NRL: Lets talk about relocating teams, says QRL boss.

[The Great Dane]

Throw in another out of left field.
Commercial backing has to be taken into account ,where Sydney is the biggest in the country ,in terms of major International companies.Melbourne ditto.Both populations continue to grow, not remain stagnant,
Plus regional support for Sydney clubs within NSW is far greater than Perth.And Perth is also likely to get a 3rd AFL team.
Tasmania population over 500,000 has no AFL/NRL orA league team.So it doesn't as stated before relate to population base.
It boils down to public interest/demand,financial backing, juniors,facilities and transport and growth potential.

All of which is great, but where the theory falls down is that Sydney doesn't need 9 clubs to capitalise on all the benefits of the market (corporate backing, interest, juniors, etc,) even if it continues to grow indefinitely, (e.g.) Perth and/or Adelaide do need clubs to capitalise on their markets...

And here in lies the fundamental problem with every variation of the "but Sydney is the biggest and strongest market for RL, there for it needs 9+ clubs even if it's at the expense of new markets", even if Sydney is the biggest and strongest market for RL (which I think is debatable) you still don't need lots and lots of clubs to capitalise on all of the markets benefits.

 

[The Great Dane]

Good point.

Canberra also have a Rugby team and half an AFL team. So I guess a truer number would be

424,666/ 2.5= 169,866.

They're a good chance of getting an A League team too.

426,666/ 3.5= 121,905.

Well if we want to be simplistic Sydney has 17 professional sports clubs

Sports clubs = (AFL,NRL,Supersomethings,Aleague,netball,baskeball)

The capital city sports saturation table
Brisbane 3million/5 = 600k
Perth 2mill/5 = 400k
Melbourne 5mill/13 = 385k
Adelaide 1.3mill/4=325k
Sydney 5.1mill/17 =300k
Canberra 440k/2.5= 176k

Clearly Sydney has far too many sports clubs and is rumored to be getting two more (Union and soccer)

Just as a total aside I wouldn't count GWS as an "ACT" side (nor would anybody who isn't an idiot or shouldn't get a say in the first place), they are almost exclusively the domain of ex-pats and bandwagoners in Canberra and if it wasn't for the utterly ridiculous amount of subsidisation that they get from the ACT government they'd have pissed off years ago cause of the losses that they made.

 

[Teddyboy]

Personally I think that relocation is a bad idea, but if you were going to do it the best way to do it would be to do it in a way that would have the least impact possible on the clubs, so a small restructure of Sydney to start, then if necessary big relocation to other cities.

For example instead of relocating Cronulla as is often suggested, force the Dragons to move full-time to the Gong (maybe minus a couple of big games like the ANZAC day game that they can keep in Sydney), then force the Sharks to broaden their focus to all of the surrounding regions of Sydney (including all the traditional Dragons areas in Sydney) instead of just the Shire, and make them represent the fact that they aren't just the Cronulla Sharks anymore with a minor re-brand so that their brand encompasses that whole region as well. Then if all goes well in a couple generations you'd have a 'South Sydney' team and a South Coast team where you used to have two teams fighting over what is effectively the same patch of turf.

Take Manly, they're stuffed at the moment, but relocating the only club north of the Bridge to the other side of the country would be a dumb idea, so instead of doing that the NRL should buy the club back from the Penn family, then restructure it into the 'North Sydney' club and re-brand to represent that fact, piss the Bears off when they try to intervene and meddle, then once the club is stable and relatively established sell it on to the highest bidder with the understanding that the club must focus on all of NS. Then in a couple generations instead of having a tiny club on the Norther Beaches ignoring the rest of North Sydney you'd have the making of a relatively big club that represents the whole region.

If the NRL was really going to push relocation then stuff like that is where they should start. There're other areas where the solutions aren't so simple like 'East Sydney' (one of either Souths or the Rooster probably have to pack up and leave), and figuring out who stays, who goes, where and how they stay, where they go, in Western Sydney will be a nightmare for all involved, and that is where you're big relocations would come from, but even then there're probably a few solutions (like Tigers to Campbelltown/South West Sydney full time) that could be explored.

If only the cemented that back in 1908.

 

[taipan]

All of which is great, but where the theory falls down is that Sydney doesn't need 9 clubs to capitalise on all the benefits of the market (corporate backing, interest, juniors, etc,) even if it continues to grow indefinitely, (e.g.) Perth and/or Adelaide do need clubs to capitalise on their markets...

