainable, I would consider it short sighted to think you are going to grow the TV pie without expansion, I'd consider it short sighted to not ride the wave of success and growth the game is experiencing in WA at the moment. Tough decisions need to be made but I have little hope those tough business decisions will be made. RL is not noted for it hence why the greatest game on the field is so small off it.

I keep saying that the AFL prop up their weak clubs in Melbourne too.

Why is that? Why do they feel the need to?

Sydney is under siege from other codes at the moment, and your solution is to give more people in the area an excuse to turn their backs on the game.

At least be honest that your sole motivation is to get a Perth team in through any means possible, even if it means weakening the game in its strongest area.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Please note: Tigers, Bears and Sharks fans this post will p1ss you off. I get that.

The solution is pretty obvious if you want a 16 team comp and yet expansion. Forget PNG, forget Adelaide, forget a 2nd NZ team. I would argue Sydney has 8.5 teams not 9 teams and that it could sustain 6 teams comfortable into the future.



.

Does this plan appeal?

Move the Dragons to Brisbane.

Think about it, there is already a large supporter base for them in QLD.

Sharks could move some games to Wollongong - closer fit and the two districts actually border each other.

And the Sth Qld Dragons still get to play a few games in Sydney each year.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Oh and $10 Million dollars....

Sounds like a good deal right?

 

[Perth Red]

I keep saying that the AFL prop up their weak clubs in Melbourne too.

Why is that? Why do they feel the need to?

Sydney is under siege from other codes at the moment, and your solution is to give more people in the area an excuse to turn their backs on the game.

At least be honest that your sole motivation is to get a Perth team in through any means possible, even if it means weakening the game in its strongest area.

My motivation is to see the game grow to its max potential. Yes I have motivation to be able to follow my own club in the NRL, what RL fan doesn't, but it goes bigger Than that. I want to see the game in NZ strengthened, in Brisbane take back its clear number one position, in the PI and PNG to grow, to see the international game get back to where it was when ashes tests and other international games were the pinnacle of the sport. It's not the nswrl anymore and the sooner the game faces that fact the quicker we can put the N into the NRL.

Sydney is over saturated, yes there willbe short term pain for around 20k people who genuinely support clubs that need to move, merge or drop down but if you ensure the jnr and grass roots remain strong the next generation will still grow up loving RL and chosing a team to follow. It's not like we are removing their chance to follow a team on their doorstep like we did with Perth and Adelaide.

A business closing down its weakest poorest performing outlets to reinvest that in more lucrative market areas is not weakening its strongest area.

 

[BuffaloRules]

So why don't the AFL do it?

 

[BuffaloRules]

We've had the discussion before, so I'll answer it for you.

It's because they respect history and traditions, but more importantly they saw what a gigantic leg up the Swans got out of the Super League carnage so they want to maintain their stranglehold on Melbourne and not give the other codes a look in.

And I would suggest they are putting a lot more money into their basket cases in Melboune than what the NRL is in Sydney.

And look what happened to the last Sydney team that got axed - Souths.

I dislike them, but do you think they are good for the game?

15 years ago they were the biggest basket case of all.

Amazing what some new management and winning a few games can do.

 

[Chook Norris]

That's all very well but the problem is nine NRL teams in Sydney where there should be about 4 or 5 at the most.

If the A League had nine teams in Sydney what would their crowds be like?

As docbrown has said, eliminating/relocating Sydney teams won't lift the crowds. Fans won't all of a sudden follow other teams and boost their averages, most would just simply stop following the game altogether. If you were building a competition from the ground up then the situation would be different. But getting rid of teams is not the way to go when we want to create a larger NRL fan base

 

[Perth Red]

We've had the discussion before, so I'll answer it for you.

It's because they respect history and traditions, but more importantly they saw what a gigantic leg up the Swans got out of the Super League carnage so they want to maintain their stranglehold on Melbourne and not give the other codes a look in.

And I would suggest they are putting a lot more money into their basket cases in Melboune than what the NRL is in Sydney.

And look what happened to the last Sydney team that got axed - Souths.

I dislike them, but do you think they are good for the game?

15 years ago they were the biggest basket case of all.

Amazing what some new management and winning a few games can do.

Disagree, they did do it by relocating into key growth areas, they also have a significantly higher income than NRL and have very subservient clubs who seem Ok about them taking money off them to keep the poor clubs afloat. This has meant they have been able to expand their competition both by increasing clubs in their heartland cities and bringing in new clubs in future growth markets whilst bailing out the struggling clubs.