And here in lies the fundamental problem with every variation of the "but Sydney is the biggest and strongest market for RL, there for it needs 9+ clubs even if it's at the expense of new markets", even if Sydney is the biggest and strongest market for RL (which I think is debatable) you still don't need lots and lots of clubs to capitalise on all of the markets benefits.

And the theory Sydney doesn't need 9 clubs can also be classified as shaky.particularly as not all major areas within the city eg North Sydney do not have representation.As other codes are looking at increasing their presence via new clubs in that city.
I'd dare suggest the A League will have at least one new Sydney club, either Southern or South western, and whether thiner stadium planning could assist the NRL.

BTW I'm not suggesting that the NRL needs more than 9 clubs.Sydney has had its mergers, and removals.

And I have never suggested there should not be expansions to WA or SA or in fact a 2nd Brisbane team.In fact it is ludicrous Brisbane has the NRL played there on a fortnightly basis.

And that begs the question what is the minimum number NRL clubs needed in Sydney?
What is the magic number of clubs for a real National NRL that includes all mainland states?I have yet to come across anyone from the NRL admin or anyone in authority or with a clue provide an actual figure.

The biggest problem with Sydney firstly was the lack of planning by the city's fathers.A mish mash of suburban planning, transport planning and a far bigger geographical spread partly due to geography ,partly due to lack of foresight.
The other problems have been inept NRL club management and poor NRL club infrastructure.
The Jets had the opportunity to go to Campbelltown, That went down the gurgler.

The 1997/8 post SL peace deal, should have set out a proper expansionary plan for the code.Instead it ended up tooing and frying between the ARL and News, and this is why there is still no Perth and Adelaide.Then we get near 20 years of news owning half, and we are where we are, marking time.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I read once where News as part of the peace deal, there was to be no second team in Brisbane for 20 years.

 

[The Great Dane]

And the theory Sydney doesn't need 9 clubs can also be classified as shaky.particularly as not all major areas within the city eg North Sydney do not have representation.As other codes are looking at increasing their presence via new clubs in that city.
I'd dare suggest the A League will have at least one new Sydney club, either Southern or South western, and whether thiner stadium planning could assist the NRL.

Firstly NS does have representation in the NRL.

Secondly none of that explains why Sydney does need 9 clubs (i.e. multiple clubs in every sub-market of Sydney bar NS that has only one, where only 1 club per sub-market or arguably even less is necessary), especially not the FFA looking to split their fan-bases in Sydney and Melbourne for that matter.

BTW I'm not suggesting that the NRL needs more than 9 clubs.

Never said that you personally were...

Sydney has had its mergers, and removals.

That doesn't mean that further rationalisation wouldn't be beneficial...

And I have never suggested there should not be expansions to WA or SA or in fact a 2nd Brisbane team.In fact it is ludicrous Brisbane has the NRL played there on a fortnightly basis.

Again never said you personally were...

And that begs the question what is the minimum number NRL clubs needed in Sydney?
What is the magic number of clubs for a real National NRL that includes all mainland states?I have yet to come across anyone from the NRL admin or anyone in authority or with a clue provide an actual figure.

That depends wholly on how the competition is structured, as the competition is currently structure probably 4-5, but if for example conferences were introduced then that could increase or decrease the number depending on how the conferences are structured, if a proper pyramid system was introduced it'd blowout the number (of course those clubs would be spread across multiple tiers), etc.

BTW, I don't think that anybody in their right mind is calling for a truely national competition to be created anytime soon in any sport let alone the NRL.

 

[greenBV4]

Id say Sydney should have 5 teams with Dragons relocated fully to Wollongong
North, South, Central/East, West and South-West
What 5 teams those should be is the harder question and why it'll likely never happen

The only way I see Sydney team leaving the top tier is if they go under and the NRL doesn't help

 

[Perth Red]

We are saddled with the heritage of the games growth and the tacking on of new clubs into the NSWRL comp rather than the setting up of a national one around 1990. Should have been back then the strongest clubs from the NSWRL comp plus a growing number of national clubs. It is what it is and will likely forever hold the game back. The one thing in our favour is that there is actually very few locations in Australia that could sustain an NRL level club so in theory it shouldn't be that hard to ensure you have a strong heartland representation plus at least one club in every major population center. The challenges of existing clubs sustainability, and that is certainly not just a Sydney problem, plus the two decade fall out from SL has meant the NRL has been totally gun shy about an aggressive expansion strategy like we have seen from the AFL. Maybe the clubs new found wealth from massive grants and the NRL's second massive increase from TV will see some movement in next 5 years but dont hold your breath

 

[taipan]

Firstly NS does have representation in the NRL.