NRL does not have rich clubs it can take money from, NRL does not have the spare income afl has and has more mouths to feed due to more struggling clubs. If the clubs making money in the afl ever stop agreeing to put in to keep the struggling clubs alive you watch how quickly they stay around.

Souths always had potential with the size and reach of their fanbase. Some clubs consistently show they do not and that they don't have the corporate appeal to compete. If we take the only Sydney club to be axed, bears and consider if they had stayed on instead of bringing in melbourne can you honestly say they would be delivering more value to the NRL than melbourne do?

 

[Perth Red]

As docbrown has said, eliminating/relocating Sydney teams won't lift the crowds. Fans won't all of a sudden follow other teams and boost their averages, most would just simply stop following the game altogether. If you were building a competition from the ground up then the situation would be different. But getting rid of teams is not the way to go when we want to create a larger NRL fan base

Problem is the game does not have the resources to do both. It is crazy we have only one team in Brisbane, one in NZ, nothing in Perth and no consistent presence in places like Gosford, Adelaide etc. whilst we have a city with nine teams, half of them struggling to get crowds and only one of them making a profit.

Hopefully the game does have the money and balls to support the current 16 and bring in 4 new clubs over the next few years but I don't think they do so you either except things stay the same and the game doesn't grow or get radical and take a risk to grow things. Not an easy decision and glad I'm not CEO!

 

[BuffaloRules]

Disagree, they did do it by relocating into key growth areas, they also have a significantly higher income than NRL and have very subservient clubs who seem Ok about them taking money off them to keep the poor clubs afloat. This has meant they have been able to expand their competition both by increasing clubs in their heartland cities and bringing in new clubs in future growth markets whilst bailing out the struggling clubs.

NRL does not have rich clubs it can take money from, NRL does not have the spare income afl has and has more mouths to feed due to more struggling clubs. If the clubs making money in the afl ever stop agreeing to put in to keep the struggling clubs alive you watch how quickly they stay around.

Souths always had potential with the size and reach of their fanbase. Some clubs consistently show they do not and that they don't have the corporate appeal to compete. If we take the only Sydney club to be axed, bears and consider if they had stayed on instead of bringing in melbourne can you honestly say they would be delivering more value to the NRL than melbourne do?

The Bears relocated to CC would be a better choice now then the GC.

I initially supported GC over the CC as well.

The AFL has just as many clubs they are supporting as the NRL if not more -Suns, Swans, GWS, Lions , Kangaroos, Bulldogs, Demons are all getting handouts in one form or another.

Besides, the TV networks and other media are paying the $1.3 Billion for this combination if teams we have at the moment.

You have no idea what Perth is worth to the NRL in regards to TV dollars.

Gyngel actually talked down expansion adding much value the last time. I also think Channel 7 and Fox would be disappointed with their AFL ratings in the northern markets since the latest expansion.

Finally, over the past 20 years, the AFL has added 3 new teams without the need for any relocations or mergers. Why can't the NRL?

 

[KiamaSaint]

As docbrown has said, eliminating/relocating Sydney teams won't lift the crowds. Fans won't all of a sudden follow other teams and boost their averages, most would just simply stop following the game altogether. If you were building a competition from the ground up then the situation would be different. But getting rid of teams is not the way to go when we want to create a larger NRL fan base

IMO, this is shortsighted. Yes, you lose what 10,000 members if that and a whole bunch of fair weathers for the chance to gain a lot more in growth areas.

Within a generation the supporters will be back.

Does this plan appeal?

Move the Dragons to Brisbane.

Think about it, there is already a large supporter base for them in QLD.

Sharks could move some games to Wollongong - closer fit and the two districts actually border each other.

And the Sth Qld Dragons still get to play a few games in Sydney each year.

If that happen, so be it, but you and I both know that the Sharks relocating makes much more sense. The Dragons would be playing all over the country if it is about playing where your supporters are.

 

[docbrown]

That's all very well but the problem is nine NRL teams in Sydney where there should be about 4 or 5 at the most.

If the A League had nine teams in Sydney what would their crowds be like?

In the past there probably should have been fewer Sydney teams introduced. Existing clubs should have been relocated to newer markets in Sydney rather than bringing in more teams.