Secondly none of that explains why Sydney does need 9 clubs (i.e. multiple clubs in every sub-market of Sydney bar NS that has only one, where only 1 club per sub-market or arguably even less is necessary), especially not the FFA looking to split their fan-bases in Sydney and Melbourne for that matter.

Never said that you personally were...

That doesn't mean that further rationalisation wouldn't be beneficial...

Again never said you personally were...

That depends wholly on how the competition is structured, as the competition is currently structure probably 4-5, but if for example conferences were introduced then that could increase or decrease the number depending on how the conferences are structured, if a proper pyramid system was introduced it'd blowout the number (of course those clubs would be spread across multiple tiers), etc.

BTW, I don't think that anybody in their right mind is calling for a truely national competition to be created anytime soon in any sport let alone the NRL.

If you call Manly NS representation, then that's being a tad flexible.If you are relating it to a lower tier. that does not attract crowds or sponsorship or Tv ratings.
I have seen so many areas in Sydney, now being overrun bu huge apartment developments ,squeezing large numbers of people into smaller geographical areas.North Side,East ,South and West.Potential fans? potential juniors?or potential followers of other codes?Or already committed biut either attend or don't to any code?

Sydney has had mergers and a removal, and how has the code fared in this city ,grown immensely? remained static? increase in juniors?packed stadiums?.It suggests perhaps continual rationalisation may not be the "holy grail" .It can be argued rationalisation has hardly shown it to be the panacea of all that is good ,based on these facts.Why give other codes an even break, and a leg up, by creating vacuums in areas.If that's beneficial ,I cannot agree.
We are not starting from scratch, which to a far lesser degree the SL peace deal was, although they got it wrong, by excluding Perth.

Quite happy with conferences 2 or even 3 .I have yet to hear or read a good enough/ iron clad reason ,not to have at least 18 teams in the NRL.Meaning including a Perth and a 2nd Brisbane side.
The NRL is p*ss poor when planning local derbies ,in order to maximise crowds.

Where the code has fallen down is in this area ,firstly of securing Govt funding in the past for making ANZ rectangular, improving outer Sydney Stadiums. Secondly having administrations involving a media organisation, then infighting within administration, constant staff changes at the top, poorly run NRL clubs(and yes the Sharks fall into that category) as do others, The Sydney media also goes into overdrive on negatives.off field player incidents ,that do zero to encourage mums to get their kids involved.

The other thing the code has to be careful with when expanding .In the case of the
Storm an expansion team, that club would not have survived without the financial input of News.That has been spelt out by those within the club and even Roy Masters ATT.Auckland was a continual nightmare til a white knight came along.

The NRL has spelt out they will not underpin any Sydney club that goes into the brown stuff, will they do that with expansion clubs that fall into the same brown stuff?We had Newcastle an absolute RL heartland ,have to be taken over by the NRL to make them a going concern.

I understand now the code has more money and is putting it aside.but can anyone tell me the lie of the land in 10 years time re technology,FTA and Pay TV ,because many within those industries are still unsure.How will that impact the NRL finances?

I don't call 2023 anytime soon.By that time the NRL will have an idea of what their TV revenue will be.Any announcement for expansion could be made in 2021 ,giving a 2 year lead time for entry.

I'm offering an opinion, it could be right or it could be wrong .If I were heading the NRL ,they are the factors and considerations i would take into account.

 

[taipan]

Id say Sydney should have 5 teams with Dragons relocated fully to Wollongong
North, South, Central/East, West and South-West
What 5 teams those should be is the harder question and why it'll likely never happen

The only way I see Sydney team leaving the top tier is if they go under and the NRL doesn't help

In an ideal, start from scratch situation hat would be the case.
But rugby league in Sydney is not in that situation .It has a highly competitive sporting environment from other codes, ready to benefit from a complete reorganisation,
to what is after all a sport of tribalism.
Imagine the AFL cutting back to 5 or 6 teams now in Melbourne?

 

[The Great Dane]

If you call Manly NS representation, then that's being a tad flexible.If you are relating it to a lower tier. that does not attract crowds or sponsorship or Tv ratings.

Dude Manly is in NS... Just because they stupidly forgo the chance to grow in the market outside of the Northern Beaches doesn't mean that they aren't a team from or representative of NS (or that they
couldn't be molded to better represent NS either for that matter).

I have seen so many areas in Sydney, now being overrun bu huge apartment developments ,squeezing large numbers of people into smaller geographical areas.North Side,East ,South and West.Potential fans? potential juniors?or potential followers of other codes?Or already committed biut either attend or don't to any code?

Well this has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed...

Sydney has had mergers and a removal, and how has the code fared in this city ,grown immensely? remained static? increase in juniors?packed stadiums?.It suggests perhaps continual rationalisation may not be the "holy grail" .It can be argued rationalisation has hardly shown it to be the panacea of all that is good ,based on these facts.

Yes lets cherry pick data to fit our argument...

Yes the "peace deals" were a disastrous mess that was completely corrupted by corporate interests (and other interest/lobbying groups), however they in of themselves aren't representative of rationalisation and/or what can be achieved with rationalisation (you could even argue that calling them rationalisation is a misnomer they were neither rational nor did they successfully rationalise the competition in any reasonable way) . They are only representative of how badly rationalisation can go if it's poorly handled and/or corrupted...

As an aside the "peace deals" were theoretically an attempt to rationalise the competition, not the Sydney market, so they don't even represent what you think they do...

Why give other codes an even break, and a leg up, by creating vacuums in areas.If that's beneficial ,I cannot agree.

Front up evidence of masses of fans suddenly growing an interest in a new sport that they previously had no interest in after their team was removed from a competition and evidence that it was their teams being removed that caused them to pick up the new sport or f**k right off with your fear mongering BS...

We are not starting from scratch, which to a far lesser degree the SL peace deal was, although they got it wrong, by excluding Perth.

Again what has this got to do with anything!

I normally wouldn't do this cause I think it's dodgy and make's the person that is doing it look like they are trying to manipulate what the other person is saying or something, but for the sake of shrinking the size of this post down a bit I'm just gonna cut paragraphs where you sprint off on tangents totally unconnected to the point at hand...

The NRL has spelt out they will not underpin any Sydney club that goes into the brown stuff, will they do that with expansion clubs that fall into the same brown stuff?We had Newcastle an absolute RL heartland ,have to be taken over by the NRL to make them a going concern.

Firstly I'm skeptical that they'll actually stick to their word on letting Sydney clubs die (heard it all before), but no they shouldn't necessarily treat "expansion clubs" that are falling over the same as Sydney clubs and should bail most of them out for all sorts of reasons (which we could go into if you want, but I don't really want to cause it's a large complex discussion), but mainly cause if e.g. Brisbane falls over then there is no club well placed to cover the market and not having a club in the Brisbane market would massively effect the NRL's bottom line and probably make it impossible for them to support the competition as it currently exists.

In other words even if the NRL was sinking tons of money into them each year they'd still be making a return on them and it'd be better to keep them around for other reasons as well (with the possible exceptions of Canberra and NQ that is.

I'm offering an opinion, it could be right or it could be wrong .If I were heading the NRL ,they are the factors and considerations i would take into account.

Then you'd fit right in with the NRL...

Imagine the AFL cutting back to 5 or 6 teams now in Melbourne?

The AFL is literally trying to do that as we speak... Obviously not all at once, but they have been and are trying to convince Melbourne clubs to relocate out of Melbourne and have been since the 70s...

 

[taipan]

Dude Manly is in NS... Just because they stupidly forgo the chance to grow in the market outside of the Northern Beaches doesn't mean that they aren't a team from or representative of NS (or that they
couldn't be molded to better represent NS either for that matter).



Well this has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed...



Yes lets cherry pick data to fit our argument...

Yes the "peace deals" were a disastrous mess that was completely corrupted by corporate interests (and other interest/lobbying groups), however they in of themselves aren't representative of rationalisation and/or what can be achieved with rationalisation (you could even argue that calling them rationalisation is a misnomer they were neither rational nor did they successfully rationalise the competition in any reasonable way) . They are only representative of how badly rationalisation can go if it's poorly handled and/or corrupted...