However the past is done, the brands exist, the supporter base for rugby league in Sydney has already been established. Do you really believe we're in a strong enough position to screw with it?

I'll invert your question. Who says that with only a handful of teams left the hundreds of thousands of Sydney rugby league fans would still give a f**k about the game?

yes there willbe short term pain for around 20k people who genuinely support clubs

Yes, you lose what 10,000 members if that and a whole bunch of fair weathers

If you really think that's the number then you've got no idea. The people who attend matches or who become members represent only a tiny fraction of the rugby league support base. Some of these clubs have followings approaching half a million nationwide, on par with AFL teams. Hence why they can take matches to Perth and have local supporters. You're not just killing some made up 20k :lol:

A business closing down its weakest poorest performing outlets to reinvest that in more lucrative market areas is not weakening its strongest area.

Voluntarily reducing your market share in your strongest market is indeed weakening your strongest area. It's pretty basic stuff.

What you and others keep assuming it that there's a limit to growth - say the magical 16 teams people keep claiming - and that internal expansion can only occur by staying within the confines of the pre-existing structure.

This is subjective. When it was 12 teams 12 was magical. When it was 14 teams 14 was magical.

The common argument is talent. People claim during Origin games are duds without key play makers involved. It's an amazing insight. Those players are still there though, they don't just vanish, it's not because of lack of player depth it's because of bad scheduling. The game has barely tapped its potential player pool. We're not the AFL. We can pick up players not only in NSW, QLD, ACT but new states will come on line, plus New Zealand, Pacific Islands, hell anywhere where either rugby league or rugby union is played, there's a potential player. There's more than enough to drive expansion without contraction, especially when the NRL through financial growth that comes with expansion can position as the premier rugby comp of either code and start to outbid any other comp in the world.

So again does anyone seriously think it's a good business model to piss off your existing customers?

I mean, is that what you want the NRL to be about again? It hasn't worked well any other time.

 

[Billythekid]

We have a much bigger talent pool than the likes of the AFL, we can bring in new teams without culling old teams imo. That plus say we add a NZ team and a WA team that would be a source of more juniors for the code. If anything we need another NZ team to stop wasting the talent we have.

There is no need to kick out teams right now and we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did.

 

[KiamaSaint]

In the past there probably should have been fewer Sydney teams introduced. Existing clubs should have been relocated to newer markets in Sydney rather than bringing in more teams.

However the past is done, the brands exist, the supporter base for rugby league in Sydney has already been established. Do you really believe we're in a strong enough position to screw with it?

I'll invert your question. Who says that with only a handful of teams left the hundreds of thousands of Sydney rugby league fans would still give a f**k about the game?





If you really think that's the number then you've got no idea. The people who attend matches or who become members represent only a tiny fraction of the rugby league support base. Some of these clubs have followings approaching half a million nationwide, on par with AFL teams. Hence why they can take matches to Perth and have local supporters. You're not just killing some made up 20k :lol:

Agree, some teams should never have been introduce. Agree in general with you second statement, however there are some teams that have very little supporter value outside of their current catchment. I would accept that WTs probably do, but Sharks I don't believe it.

 

[Perth Red]

Gyngel actually talked down expansion adding much value the last time. I also think Channel 7 and Fox would be disappointed with their AFL ratings in the northern markets since the latest

Gygnell claims he was never presented an option of two new teams and an extra game in the last TV rights negotiations. He actually says he can see value in it.

What was actually said:

Gygnell: Gyngell said the value in the AFL's ninth game - as a result of the introduction of the Gold Coast and GWS to form an 18-team competition - was "disputable at the moment".

Grant: "The proof of this deal is there's not a lot of value placed on that ninth game," said Grant

Gygnell: "But Gyngell said that was just the assumption people had made because it was not mentioned in the announcement. He also said expansion was not brought up at all during negotiations for the TV deal, but it was something he could not overlook."

Of particular interest to Gyngell, was the ninth game in the NRL draw which, through Australian anti-siphoning laws, would have to be shown on Free-to-Air TV (Channel 9).

 

[elbusto]

Agree, some teams should never have been introduce. Agree in general with you second statement, however there are some teams that have very little supporter value outside of their current catchment. I would accept that WTs probably do, but Sharks I don't believe it.

Sharks are running second last, playing like crap and still attracted a crowd of 13000 last night.

Sharks are averaging 12500 yet competition front runners, the Sea Eagles are averaging 11500.

Goodbye Sea Eagles?