As an aside the "peace deals" were theoretically an attempt to rationalise the competition, not the Sydney market, so they don't even represent what you think they do...



Front up evidence of masses of fans suddenly growing an interest in a new sport that they previously had no interest in after their team was removed from a competition and evidence that it was their teams being removed that caused them to pick up the new sport or f**k right off with your fear mongering BS...



Again what has this got to do with anything!

I normally wouldn't do this cause I think it's dodgy and make's the person that is doing it look like they are trying to manipulate what the other person is saying or something, but for the sake of shrinking the size of this post down a bit I'm just gonna cut paragraphs where you sprint off on tangents totally unconnected to the point at hand...



Firstly I'm skeptical that they'll actually stick to their word on letting Sydney clubs die (heard it all before), but no they shouldn't necessarily treat "expansion clubs" that are falling over the same as Sydney clubs and should bail most of them out for all sorts of reasons (which we could go into if you want, but I don't really want to cause it's a large complex discussion), but mainly cause if e.g. Brisbane falls over then there is no club well placed to cover the market and not having a club in the Brisbane market would massively effect the NRL's bottom line and probably make it impossible for them to support the competition as it currently exists.

In other words even if the NRL was sinking tons of money into them each year they'd still be making a return on them and it'd be better to keep them around for other reasons as well (with the possible exceptions of Canberra and NQ that is.



Then you'd fit right in with the NRL...



The AFL is literally trying to do that as we speak... Obviously not all at once, but they have been and are trying to convince Melbourne clubs to relocate out of Melbourne and have been since the 70s...

North Sydney once had a team, completely independent from Manly representing the populations of the Northern Area.Based on your analogy why not have just 1 team representing Western Sydney.

Nothing to do with the argument.LOL.Any increase (in fact large increase in population) covering areas involved has a relevance ,for future and or current support.
Oh and just because large numbers of people move in to an area, you ignore them an concentrate on those who are already involved with your club.Just don't go out in the community and promote.

So ignore data ,which are facts, and you glibly dismiss them as cherry picking.

The whole SL was intended to rationalise the Sydney market and gain Pay TV access.Despite all the money outlaid.the game still remains marking time.

The peace deal agree was a fiasco, and who is to say further Sydney rationalisation wouldn't be a disaster.Big increase in crowds? Better ratings?

Have a look at crowds post peace deal both NRL,Waratahs and Swans.Have a look at separate crowds for Tigers,Wests, Dragons and Illawarra.And Souths being kicked out.Was there a corresponding big jump in NRL crowds when mergers happened or Souths being flicked or Norths.Did they jump en masse to other NRL clubs.

In my career in the 90s, on 3 seperate occasions(yes a small sample),Bears supporters(one who worked for Aon one for a Shipping Company)told me that's it ,finished with rl.The guy from Aon ended up at the Tahs.The others AFAIK gave up.Regardless of the small example ,the crowds have not risen by any great measure.
It's too late anycase to do anything about Nth Sydney.Grasping at straws.

The NRL haven't had large sums of money to sink in, their backing for Titans and Newcastle just about cleaned out the coffers from the Smith money held back,in addition to NRL administration misuse.

The NRL was not prepared to prop up Auckland, and it was the white Knight that eventually saved them.


You are doing nothing more than assuming the NRL would continue to pour in millions into expansion non heartland clubs, if they fell on hard times.We all hope they would.Knowing this admin they may not.

"I'd fit into the NRL".That's an argument??
They'd probably end up with more money in the bank,18 teams
,placing emphasis on the migrant community children ,liaise with other rectangular codes to form a united body to push stadium updates .

The AFL have eased off on rationalisation,keeping a weather eye out for the likes of North Melbourne,St Kilda in particular.They tried an amalgamation involving Hawthorn, we know how that ended up.
The clubs they relocated in the past were in dire financial trouble.

 

[18to87]

National
Brisbane
NQ
Melbourne
Auckland
Newcastle
Canberra
Gold Coast
Bris 2
Perth

Sydney
St George
Canterbury
Sydney
Souths
Wests
Manly
Penrith
Parra
Cronulla

Top two from each conference make it through to the finals and two wild cards. Suddenly every game become important, interest increases, rivalries are enhanced and away we go!

 

[TheFrog]

Relocate Sea Eagles, Roosters, Sharks and Panthers.

I've got a better idea. Relocate T-Boon to the banned list.

 

[TheFrog]

Sydney has had its mergers, and removals.

It's had some. This is not to say there won't be more. Especially if the NRL gives salary cap sweeteners. Seems better than trying to pick up entities kicking and screaming and move them where they aren't wanted. The club that got Adelaide in particular would be on a one way trip to bankruptcy one would have to think.

 

[greenBV4]

National
Brisbane
NQ
Melbourne
Auckland
Newcastle
Canberra
Gold Coast
Bris 2
Perth

Sydney
St George
Canterbury
Sydney
Souths
Wests
Manly
Penrith
Parra
Cronulla

Top two from each conference make it through to the finals and two wild cards. Suddenly every game become important, interest increases, rivalries are enhanced and away we go!

I don't think its a fair competition to have one conference travelling to every corner of the country while another doesn't have to travel at all

The reason a conference system wont work in the NRL is because there is no even geographical divide as the bulk of the teams are in 1 state

 

[taipan]

Dude Manly is in NS... Just because they stupidly forgo the chance to grow in the market outside of the Northern Beaches doesn't mean that they aren't a team from or representative of NS (or that they
couldn't be molded to better represent NS either for that matter).



Well this has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed...



Yes lets cherry pick data to fit our argument...

Yes the "peace deals" were a disastrous mess that was completely corrupted by corporate interests (and other interest/lobbying groups), however they in of themselves aren't representative of rationalisation and/or what can be achieved with rationalisation (you could even argue that calling them rationalisation is a misnomer they were neither rational nor did they successfully rationalise the competition in any reasonable way) . They are only representative of how badly rationalisation can go if it's poorly handled and/or corrupted...

As an aside the "peace deals" were theoretically an attempt to rationalise the competition, not the Sydney market, so they don't even represent what you think they do...



Front up evidence of masses of fans suddenly growing an interest in a new sport that they previously had no interest in after their team was removed from a competition and evidence that it was their teams being removed that caused them to pick up the new sport or f**k right off with your fear mongering BS...



Again what has this got to do with anything!

I normally wouldn't do this cause I think it's dodgy and make's the person that is doing it look like they are trying to manipulate what the other person is saying or something, but for the sake of shrinking the size of this post down a bit I'm just gonna cut paragraphs where you sprint off on tangents totally unconnected to the point at hand...



Firstly I'm skeptical that they'll actually stick to their word on letting Sydney clubs die (heard it all before), but no they shouldn't necessarily treat "expansion clubs" that are falling over the same as Sydney clubs and should bail most of them out for all sorts of reasons (which we could go into if you want, but I don't really want to cause it's a large complex discussion), but mainly cause if e.g. Brisbane falls over then there is no club well placed to cover the market and not having a club in the Brisbane market would massively effect the NRL's bottom line and probably make it impossible for them to support the competition as it currently exists.

In other words even if the NRL was sinking tons of money into them each year they'd still be making a return on them and it'd be better to keep them around for other reasons as well (with the possible exceptions of Canberra and NQ that is.



Then you'd fit right in with the NRL...



The AFL is literally trying to do that as we speak... Obviously not all at once, but they have been and are trying to convince Melbourne clubs to relocate out of Melbourne and have been since the 70s...

North Sydney once had a team, completely independent from Manly representing the populations of the Northern Area.Based on your analogy why not have just 1 team representing Western Sydney.

Nothing to do with the argument.LOL.Any increase (in fact large increase in population) covering areas involved has a relevance ,for future and or current support.
Oh and just because large numbers of people move in to an area, you ignore them an concentrate on those who are already involved with your club.Just don't go out in the community and promote.

So ignore data ,which are facts, and you glibly dismiss them as cherry picking.

The whole SL was intended to rationalise the Sydney market and gain Pay TV access.Despite all the money outlaid.the game still remains marking time.

The peace deal agree was a fiasco, and who is to say further Sydney rationalisation wouldn't be a disaster.Big increase in crowds? Better ratings?

Have a look at crowds post peace deal both NRL,Waratahs and Swans.Have a look at separate crowds for Tigers,Wests, Dragons and Illawarra.And Souths being kicked out.Was there a corresponding big jump in NRL crowds when mergers happened or Souths being flicked or Norths.Did they jump en masse to other NRL clubs.

In my career in the 90s, on 3 seperate occasions(yes a small sample),Bears supporters(one who worked for Aon one for a Shipping Company)told me that's it ,finished with rl.The guy from Aon ended up at the Tahs.The others AFAIK gave up.Regardless of the small example ,the crowds have not risen by any great measure.
It's too late anycase to do anything about Nth Sydney.Grasping at straws.

The NRL haven't had large sums of money to sink in, their backing for Titans and Newcastle just about cleaned out the coffers from the Smith money held back,in addition to NRL administration misuse.

The NRL was not prepared to prop up Auckland, and it was the white Knight that eventually saved them.


You are doing nothing more than assuming the NRL would continue to pour in millions into expansion non heartland clubs, if they fell on hard times.We all hope they would.Knowing this admin they may not.

"I'd fit into the NRL".That's an argument??
They'd probably end up with more money in the bank,18 teams
,placing emphasis on the migrant community children ,liaise with other rectangular codes to form a united body to push stadium updates .

The AFL have eased off on rationalisation,keeping a weather eye out for the likes of North Melbourne,St Kilda in particular.They tried an amalgamation involving Hawthorn, we know how that ended up.
The clubs they relocated in the past were in dire financial trouble.

It's had some. This is not to say there won't be more. Especially if the NRL gives salary cap sweeteners. Seems better than trying to pick up entities kicking and screaming and move them where they aren't wanted. The club that got Adelaide in particular would be on a one way trip to bankruptcy one would have to think.

Correct .No one can predict what the admin will do.
But any relocation or rationalisation would have to be a result of a club in the financial mire, or the revenue coming from TV ,dropping dramatically.

Still TV execs have little idea, of the financial lie of the land in 5 years.
They have stated so as has Greenberg.
My view is what has happened so far ,was done out of necessity in some cases, and in others just getting down to smaller numbers ,with little thought given to fan reaction.Else our crowd numbers would be booming in Sydney.

Adelaide has supporters ,but I've yet to see a syndicate or backing to want a team, like the Perths.

Salary cap sweeteners help no doubt, but there has to be a return eventually, to compensate for the outlay.

 

[The Great Dane]

North Sydney once had a team, completely independent from Manly representing the populations of the Northern Area.

The point being!?

Just cause they've had two teams doesn't mean that need two teams now or that they ever needed two teams at all...

Based on your analogy why not have just 1 team representing Western Sydney.

Yes why not!

If we can make it work then it should be investigated as a possibility! Note that I'm not saying whether or not it should happen and only that it should be explored!

Nothing to do with the argument.LOL.Any increase (in fact large increase in population) covering areas involved has a relevance ,for future and or current support.
Oh and just because large numbers of people move in to an area, you ignore them an concentrate on those who are already involved with your club.Just don't go out in the community and promote.

Yep absolutely nothing to do with the argument!

Population doesn't equal support-base, it's about supply and demand not the size of the market, to give you an example you could have a city of 1 mil vegetarians and growing and a town with 100k average people that eat meat, obviously despite the city being a ten times bigger than the town the demand for meat in the town would be significantly bigger.
Right now the supply vastly outweighs the demand, and even if the clubs convert even %10 (and that is a ridiculously generous number) of the people moving into the city the best case scenario is still %10 divided by 9, that isn't really all that much, but beside that you still don't need 9 clubs to convert all those people into fans.

So yeah at the end of the day population really doesn't mean all that much at all, and your argument about population growth really has nothing to do with the argument at hand cause even if there was just 1 club you could still capitalise on that growth as effectively as you can with 9 clubs.

So ignore data ,which are facts, and you glibly dismiss them as cherry picking.

I'm not dismissing anything (in fact I've addressed it and why it's a bad example and not representative of rationalisation hundreds of times now, and plenty of those times to you yourself), I'm only pointing out that you are amplifying one data point while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports rationalisation that shows that it can be done if handled properly. BTW that is the definition of cherry picking...

The whole SL was intended to rationalise the Sydney market and gain Pay TV access.Despite all the money outlaid.the game still remains marking time.

Yes that was one of SL plans, but SL failed and Sydney wasn't rationalised.

Rationalising Sydney was not the intent of "the peace deals", and even if it was they did a bloody terrible job of it considering that "out of town teams" were more seriously effected don't you think...

The peace deal agree was a fiasco, and who is to say further Sydney rationalisation wouldn't be a disaster.Big increase in crowds? Better ratings?

I've already said that the "peace deals" were an unmitigated disaster, but they are one example of rationalisation out of hundreds plenty of which were successful, so if it's handled with care and done properly there's no reason why it couldn't work...

BTW how were the crowds, ratings, etc, after Glebe, Annandale, and Uni were pushed out to make room for your Canterbury's, St. George's, and Manly's.

Have a look at crowds post peace deal both NRL,Waratahs and Swans.

Well the Tahs didn't really exist in the format that they exist in now before SL started, but even then both them and the Swans were already steadily growing before the "peace deals", and neither really saw their real growth spurts until long after the mass of disenfranchised RL fans supposedly would have jumped on board, both of their growth spurts came when their where significant events happening at each of the clubs (i.e. when the RWC came to Australia and when the Swans started coming good and winning comps)...

So yeah looking at the clubs before and after doesn't really present any evidence of masses of disenfranchised RL fans jumping onto sports that they had no interest in before hand...

Have a look at separate crowds for Tigers,Wests, Dragons and Illawarra.And Souths being kicked out.Was there a corresponding big jump in NRL crowds when mergers happened or Souths being flicked or Norths.Did they jump en masse to other NRL clubs.

I never suggested that rationalisation doesn't disenfranchise part of the fan base, it does, it always does, but if done properly that part of the fan base is replaced and more given time and as generations change.

I also never suggested that those disenfranchised fans jumped onto new clubs (though no doubt some did).

In my career in the 90s, on 3 seperate occasions(yes a small sample),Bears supporters(one who worked for Aon one for a Shipping Company)told me that's it ,finished with rl.The guy from Aon ended up at the Tahs.The others AFAIK gave up.Regardless of the small example ,the crowds have not risen by any great measure.
It's too late anycase to do anything about Nth Sydney.Grasping at straws.

Yeah that's not evidence of anything...

I knew/know plenty of Bears fans, almost certainly more then you do/did (I mean I was and sort of still am one...), I'll tell you this every single one of them reacted to the Bears merging with Manly and then getting kicked out differently, some just stopped watching the NRL and moved on, some jumped on other teams, some still religiously watch the NRL but don't particularly follow any team, a couple became big fans of SL and SL clubs, yes some of them became mainly fans of teams from other sports (but never ever of teams and/or sports that they weren't already interested in in at least some capacity, i.e. the guy who was into e.g. the Hawks and AFL was already a Hawks fan just now he wasn't a Bears fan as well), and some still follow the Bears to varying degrees to this day...

The point is that in my experience there was/is not a predictable response to how people will react to their club going tits up.

You are doing nothing more than assuming the NRL would continue to pour in millions into expansion non heartland clubs, if they fell on hard times.We all hope they would.Knowing this admin they may not.

I'm not assuming anything, I gave my opinion on what should happen not necessarily what will happen, those are two very different things.

"I'd fit into the NRL".That's an argument??
They'd probably end up with more money in the bank,18 teams
,placing emphasis on the migrant community children ,liaise with other rectangular codes to form a united body to push stadium updates .

I was suggesting that you'd fit right in with the people controlling the NRL, you'd probably pull back your support for expansion, etc once you were their for a while and focus personal gain for yourself and your club like most of them as well...

The AFL have eased off on rationalisation,keeping a weather eye out for the likes of North Melbourne,St Kilda in particular.They tried an amalgamation involving Hawthorn, we know how that ended up.
The clubs they relocated in the past were in dire financial trouble.

Yeah no they haven't eased off rationalisation at all (they are constantly trying to convince smaller clubs in Melbourne to up sticks and move), they just haven't been successful since the Lions merged with the Bears...

And in the case of the Swans they were in a similar financial position that plenty of NRL clubs have been in, in theory at least they could have weathered the storm and stayed in Melbourne by your standards.

 

[TheFrog]

Based on your analogy why not have just 1 team representing Western Sydney.

The western half of Sydney, population wise, currently has 2.5 teams, being generous since the Wests Tigers are based at Concord which is in the eastern half. One day Parramatta and Penrith might merge but surely the eastern half of Sydney, with 6.5 teams is the area that is over-represented.

 

[kbw]

If you are going to mix it all up you need to create a new competition/
The problems with the game didn't start until it expanded into QLD